Debate contribution: Racism
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 7 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Racism
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4579084
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. Let me be clear: all racism and hate and all public disorder or violence that is based on it is wrong. It is incredibly important to draw a strong differentiation between that and concerns that are raised in communities. I have made it clear that, as Ministers and political representatives, we must be there to listen to people's genuinely held concerns. That includes, for example, concerns about access to affordable housing and public services. I would suggest that the Member look again at what I have said, which is that there may well be legitimate and genuinely held concerns about access to affordable housing and public services. That is entirely different from and no justification for any violence, racism, hate or disorder. I cannot be clearer on that.
135 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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.88).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.23 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.11 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.84 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.16 |
| 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 11:16 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.