Debate contribution: Shared Future: Strategic Framework
Debate contribution by Ms Carál Ní Chuilín on .
- MLA
- Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 8 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Shared Future: Strategic Framework
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4481089
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le Páirtí na Comhghuaillíochta as an rún thábhachtach seo a mholadh. Tacaím leis an rún.
There is a lot that we could say. In 10 minutes, you kept yourself to fairly confined words. First, we need to discuss a couple of things. This is the elephant in the room: there is still sectarianism out there. We agree on that. There is also a lot of focus on sectarianism, particularly in working-class and deprived areas. We recognise that, but we also need to deal with the middle-class sectarianism that has gone on for a long time. I put on record my thanks to the many people who, throughout all sorts of years, have continued to show leadership in interfaces. I also want to talk about the elephant in the room, particularly when we are talking about tackling paramilitaries through Communities in Transition (CIT). In the area that I represent, it is armed criminal gangs. We need to call that out as well.
Do they still have the ability to coerce and control young people and cause sectarian problems? They absolutely do. Regrettably, I saw that as recently as a couple of weeks ago in North Belfast.
The children, young people and residents who are involved in youth work do it together. They may do single identity work, but, when it comes to evaluating and making sure that there are enough staff and diversionary youth workers, they do it together. That is greatly appreciated, and it is worth putting it on record. That occurs across the communities. I have seen it. Young people take risks when there is a lack of political leadership. They will continue to do that. We need to continue their funding at the very least. We all need to review what will happen to good relations or whatever. There are also economic impacts. Without T:BUC, Communities in Transition (CIT) and the Engage programme, some young people in particular are extremely vulnerable and could get involved in the criminal justice system. From there, it goes on and on. It becomes intergenerational and harder to crack. What I have seen this past lot of years compared with what I saw in previous years is that people are doing this. They were doing co-design and co-production well before we were talking about it. As Paula said, communities are often ahead of us political leaders. They have been doing it for some time. I want to mention North Belfast. Regrettably, we have an interface right through a park, but that has now opened up. I remember David Ford being there when it opened up, and, in fairness, he recognised the communities, but the communities were not recognised enough by officials then. It was the communities who took the risks. It was the communities who spoke to their neighbours, the youth groups and the mother-and-toddler groups, went to the libraries and worked really hard to get that done. They are doing the same thing in Girdwood, North Queen Street, Duncairn Gardens, the Limestone Road and Clifton Street. Unfortunately, there are about eight interfaces, but four of them are still particularly problematic. As Brian Kingston knows, they are problematic because a small cohort of young people are determined to cause trouble. The overarching sense of a need for better funding for good relations is the elephant in the room. We need to mop up all of that in different Departments and give good leadership. We must say to those areas in particular, "We see you. We know who you are. We value you. We want to be productive in the change that comes forward, and we want to do it together. Above all else, we'll listen to you". I am delighted to say cúpla focal
about this issue. It is really important. The need for a bespoke service does not come from community relations or anybody else; it comes from the ground up. They have got it. Let us recognise that when we look at funding. We should not only congratulate them on their achievements thus far but make it easier for them to do that really hard work on our behalf.
694 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: 0.09 (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 (0.85).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.79).
- 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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.21 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.99 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| 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 09:53 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.