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 5046716
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I agree that it is vital that hate expressions be removed from public display. Their remaining in place normalises and makes acceptable the expression of sentiments and violent thoughts that are not acceptable in a civilised society. We need to acknowledge that. The issue is how we take that forward. The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report, for example, looked at the display of emblems and symbols in public spaces. Collectively, as five parties, we were unable to get agreement on how that would be taken forward. I want to look specifically at the recommendations by Judge Marrinan. However, given that they would create duties on local authorities that fall outside the purview of the Department of Justice, I need the cooperation of other Departments to bring them into effect.
133 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 (0.82).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.83).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.11 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.14 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.83 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.59 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.41 |
| No identity-related subject | 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.