Debate contribution: LGBTQIA+ Domestic and Intimate Partner Abuse
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- LGBTQIA+ Domestic and Intimate Partner Abuse
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111284
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We have already started on the journey of ensuring that we are as inclusive as possible of victims of domestic abuse and that they are recognised and supported. We still have further to go, and the report demonstrated that. Last year, along with the Health Minister, I jointly published a new domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which explicitly recognised that anyone can experience domestic abuse and that we need to tailor our responses to the needs of victims, particularly where they have additional vulnerabilities or challenges. In re-procuring advocacy support services, we have made it a requirement that staff providing those services be trained to meet the needs of different groups of victims, including those who are LGBTQIA+, who may encounter additional barriers to accessing help or engaging with the criminal justice system. We have ensured that the support services that we fund must promote the fact that they are available to all victims and that they particularly reach out to more excluded or vulnerable groups. We have also recognised the need for an inclusive approach to be taken to awareness of social media. For example, our Still Abuse campaign included a range of scenarios and relationships, including abuse within a same-sex relationship and inter-familial abuse.
206 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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:13 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.