Debate contribution: Racism
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Racism
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4667379
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his important question, because it provides the opportunity, once again, to put on record our absolute rejection of racism and of any actions based on hate, discrimination or prejudice. What we saw over the summer was entirely unacceptable, and that is the message that we have been sending. There are a number of different aspects to what we have been doing. First, we want to show joint and shared political leadership, not just in the First Minister and the deputy First Minister's office but across the Executive, to call out those terrible actions at every opportunity. Secondly, we have been liaising with statutory agencies through our arm's-length bodies and our funders but also, importantly, with the PSNI. We raised the issue once again when we met the Chief Constable just last week. It is incredibly important that we work in a connected and collaborative way to tackle the scourge of racism and the violence and disorder that is brought about by that. In addition, we have been looking at many of the Department's funding schemes. For example, I asked for and we have received the figures on the very significant participation rates in the good relations schemes by minority ethnic communities. Of course, good relations is not just about those with different political or religious beliefs but people of different races and ethnic identities. It would be really positive to ensure that those groups are all fully mainstreamed within our funding schemes, and we encourage other Departments to do so as well.
257 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 (0.71).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.93).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.07 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.97 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| 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 11:33 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.