Debate contribution: Tackling Paramilitarism
Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on .
- MLA
- Mr Harry Harvey
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Tackling Paramilitarism
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4592550
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will make a few points on the Opposition motion. The presence of organised criminality continues to be a scourge on many communities across Northern Ireland. It is incumbent on us all to challenge the continued existence of paramilitary organisations and all groups that are involved in criminal activity. It remains, as it has always been, our position as a party that, where evidence exists that individuals have been involved in criminality in whatever form, they should face the full rigour of the law. It is worth reminding ourselves that equality under the rule of law is a key pillar of any democracy: all are equally subject to it and protected by it. The gravity of the issue for society therefore impresses on us all the need to take collective responsibility not only to stand up and call out such criminality but to tackle its root causes and, in this instance, challenge the continued existence of paramilitary organisations. Although some Members are relative newcomers to the principle of the rule of law, many on these Benches have worked a lifetime to uphold and protect it. The greatest erosion of the principles of law and justice in respect of paramilitarism ever to occur was, of course, as a result of the Belfast Agreement. Unlike the Opposition and other parties around the Chamber, our position on dealing with paramilitary criminality was the same in 1998 as it is today. It was wrong to engage in criminality then, and it is still wrong today. That those who previously championed the early release of convicted criminals should now lament this party for seeking to support those who have a past, have served their punishment and want to move on to build a brighter future is an irony that will escape few. A distinction must be drawn, as other Members have said, between those who wish to move out from under the shadow of paramilitarism for good and those who wish only to continue to use such structures for their own criminal exploits. We must actively seek to help and support individuals and communities who genuinely wish to secure a better future beyond what, in many cases, is all they have ever known. The Independent Reporting Commission has said very clearly that, without such engagement, there is no credible path to ending paramilitarism once and for all. The process requires good faith from all parties. As part of that progress, programmes such as Communities in Transition, Urban Villages and Building Successful Communities have all played their part in assisting that transition. Much good work has been achieved in communities across the traditional divide. It is important that learning from previous implementation of the various phases of those schemes is used to ensure that future programmes are tailored to achieve the best possible outcomes. No one who genuinely wants to move on and leave their past behind should be left behind by either the House or society at large. It has often been said that just having a past should not preclude you from having a future. It is important that the Executive support communities and individuals to achieve that future. The DUP will continue to support those who genuinely wish to leave the past behind and build a better future for themselves, their families and their communities.
552 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: 0.37 (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 (0.64).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.71).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.36 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.16 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.37 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.71 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.16 |
| Adopts it | 0.13 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.97 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:26 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.