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 4511584
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There are a number of strands, so perhaps it is best, given the restricted time, that I write to the Member. There is a security for mosques scheme that the Government run, which is available to Northern Ireland. There is also the Community Security Trust, which deals with synagogues.
We do not have a scheme that is comparable to that in England and Wales. That deals only with places of worship that are affected by hate crime, and only 4% of attacks on churches or other notable buildings in Northern Ireland are hate crime-related. The majority are antisocial behaviour. I will pop an answer to the Member in writing, if that would be helpful.
114 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.61).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.61 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.06 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| 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) | 0.97 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| 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.