Debate contribution: Domestic Violence: Support for Victims
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
- Domestic Violence: Support for Victims
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4666190
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I share the Member's concern about the rising number of domestic-related homicides in Northern Ireland. That is one reason why we have introduced domestic homicide reviews. The learning from those reviews will, I believe, be instructive in ensuring that our partners who respond at an operational level are able to do so better and to constantly refine and improve their performance in protecting the public. I came here from an event to mark International Men's Day, and it is important to acknowledge the number of male victims of domestic and sexual abuse, who often struggle, due to the stigma around admitting that they are victims of abuse and the difficulty of accessing services. One of the pieces of work that we are funding the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime to undertake is an assessment of the services that are available, with identification of the gaps in service, so that we can better provide those services to the people who need them most. It is important to recognise that domestic and sexual abuse is no respecter of race, gender, age, colour or creed. We need to recognise that many abuse victims who live with that pain never disclose it to anyone. I thank the men who disclosed it for the research that was produced, because that has been hugely helpful in guiding what the Minister of Health and I will be able to take forward as a programme in response.
241 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: 0.04 (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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.84 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 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 11:37 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.