Debate contribution: Intergovernmental Agreement on Cooperation on Criminal Justice Matters
Debate contribution by Miss Deirdre Hargey on .
- MLA
- Miss Deirdre Hargey
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 23 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Intergovernmental Agreement on Cooperation on Criminal Justice Matters
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5045752
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for her statement. She talked about elements of criminal justice and social diversity work and, obviously, cross-border work that is being progressed around hate crime and community inclusion. On the back of racist attacks over the past few weeks and, indeed, the past year, with online misinformation encouraging some of those incidents, what work is being progressed in that area around cross-border collaboration, and did both Ministers discuss what more can be done to take enforcement action against social media companies if they do not take action on misinformation?
93 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.89).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.07 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.67 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.33 |
| 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 12:48 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.