Debate contribution: Racist Hate Crime: Increase
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
- Racist Hate Crime: Increase
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111296
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I meet the Chief Constable on a regular and ongoing basis, usually at least every month and often every fortnight. We have raised the issues of hate crime, racism, anti-immigrant sentiment and violence, and wider prejudice at pretty much every one of those meetings. It is a priority for me. I am incredibly concerned about it. It is a cancer in our society. It is destroying the fabric of our society. It is doing no one, neither the people who live in those communities traditionally nor the people who come to Northern Ireland to make it their home, any favours whatsoever. It is important that there is a proper policing and criminal justice response. However, if Members are looking to me or the Chief Constable to police out the attitudes on which those incidents flourish, I have to say that that is not possible. That requires a whole-society approach, which is why I am working with colleagues in the Executive Office, the Department for Communities, the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy to look at how we can better support those who are vulnerable, and better invest in communities to tackle the underlying issues and challenge the narratives — false narratives in many cases — that are being exploited by those who simply seek to divide.
219 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.81).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.97).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.03 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.91 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.09 |
| 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 13:13 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.