Debate contribution: Violence against Women and Girls: Paramilitarism
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Violence against Women and Girls: Paramilitarism
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563818
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I commend Dr Swaine and Foyle Women's Aid for the important research that was produced on the topic of paramilitary-related gendered coercive control. I was pleased to be at the launch of that report to signal my clear support for the work that is being done on the subject. The research was timely and important. It provides real insight into the experience of women who have faced paramilitary-related gendered coercive control. The report and the testimonies of victims and survivors makes for harrowing and sobering reading. Those women have faced horrendous physical and sexual harm, including threats, surveillance and displacement and in relationships where they should have felt safe. Violence against women and girls and paramilitary violence are linked, and the new ending violence against women and girls strategy, the strategic framework and the draft Programme for Government, which was published this month, speak to the importance of addressing those issues. We recognise that violence does not happen in a vacuum and that violence against women and girls and ongoing paramilitary violence are linked. We now need to take this real opportunity to ensure that there is a comprehensive and joined-up response.
193 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: 0.05 (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 (0.66).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.66 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.07 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.58 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.31 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.11 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:11 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.