Motion or amendment: Shared Island Youth Forum
Motion or amendment by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 25 September 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Shared Island Youth Forum
- Assembly identifier
- Document 411597
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Shared Island Youth Forum
That this Assembly endorses the Shared Island Youth Forum's vision and values for a Shared Future on the island of Ireland; acknowledges the importance of the visions for sustainability, opportunity, wellbeing, culture and equality set out in the Forum's Outcome Statement; notes the Forum’s recognition of the importance of promoting the inherent dignity of all people, developing learning opportunities including through art and sport, acknowledging stigma and ensuring everyone feels valued and protected; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to lay an annual report before the Assembly on progress towards achieving the Forum’s inspiring actions for a shared future.
107 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
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: 0.05 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.41 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.28 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.12 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.11 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:57 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.