Debate contribution: 'Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland Independent Review': Recommendation 15
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- 'Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland Independent Review': Recommendation 15
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046708
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In recent days, we have seen how the use of threatening and abusive words and materials targeted at the most vulnerable in society can spread fear and division in communities and incite hatred. I continue to prioritise actions to deliver support for victims of hate crime, including those who are the target of hate expressions. The delivery of foundational hate crime legislation provisions in this mandate remains a key priority for DOJ. Those provisions, delivered through a sentencing Bill and a victims and witnesses of crime Bill, will modernise hate crime law in Northern Ireland and provide a more robust system to sanction offenders. In his review of hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland, Judge Marrinan recommended:
"There should be a clear and unambiguous statutory duty on relevant public authorities including Councils, the Department for Infrastructure and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, to take all reasonable steps to remove hate expression from their own property and, where it engages their functions, broader public space."
Policy development work on the removal of hate expressions is ongoing, which includes liaising with the named authorities in the recommendation and the PSNI. As that work is complex and ongoing, I do not intend to include recommendation 15 provisions in the Justice Bill that is under consideration by the Committee.
215 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 (0.83).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.83).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.15 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.83 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:52 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.