Motion or amendment: Tackling Paramilitarism
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 1 October 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Tackling Paramilitarism
- Assembly identifier
- Document 412356
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Tackling Paramilitarism
That this Assembly recognises that the ongoing presence of paramilitary organisations is harming community cohesion, economic development and the overall stability of Northern Ireland; notes with concern the persistent incidents of paramilitary activity, including intimidation, extortion, and violence, which continue to undermine the rule of law and the safety of our citizens; further notes with regret the continued attempts by groups linked to paramilitary organisations to influence policy decisions in the absence of a democratic mandate or transparent governance structures; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to introduce a comprehensive review of the Tackling Paramilitarism, Criminality and Organised Crime Programme to ensure that actions within the final Programme for Government genuinely tackle the scourge of paramilitarism in our society.
125 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: 0.08 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.14 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.91 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.