Debate contribution: Pre-recorded Cross-examinations
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Pre-recorded Cross-examinations
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4865086
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have only just started watching 'Adolescence', so I do not want to comment on whether it is age-appropriate for pupils. I understand that the content is particularly triggering and quite traumatic. The Member is quite right, however, on a wider point: we need to have a range of resources and tools that are relatable for young people today so that they can understand the consequences of online radicalisation. Misogyny is no different from any other kind of extreme ideology in how it reaches people and pollutes their mind. It is just one of a number of ideologies that people use the internet for in order to influence attitudes. Many of our young men are vulnerable. We always focus on ending violence against women and girls, but many young men online are incredibly vulnerable to that kind of radicalisation, but it serves them no purpose and does them no favours. We must therefore find meaningful and impactful ways of connecting with them to prevent their being dragged down rabbit holes online.
171 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: 0.12 (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 (0.70).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.65).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.70 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.65 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.32 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.89 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.11 |
| 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 12:12 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.