Debate contribution: Peacemakers Museum, Foyle
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 23 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Peacemakers Museum, Foyle
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4543920
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That is not exactly related to the question. However, a number of events will happen. The deputy First Minister and I have been invited to events to celebrate 26 years of the Good Friday Agreement. We will have a number of events. Perhaps it would be better if I wrote to the Member to note what those are. We should be proud of the people who stepped forward and created peace and the conditions for peace. We should, as we did for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, reflect on what was achieved, the fact that those people stepped forward and got us to the point where we had the Good Friday Agreement and how grateful we are for that. Our job, as the political leaders of today, is to keep building for the future and towards the next 25 years. We need to look at how we can lift everybody in society up and how we can have an inclusive society, because we live in an ever-changing and much more diverse place. I want us to live in a fair, welcoming and inclusive society, and I know that everybody in the Chamber is elected to do that work too.
202 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: 0.04 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.13 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.52 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.14 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.11 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.04 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:03 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.