Debate contribution: Opposition to Racism
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 8 August 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Opposition to Racism
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4500378
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I associate my party with the unequivocal condemnations of the race hate that we have seen on our streets in recent days. I also welcome members of the Muslim community who are sitting in the Public Gallery today listening to us. We owe them not just a welcome but an apology for what they and their community have had to endure in this society and this city over recent weeks and days. I say to them, "Sorry, but also thank you. Thank you for what your community and the people from all communities who have come to this society offer us every single day and continue to offer us. We are in your debt". When I became an MLA for South Belfast, I had a choice of where to locate my constituency office. I am proud that my office is located in the middle of University Street. It is in the heart of one of the most diverse areas of not just this city or region but probably the whole island of Ireland. Students and academics who study and research at Queen's enhance and enrich that community. There are medical staff — doctors and nurses — working at the City Hospital right now to save lives. They were working to save lives last Saturday afternoon when a racist mob charged through that part of Belfast destroying property, intimidating them and seeking to spread their hate. Not only is that unacceptable but it is a profound failure of those people to understand the contribution that migrants make to this society, specifically given the Islamophobic context of those who were campaigning on Saturday. In that part of Belfast, there are small businesses and small business owners, such as Rahmi Akyol, who has been in Belfast for more than three decades and runs his shisha cafe on lower Botanic Avenue. Rahmi has contributed jobs and services to that part of Belfast for decades. He has contributed immeasurably more than the hate-filled thugs who rampaged through the streets and sought to destroy his business and to intimidate him and his customers. What therefore do we need to do now? Regarding a response, we need to do three broad things. First, we need to ensure that there is a robust policing response. It is clear that members of ethnic minority communities, and specifically the Muslim community, have real and profound questions about the policing of Saturday's events. It is also clear that there has been a gradual erosion of confidence among members of the Muslim community in the ability of the police to deal with hate crime. Some of that is clearly happening in the context of depleted resources, but it means that the policing response needs to be robust and immediate, and prosecutions need to be swift. I want to hear more about what the police are doing and how the Public Prosecution Service seeks to bring forward prosecutions swiftly. Secondly, we need robust action from the Executive. I welcome the fact that the Executive are meeting today, but we need to see clear, deliverable actions in the coming weeks and months and before the end of the mandate. First, we need — finally — an updated racial equality strategy. We have been waiting nearly a decade for one. If ever there was a moment that proves that we need an updated racial equality strategy, it is now. We also need stand-alone hate crime legislation, and I welcome the commitment from the Justice Minister to progress that speedily. Thirdly, it is clear that we need robust action at a national and international level on the wild west of social media: on people who spew hate on it and on those who seek to derive power and influence from the people who are spewing hate. In recent years, we have almost lost sight of how enriching and glorious the increasing diversity of Northern Ireland has been, in part because we are a bit hung up on the historic diversity and division that we have inherited. Was it not wonderful to see, in recent weeks, athletes from this place standing proudly under both 'Amhrán na bhFiann' and 'God Save the King' as they won medals and did us all proud? It should not be hard to celebrate the new diversity in our society, which sees people coming from all over the world to enrich and contribute to it. They are us. They are us, not the hate-filled yobs who rampaged through the streets of my constituency last Saturday. In closing, I say to the Muslim community and the wider minority community in Northern Ireland not just that we are with you but that you are us. You are part of us, you will continue to be part of us, we will defend you and we will support you. Thank you.
805 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 (0.78).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.99).
- 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 | 0.47 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.16 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.01 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.63 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.31 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.06 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.