Motion or amendment: Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 21 May 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Document 402510
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland
That this Assembly notes the alarming prevalence of hate motivated crimes in Northern Ireland and across these islands; recognises that legislation governing hate motivated crimes in Northern Ireland is outdated and no longer fit for purpose; believes that hate crime legislation can protect communities with protected characteristics while ensuring adequate protection for the freedom of speech and reasonable religious political or other beliefs; acknowledges the work of the Marrinan Review into hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland; expresses disappointment at the lack of progress that has been made in enacting the recommendations of the Review in the past four years; and calls on the Minister of Justice to introduce standalone hate crime legislation, based on the definition and recommendations set out in the Marrinan Review, within the next twelve months.
136 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: 0.06 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.53).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.53 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.47 |
| 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 08:55 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.