Motion or amendment: Protection of Rights and Safety in Custodial Facilities - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 10 January 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Protection of Rights and Safety in Custodial Facilities”
- Heading
- Protection of Rights and Safety in Custodial Facilities - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 423846
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Protection of Rights and Safety in Custodial Facilities - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘That this Assembly commits to’ and insert:
‘ensuring there is no diminution of societal rights, particularly the rights of women; maintains that our justice system must ensure that those placed in custody are given the basic human rights to safety and dignity and should not feel any more vulnerable than would be expected from having their liberty taken away; and calls on the Minister of Justice to bring forward supporting legislation and guidance to the judiciary, Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Public Prosecution Service, ensuring that only biological males are held in any male prison or holding facility, and that only biological females should be held in a female prison or holding facility.’
130 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Divisions on this item
- 20 January 2025: Protection of Rights and Safety in Custodial Facilities - Amendment 1 – The Amendment Therefore Fell
Assessment
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.74 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.61); Dog-whistle messaging (0.73).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.74).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.68).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
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 | 0.61 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.48 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.73 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.31 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.74 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.74 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.32 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.68 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.91 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.