Debate contribution: Forced Marriages
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 28 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Forced Marriages
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4763976
Read the official Assembly record
Text
All of us realise what an important issue that is. Ending all forms of violence, abuse and harm against women and girls is one of the most pressing issues facing our society today. The Executive are committed to tackling that important issue. In March 2021, the Executive acknowledged the need for a departmental, cross-cutting, government-wide approach to tackle the issue of violence against women and girls. The Executive Office has subsequently been developing a strategic framework to achieve the society-wide transformation that is needed to achieve that Executive priority. The draft Budget for 2025-26 includes an earmarked allocation of £2 million to TEO towards the implementation of phase 1 of its delivery plan. In addition to that earmarked allocation for TEO, it has set aside £1·2 million from its baseline to fund an ending violence against women and girls change fund for community and voluntary sector organisations in partnership with local councils. As part of that wider change fund, a regional change fund initiative was announced on 21 January by the First Minister and deputy First Minister aimed at tackling violence against women and girls. In response to Paula Bradshaw, I say that the legislation that we are bringing forward is an important part of the effort to challenge violence against women and girls and to bring it to an end.
221 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 (0.73).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.58 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.42 |
| 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 11:55 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.