Debate contribution: Racist Hate Crime: East Belfast
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: East Belfast
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111304
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I absolutely will, not only as Justice Minister but as a Member of the legislative Assembly for East Belfast. There is absolutely no place in our society for the hate, racism and intimidation that we have witnessed on our streets not just in recent weeks but in recent months. I urge people not to get involved in that despicable behaviour and not to allow their frustrations with services in their neighbourhood to be displaced into targeting those who are similarly disadvantaged. I urge them to instead focus on working with their elected representatives to articulate their concerns and to work productively and, crucially, lawfully to address those concerns with those of us who are serious about wanting to see those communities improved and who will not tolerate sectarianism, hatred, violence or racism on our streets. It is also important that I pay tribute to the Member who asked the question, because I know that he has spent quite a lot of time liaising with the PSNI locally on its response to those issues and on its information sharing with local MLAs. I thank him for his hard work on that.
190 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: 0.06 (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 (0.98).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.35 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.02 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.91 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 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.