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 4563822
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That was a cross-departmental bid by the Department of Justice — it bid for the justice elements — and TEO. We will still have to deliver on the ending violence against women and girls framework. Obviously, significant parts of that will fall to my Department. However, the most important parts of that are now around early intervention. We have made many changes following the Gillen review to how the justice system responds to violence against women and girls, but there is still much work to be done in that space. I hope to address some of that in a victims Bill later in the mandate. We will continue the work that is being done jointly between our Departments. It is important that we are not competing for the same resources when we work on ending violence against women and girls and on the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. From my perspective, the two are distinct. There are synergies, but the Minister of Health and I, whilst leading on the domestic and sexual violence and abuse strategy, are considering all victims, not only women and girls. We are also considering male victims of those issues. There are synergies, and we want to make the most of those.
206 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.53 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.40 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.07 |
| 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.