Debate contribution: Anti-paramilitarism Billboard Campaign
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Anti-paramilitarism Billboard Campaign
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4802739
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. As we have said clearly in this place before, we must all stand united against the scourge of paramilitarism. There was never any justification for terrorism or paramilitarism. There is no role for it today, in 2025, just as there was no role for it here at any time over the past number of decades. The billboard campaign was designed to push the agenda of removing any last traces of paramilitarism in communities. It is, however, important that we do not stigmatise communities. Some incredibly good work is happening in them. I have always said that some problems in areas are caused by a minority of people. There are great organisations in those communities doing fantastic work. Individuals, families and communities are doing so much volunteering, and they are really changing their communities from within.
The key message today is that we are here to support those who are doing good — those who want to move on. We will not leave anybody behind; we will work with people to move them on. However, when it comes to those who are engaged in criminal or paramilitary activity, it needs to stop, it needs to be stamped out and it needs a criminal justice response.
211 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 (0.72).
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.49 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.72 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.28 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.96 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:58 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.