Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Regional Change Fund
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Regional Change Fund
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774047
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. It is an important one. When we look back over the decades of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, we see that there was violence towards and the targeting and harassment of women. We also have to remember the young people and children who were indiscriminately targeted by bombings and those who were subjected to child abuse through punishment beatings by paramilitary organisations. I pay tribute to the many women who were murdered by paramilitary and terrorist organisations as well. That was all abuse and violence towards women and girls. It was entirely unacceptable. I can stand and say clearly that I condemn all of that activity and all terrorist activity. There was never any justification for it, and there still is not. There was always an alternative.
134 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: 0.07 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.58).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.12 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.58 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.42 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.51 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.34 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.15 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:52 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.