Debate contribution: Places of Worship: Attacks
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Places of Worship: Attacks
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511526
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I recognise very much the harm that attacks on places of worship can have on members and the wider community. I condemn the recent attacks at the Bangladesh Islamic Centre in Newtownards, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God at Templemore Street in east Belfast and the Church of the Holy Name at Greenisland and the recent threats to the Belfast Islamic Centre. My Department works collaboratively with the policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) in addressing crime and fear of crime. PCSPs have a legislative duty to address crime, fear of crime and antisocial behaviour by working collaboratively and engaging with their local community. Specific crime prevention advice is also available from the PSNI. During the recent disorder, the Home Office extended its protection scheme for mosques in the UK, which are vulnerable to hate crime, to provide emergency support. The Home Office also supports the Community Security Trust to provide protection for synagogues across the UK. Protection schemes for places of worship in England and Wales are based solely on vulnerability to hate crime. However, to date, there has been insufficient evidence to show that such a scheme is needed in Northern Ireland. We will, of course, keep that under review.
204 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 (0.76).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.52).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.48 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.52 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:58 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.