Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937502
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Indeed. We know that that type of abuse causes significant distress and can make people very scared. I felt afraid, and I continue to feel afraid when I think about the future, because of the actions of that individual. That is utterly wrong. I think that, despite our differences in political opinions and aspirations, we all get into public life to try to make a positive difference and to do what we can to push forward an agenda that we feel passionately about or to help and support individuals with their cases. It is fundamentally wrong that, in trying to do that, we can suffer abuse and threats and can be put in a position of feeling fearful about that. Our strategy recognises that that behaviour starts at a much earlier stage; as I said, it starts at the point at which those values, prejudices and opinions are formed. That is why that campaign is so important. It is about encouraging people to be active bystanders and call out that behaviour at the earliest possible opportunity. It is not just a bit of a laugh; it represents a certain type of view that makes people very uncomfortable. It starts at a very early stage. Unfortunately, we often see that come to a particular point at which there is threat, violence and worse. I am glad that the strategy deals with that in the broadest possible way. The campaign is important as part of that.
244 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: 0.05 (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 (0.61).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.52).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.61 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.48 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.52 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.55 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.41 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:22 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.