Debate contribution: Sarah Montgomery
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 1 July 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sarah Montgomery
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5061772
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In my answers to other Members earlier, I said that I believe that the change fund is making a difference. We can see that in the roll-out of our strategy to end violence against women and girls. I want to continue to learn from that in order to see what works well. If it works across the piece, let us pick it up and run with it. Where it does not work, we will not do that piece of work any more. I want to continue to fund women's organisations to do the work that they have been doing for years at a massively underfunded rate. They are invaluable at the front line in reaching women and families who are affected by abuse. Crucially, however, their focus is on addressing the root causes of misogyny that lead to abuse and violence. Investing in grass-roots organisations will allow us to make inroads into that area. This is about empowering communities and challenging the dangerous misperceptions that exist about violence against women and girls. Earlier, I cited really good examples of that. In my local GAA club, Clonoe young women's group got together and brought forward a brilliant initiative at a local level for a cohort of 16- and 17-year-olds. They designed something, and we were able to support that. That, to me, gets right into the heart of a community, and that is how we will be successful.
237 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: 0.03 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.14 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.73 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.27 |
| 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 13:03 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.