Debate contribution: Paramilitary-style Attacks
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Paramilitary-style Attacks
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774209
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As the Member knows, paramilitaries will act under any banner that allows them to justify their existence to a local community or to pretend that they are protagonists acting on behalf of that community. The truth is that they feed off the misery in those communities. The Member will also be aware that I intend to implement the aggravator model, which Judge Marrinan recommended in his report on hate crime, as part of the sentencing Bill that we hope to introduce in the autumn of this year. The following year, we hope to introduce legislation on victims and witnesses of crime that will see more protections for vulnerable victims and witnesses extended to victims of hate crime. There are, however, things that we can do and are doing in the meantime, including providing bespoke support to members of ethnic minority groups and different racial groups in society and giving reassurance through the work that the Department is doing more widely to combat those ills.
164 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: 0.08 (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 (0.80).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.82).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.18 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.82 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.72 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.24 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| 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.