Debate contribution: Hate Crime Legislation
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Hate Crime Legislation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4269770
Read the official Assembly record
Text
One of my key priorities as Minister of Justice has been to improve support and legislative protection for victims of hate crime. Somebody being targeted because of who they are, where they are from or what they believe is unacceptable to us all. Obviously, the Department has been working to implement Judge Marrinan's report on his review of hate crime legislation and plans to modernise and strengthen a robust response to this through the introduction of a hate crime Bill. With regard to the legislative programme and the available time that is left to us, it will be difficult to achieve as much as I would have hoped to have achieved, had we had a full mandate of five years. However, I believe that we can bring forward a foundational hate crime Bill and, hopefully, introduce that to the Assembly in 2026. We are also looking at the scope of some additional victim provisions that may be able to be included in that Bill.
164 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: 0.03 (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 (0.78).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.73).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.27 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.73 |
| 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 09:48 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.