Debate contribution: Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494032
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Whilst the debate is highly important, we are in danger of calling for legislation for the sake of it. We already have laws that govern us around hate crime, such as the Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. Whilst you could argue that the legislation needs to be freshened, I have yet to hear exactly what should be included in a new hate crime Bill from those who tabled the motion or the Minister. When you look at the examples from the Republic of Ireland and Scotland, you see that they are exemplars of how not to do such legislation. Of course, whilst we should all agree that crimes motivated by hate are wrong, I also look to a few years ago, when a section of people chose not to avail themselves of a medicine or disclose their personal, private medical history, and those people were hated upon. They were discriminated against by the Government and by business. Should those people who chose not to avail themselves of a medicine or disclose their medical history also be included in a protected group? It was only a number of years ago when hate was poured down on those people by Ministers. We will have to look carefully at what we do with any legislation, but the main issue for me around hate crime is the perception. In my constituency, I had to deal with a young person who got into trouble with the law. He was a passenger in a vehicle and threw eggs out onto pedestrians from the road. The police deemed that to be a hate crime. The eggs struck three people, one of whom was a lady from Poland. That lady perceived that crime to be a hate crime.That young person was interviewed by the police, who told him that that was because of a hate crime. He protested his innocence, saying that he did not know who the people were. They were driving at speed, throwing eggs out of the car and hitting people indiscriminately. He did not know the ethnicity or background of any of those people. You can see where things will unravel, so it will have to be carefully laid out.
Yes, I will give way.
Of course, yes, but why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? Under the Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, offences are aggravated by hostility. There are already laws about aggravation. I ask the House and the Department of Justice to be careful about how they proceed with legislation. Only this week, we have been taught a lesson about what happens when we bring laws in in this place and they are tested in court and deemed to be wrong.
464 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: 0.20 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.63).
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.13 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.39 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.63 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.16 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.18 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.83 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.12 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 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.