Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 1 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4562956
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for being so generous in giving way. The specific issue is about creating two new offences. One is the direction of organised crime, which has been defined in policy terms and which you will see in the legislation. The other is a separate offence of participating in organised crime, which is where, although it cannot be proven that somebody was directing the crime, they were a participant in it. The reason for the two offences is that there are two different capacities in which people act. The issue of coercion and child criminal exploitation is being addressed through a policy that was launched jointly on Monday by me, your colleague, the Health Minister, and the Minister of Education. We recognise that as an issue, but it is not impinged upon by those two new offences.
139 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: 0.03 (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 (0.76).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.81 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:22 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.