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 5046720
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There is, of course, a salty retort that I could make about those who seek offence, but I will set that aside and be more ministerial in my approach to the Member's question. As the Speaker has acknowledged, I am not here to answer questions on behalf of the Alliance Party. The Member knows that. However, what I can say, as a person of faith, is that there is nothing in my faith or any other faith that justifies the use of hateful language, expression or behaviour. Those who believe that their faith justifies such expression or behaviour need to reconnect with it.
103 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: 0.15 (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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.83).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.16 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.13 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.15 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.17 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.83 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.82 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.18 |
| 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 12:52 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.