Debate contribution: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .

MLA
Mr Danny Donnelly
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
25 November 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4675259

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Is the Member aware of the 2008 joint statement by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? That stated:

"Access to safe and legal abortion, as well as related services ... are essential aspects of women’s reproductive health".

52 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.27 (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 (0.63).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.80).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.10No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.15No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.63Yes
Overall judgement0.27At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.80
Reports or questions it0.10
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.10
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.75
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.22
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.03
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:40 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.

Challenge this classification