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 4511530
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am not directly involved in that. However, it is important to reference the wider issue. We should be encouraged, I suppose, that only about 4% of attacks on what we would call "significant key buildings" — places of worship, Orange halls and GAA clubs — have been identified as being driven by a hate motive. In the majority of cases, they are driven by antisocial behaviour and criminal damage motivations. OK, that is no comfort, if your building is absolutely destroyed in those circumstances, but it shows that deliberate attacks on buildings because they are places of worship are a relatively small part of the overall picture. It is also important to note that, as part of another piece of work that the Department is doing, we are looking at how antisocial behaviour orders can be used. Also, the Youth Justice Agency was much praised in the recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report for the work that it has been doing to deter youth offending. Therefore, where young people are involved in antisocial behaviour, there are opportunities, particularly through PCSPs and community engagement, to get the engagement of the PSNI and the Youth Justice Agency before people engage in serious offending. Undoubtedly, however, it is devastating for a congregation to see its church razed to the ground.
220 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: 0.11 (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 (0.72).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.81).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.81 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.10 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.09 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.57 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.43 |
| 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 10:58 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.