Motion or amendment: Relationships and Sexuality Education and Healthy Young Adult Relationships
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 6 January 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Relationships and Sexuality Education and Healthy Young Adult Relationships
- Assembly identifier
- Document 422735
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Relationships and Sexuality Education and Healthy Young Adult Relationships
That this Assembly affirms the importance of Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) in fostering healthy young adult relationships and mitigating against violence against women and girls; acknowledges the findings of Ulster University’s Healthy Young Adult Relationships Project report, which highlights that RSE is not currently fit for purpose, particularly in addressing coercive control; and calls on the Minister of Education to work with the Minister of Justice to establish a task force with the purpose of enhancing RSE to include healthy relationships and ways to prevent violence against women and girls, and to review and implement the recommendations of the Healthy Young Adult Relationships Project report no later than December 2025.
120 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: 0.04 (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 (0.99).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.86 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.14 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:01 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.