Debate contribution: Opposition to Racism
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 August 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Opposition to Racism
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4500359
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that today is the opportunity for us to send the strong and collective message that violence is wrong, disorder is unacceptable and that we utterly reject racism? The challenges in our communities are real, but that is a responsibility for all of us to tackle, including through access to affordable housing. We will listen to communities — we must listen to communities — and get our policies right. Does he agree that those who are burning, destroying and rioting, and who are attacking our police officers, are doing nothing but destroying their own communities and that, today, we stand absolutely united against that?
113 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: 0.09 (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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.90).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.20 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.10 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.90 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.94 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.06 |
| 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 10:57 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.