Debate contribution: Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on .
- MLA
- Mr Doug Beattie MC
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494015
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his intervention. He is right: it absolutely does. The point that I was going to make later is that we cannot rush into this, because we really have to stop and consider it. In truth, I would not want some form of legislation to be rushed through just to placate certain people, only for us to then spend all our time picking it apart. I would rather have legislation that we can all sit down and consider on its merits. I agree with the Member that a Bill needs to come forward and it could — probably should — stand alone. However, I am not in agreement that it should be rushed through without full scrutiny. The standard baseline for it, when it comes forward, is that it should be something that we can all start to work with as opposed to pick apart. I will go back to the recommendations. Recommendation 9 is about adding to the protected characteristics of age, sex and gender. It states:
"For the avoidance of doubt, the protected characteristic of sex/gender includes transgender identity."
I have no issue with that, but I do think that, somehow, in all of this, we are just creating a list of protected groups, when, actually, every one of us can be open to organised hate in some shape or form that will not fall under those groups. I have a concern that we are setting a hierarchy in this legislation and creating crimes against certain people.
Whether we like it or not, some people use things like that for their own benefit, but I have absolutely seen —.
I will. I have absolutely seen cases where people have been totally abused.
Yes, absolutely. We had a stunted mandate the last time. We have a stunted mandate this time. Things move and change, and we are now in a different position. I am looking at this with you and saying that, if you are going to bring that forward, you need time to bring forward baseline legislation as opposed to trying to rush something through. It is slightly odd that I am arguing a point in your favour on this one, but that is where we stand: we want legislation that is fit for purpose. When I look at the motion, I am reassured, because it says that the Assembly:
"believes that hate crime legislation can protect communities with protected characteristics while ensuring adequate protection for the freedom of speech and reasonable religious political or other beliefs".
I suppose that what I am saying is that I am all right with the motion. I am happy to support it. I am more than happy to support the amendment; there is no issue with that. I look forward to that legislation coming forward, because that will give us the ability to challenge it. It will give us the ability to challenge whether we need a hate crime commissioner. It will give us the ability to debate it. That is what this is all about. I just do not want it to be rushed through. I certainly want to make sure that we protect freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Let us do it right, and let us not rush it.
546 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: 0.11 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.73 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.07 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.20 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.76 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.16 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 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.