Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Democratic Consent Resolution
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4716636
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order 65, which states:
"1) The Speaker may, if any member - (a) wilfully assaults, molests, obstructs or acts in a disorderly manner towards the Speaker or any other member".
Tonight, the Alliance Party and those of us who do not designate as nationalist or unionist have had our designation besmirched, called out and disrespected. I would like you to make a ruling on that.
73 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Not flagged on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.56 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.89); Controversy escalation (0.74).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.83).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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.
Second assessment
Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works
- Verdict
- Not flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mainly advances the public interest
Against the published rubric
The text is a point of order asking the Speaker to rule on conduct in the chamber. It says that members who do not designate as nationalist or unionist have had their designation "besmirched, called out and disrespected". It does not attack any community or party as a group, uses no loaded language and builds no hostile premise into a request. It raises a perceived slight against a group, but its function is to object to treating people who are neither unionist nor nationalist as not belonging, which the rubric itself treats as a form of division.
Public interest or divisiveness
The contribution mainly opposes division. It asks the Speaker to uphold standards of conduct towards members whose designation was disparaged during a debate on cross-community consent. It does register a grievance, but in defence of equal standing in the chamber rather than to score points against another community. Its tone is procedural and it does not prolong the communal argument itself.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.89 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.37 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.74 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.08 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.56 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.07 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.83 |
| Adopts it | 0.09 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.82 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.12 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:46 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.