Debate contribution: Justice System: Sectarian Bias
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
- Justice System: Sectarian Bias
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4865158
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The use of stop-and-search is entirely an operational matter for the Chief Constable, and it is one on which he is answerable to the Policing Board. It is not part of the strategic framework for policing in Northern Ireland, nor is it part of the long-term objectives. We all recognise that there are, of course, dangers with stop-and-search. I have attended quite a number of events, particularly with young people, who are more likely to be affected by stop-and-search than other members of the community. They feel that profiling happens and that they are targeted because of their age or background. Those perceptions, whether true or not, impact on the relationship that people have with the police, so it is important that the powers that the police have are used proportionately and appropriately and that, at all times, the police are accountable for and transparent in what they do. That is the best way for us, as elected representatives, to have confidence and to build confidence in the PSNI and the work that it does.
175 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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.82 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.10 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.60 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.29 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.10 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:13 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.