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 5046736
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I condemn the attack on the Islamic Centre in Belfast at the weekend. It has caused distress and alarm not only among those who were at prayer when it happened but among those who regularly use the centre and other members of the community. We in DOJ are committed to playing our part in trying to deliver a safer community for all, including the victims of race hate crimes and Islamophobia, in partnership with other government bodies and beyond. I have been reassured by the Chief Constable that he intends to take swift and robust action when following up on those offences. I have also been reassured by the PPS and the courts that they have the capacity to deal with that. I have said publicly that if more resources are required to expedite that action, we are open to listening to those calls for additional support.
148 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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.92).
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.11 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.44 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.08 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.92 |
| 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) | 0.95 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.