Debate contribution: Hate Crime Bill
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Hate Crime Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4484405
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have no intention of reducing confidence in the police; to the contrary, in fact, the purpose of the hate crime Bill is to increase the confidence in the justice system of those who might otherwise feel that they cannot have the reasons for the crime against them properly addressed in court. As I said, an incident has to be a crime in order for it to be a hate crime. We then have to make out a separate motivation to establish that there is indeed a hate motive. That is the basis on which we are progressing our hate crime Bill. Yes, people report hate incidents that do not currently meet the threshold. Those are recorded by the police for information purposes so that they can see, for example, clusters of hate incidents and try to engage with communities to reduce those. Let us be clear: whether something is criminal or just plain wrong, it damages communities and causes real harm to individuals. It is important that, as a society, including, I hope, all in the Chamber, we condemn behaviours that alienate, harass and frighten members of our community who may feel vulnerable.
194 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: 0.05 (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 (0.86).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.77).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.23 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.77 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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 10:01 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.