Debate contribution: Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494050
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the call for legislation to tackle hate crime in Northern Ireland. We must take sincere and pragmatic action to protect our communities, ensuring that everyone has full legal protection to be who they are without targeted abuse or harassment. That requires a cross-sectoral and cross-society approach, putting responsibility not just on every part of the justice system but on our whole social ecosystem to prioritise prevention and intervention on behalf of those who are most vulnerable to experiencing harm. It is essential that the steps that we take are victim-centred and recognise the trauma for people of any hate incident or crime and how our justice system is set up, as it can be now, to reanimate those experiences. Hate crime, which is an attack on someone because of who they are or what they believe in, is unacceptable across the board. It leaves people and the communities around them feeling not just hurt but totally discriminated against and unaccepted by the world. If you look at the hate-motivated crime statistics published by the PSNI at the end of May, you will see that they highlight the spectrum of abuse that those across our society experience, a horrid abuse and hatred that does not represent the majority of people in Northern Ireland, who are kind and warm-hearted. Over the last 12 months preceding March this year, we saw a spike in racially motivated hate incidents, with an increase of over 132, and there was an increase in incidents against those who are transgender and those with faith or who practise religion. We cannot let that happen. We cannot let those statistics sit on a shelf, not acted on or challenged in the most impactful and efficient way, which would allow us to get trauma-informed support and justice for victims. They are not just statistics; they are human experiences. Such violations of anyone's basic human rights to be and live as who they are go against our principles and the moral fabric of our progressive society. I know that the Justice Minister is committed to meaningful action on hate crime. It is an issue of fundamental importance to our party. I welcome the Opposition's bringing this to the Floor today. While I support the spirit of the motion, I urge the House to vote in favour of the Alliance amendment that my colleagues and I have tabled. It is absolutely right that we, as an Assembly, are ambitious about what we can do, especially how we can help vulnerable victims. I absolutely agree that hate crime legislation is one example of an area where we could and should have a collective ambition for progress. I am more than satisfied that, despite the limitations of a shortened mandate, the Justice Minister is ambitious and committed on the issue and is determined to achieve change. We should make every effort to reform hate crime legislation in this mandate, and I am focused on what we can do rather than on the legislative vehicle through which we do it. We must get support to the victims of hate-motivated crimes and incidents urgently, and I welcome the commitment from Minister Long that, during her time in office, that will be put in place with foundational powers. I urge the House to vote in favour of our amendment, which provides, in the remainder of this short mandate, for achievable and innovative change in the face of challenging landscapes. By moving to a new statutory aggravation model, we can truly ensure that motivation and bias considerations are at the forefront of delving into the root of the crime. By allowing the hate motivation of an offence to be considered at the start of the investigative stage, we not just encourage good practice in the collection of evidence but recognise that we cannot separate the crime from the bias. That is a recognition that people's rights and identities are not add-ons but must be part of the investigation of a serious crime. We need effective legislation in place. At the end of the day, we have a responsibility to victims first and foremost, and, for them to get justice, we need to take a pragmatic approach. We need intersectionality and a recognition in detailed and deliberate legislation of the connections that vulnerable communities can be exposed to. Let us commit together, across the Chamber, to doing what is truly important: delivering change for victims in this mandate.
741 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 (0.93).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.84).
- 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 | 0.07 | 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 | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.16 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.84 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.96 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| 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 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.