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 4563826
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I proposed that the Executive Office take forward the ending violence against women and girls strategy. It is not just a matter for Justice or policing; it is a matter for the whole Executive. Every Department has a role to play, whether that be Health, Education, Economy or Communities. We all have a role to play in ending violence against women and girls, which is much wider than the domestic and sexual violence and abuse on which Health and Justice take the lead. It is important also that every strand in every Department has its own internal strategies to deal with those issues. It is important, however, that that is not about duplication; it is about learning from best practice. One of the strong things about the tackling paramilitarism programme is that we have found out what works to reduce harm in the context of paramilitary violence. There is an opportunity to apply that in other areas where we want to reduce harm.
164 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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.54 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.42 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| 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.