Debate contribution: Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- 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 4494052
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion. There have been discussions around the impact of hate crime, but I want to take the opportunity talk about the lived reality. I want to talk not about people who do not take vaccines or who throw eggs but about what is happening in my constituency. Takura Makoni from the African and Caribbean Support Organisation Northern Ireland (ACSONI) has been brave in speaking out about the experience of having racist graffiti put on his home. He spoke about the fear that that caused for him and for his children and about having to relocate. I have worked with two businesses that have been forced out. A Sudanese father of four who arrived here as a refugee, trying to start a new and better life for him and his family, set up a business and was providing a really important service in the community and had that business burnt down after a series of threats. The impact of that cannot be overstated. I met women who live in contingency accommodation and who are subjected to regular abuse because they wear a hijab. They live in fear.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree. I had the privilege of working for Anna Lo, the first and only minority-ethnic MLA the Assembly has ever had, shamefully. Anna was outspoken on how racism and sectarianism are two sides of the same coin. That is where I was directing my comments, because, whether it is Mohammed, who had his office burnt down, or Takura, who had to move, or the trans father who had two small children attacked in the playground, I sometimes fear that there is a tolerance in our society for hate and othering.
Legislation is absolutely important, and I know that the Minister is committed to this. When the Assembly was down for the past two years, Naomi Long came with me to meet people at the Belfast Islamic Centre and to meet different constituents of mine to discuss what more we can do. If one thing is to be taken from my contribution today, it is that, yes, legislation is important, yes, understanding the lived experience of people is important, but our leadership is so important as well. I wonder how many MLAs have engaged with people who are victims of hate crime in their constituencies, and not just victims of sectarian hate crime but people who are victims of racist hate crime. How many MLAs have engaged with asylum seekers who live in fear every day? We can talk about the legislation — yes, it is so important — but we also have to lead. Our silence on so many of these issues is palpable, and the communities feel it. They know that every time something happens or someone is a victim of hate crime, the same people come out and speak out about that, and there is silence from everyone else. Yes, let us work together. Let us send a strong message as an Assembly that we will legislate and will do what we can, but let us address our own leadership as well. How we behave in these situations is so important.
I agree, but I was not talking about bad legislation. The reality of the situation is that we did not have an Assembly for the past couple of years. We have not been able to progress really important legislation, and our time in this mandate is truncated. Of course, this will take longer, but I welcome the Minister's commitment. I know how committed she is to it. It has been a priority for her, and she will engage properly on this and make sure that the legislation that is put in place is sound and that it helps people, and it will be consulted on. Judge Desmond Marrinan did brilliant work on this. There is a lot of work that we need to do. The reality is that hate crimes exist in our society, and they should not. As legislators, we need to look at the legislation and take our time to do it properly, but we also need to look at how we lead and what we do in our constituencies. There was talk about virtue signalling. This motion is not virtue signalling. This is a motion about how we can support people who are victims of hate crime, but we also need to address our own position and what we are doing to counter that.
Yes.
I welcome that clarification. It is important when we are having these conversations that we understand not only how people are impacted on by the way society is at the moment but how we can put legislation in place that will support them. I am grateful for the motion. I hope that Members support our practical amendment. I hope that when we are discussing these issues, and when we see examples of hate crime in our constituencies, we are all better at calling them out and contacting the people who are victims of those hate crimes and offering our support. I know that it means so much to them, and they are very conscious that, a lot of the time, they feel that they are on their own.
882 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: 0.07 (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 (0.64).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.92).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.08 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.51 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.49 |
| 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.