Debate contribution: Legacy: Innocent Victims
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Legacy: Innocent Victims
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5068326
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her important question. It is worth reiterating, time and time again, that terrorism was always wrong, that violence was always wrong, that there was never any justification for it and that there was always an alternative. I sit down and talk to victims' families, many of whom are still grieving and feeling the loss. They see the loss of their loved ones being mocked and laughed about and those who carried out those attacks being glorified. That is wrong. I disagree with the glorification of terrorism, should that be about the IRA, IRA prisoners, the UVF or the UDA. There is no space for that, it needs to go away and it is absolutely wrong. The police need to take a robust line on tackling the glorification of terrorism. At the heart of everything that we do, we should always remember the victims, who are still mourning, no matter what side of the community they come from. Their loss is acute, and we must do more to talk about and treat these issues in a sensitive way and, of course, step up, listen and deliver for the victims and survivors of the Troubles.
198 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: 0.08 (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 (0.91).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.17 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.16 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.28 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.09 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.99 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| 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 12:58 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.