Debate contribution: Let Them Protect Campaign
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
- Let Them Protect Campaign
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046837
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member will know what I have said about not wanting to encroach on judicial discretion when it comes to particular situations. I am conscious of the risks around prescribing particular sentencing outcomes that would then apply in every case. However, I am open to discussing with the Member how we can make sure that there is a deterrent, because unlike with many of the other spontaneous crimes that we talk about, in which deterrence does not really play a role in people's decision-making, people made choices over the past number of weeks. They chose to go to the places where riots were happening, they chose to promote those riots on social media, they chose to come armed with Molotov cocktails and large pieces of masonry, and they chose to attack police officers. Making those choices should be reflected in sentencing.
141 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: 0.10 (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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.84).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.84 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.16 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.85 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.13 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:53 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.