Debate contribution: Hate Crime Legislation
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
- Hate Crime Legislation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511550
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I again extend my sympathy to Anu's family. It is one of the most horrific cases that I have heard. It speaks to us all about the abject terror in which many people in our community are living, because they are so frightened and so fearful of attack, abuse and threat. It is not a unique story in the sense that there are many in our community who no longer use public transport, who do not go out at night and who are afraid to go to work because of the perceived threat against them. That cannot be tolerated. What the Member suggested as a U-turn has not been so. It has been exactly what I set out. I said that I would triage against emerging priorities. The reality is that, in a three-year mandate, it would be impossible to do a full hate crime Bill, because not all the policy development work was possible in the absence of Ministers, and it will require considerable Executive input, particularly on the public order elements. However, the remainder of Judge Marrinan's recommendations on tackling hate crime that directly impact on victims will be brought forward in this mandate. That was not the original intention in the first-day brief, but, as Minister, I pressed for it, and that has now been accelerated. To reassure the Member, I have spoken to Judge Marrinan directly, and whilst he, like me, shares a degree of frustration that we cannot move faster on this, he accepts that the two pieces that I am moving forward — the aggravator and the special measures — are the priority for the victims of hate crime. The remainder can then be dealt with in the next mandate.
287 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: 0.06 (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 (0.88).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.65).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.35 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.65 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 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.