Motion or amendment: Strategic Framework for a Shared Future - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 20 March 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Strategic Framework for a Shared Future”
- Heading
- Strategic Framework for a Shared Future - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 395016
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Strategic Framework for a Shared Future - Amendment 1
Leave out all after first ‘shared future;’, and insert:
‘further recognises that people here have more in common than divides them whether they come from a unionist or nationalist community background, or whether they are a migrant, refugee, or someone who does not fall into any of these categories; expresses concern that division is often used in political discourse and decisions to further boost electoral prospects; notes that the austerity agenda and the tightening of public services has led to an increase in sectarian and racist rhetoric and language, with people blaming other communities for negative economic decisions made by the UK government and the Executive; calls on the First and deputy First Minister to commit to an economic programme that tackles wealth inequality to both improve people’s living standards whilst also undercutting the basis for sectarian arguments and ideologies.’
149 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.07 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.79).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.96).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.17 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.04 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:52 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.