Debate contribution: Action to End Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 19 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Action to End Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4666177
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There are programmes that allow perpetrators, either through self-referral or police referral, to engage directly with us. For some time, the Department has funded the Promoting Positive Relationships programme, which is run by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. It aims to provide men who are alleged to have been abusive in their intimate relationships and whose children have been assessed by social services as being at risk with an opportunity to engage in intervention involving an integrated group work programme. The purpose of that programme is to develop their knowledge and skills so that they can have healthy, non-abusive relationships. As part of the new DSA strategy, the Department is undertaking work to look at costed options to enhance measures to address such behaviours. The White Ribbon campaign has come to Hydebank Wood to work with our young men and women to challenge attitudes. We have had a number of partnerships, but it is important that, at all times, we recognise the power of peer intervention. In Hydebank Wood, we focused on how young men would react, if they saw peers behaving in a way that, they thought, was unacceptable. We can all learn from that, so that, when we see someone behaving in a way that is aggressive and unacceptable, we are not afraid to speak out and stand up for a person who may be fearful.
229 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 (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.61 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.39 |
| 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 11:37 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.