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 5111308
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is essential. Ultimately, people would not be behaving in this way were there not those who are perpetually on social media, on mainstream media, in the press and in other places perpetuating falsehoods on immigration and false narratives about the level of immigration in Northern Ireland and the impact that it is having on our society. In turn, that is exploited by those who have serious issues with their own white supremacist, racist and other agendas. We need to be aware that that right-wing threat is serious not just here in Northern Ireland but right across the UK and beyond, and we need to treat it seriously. As an Executive and as politicians in the Chamber, we need to ensure that we are accurate in our information, we correct misinformation, we are temperate in the remarks that we make in the discussions that we have on those issues and that we redouble our efforts to ensure that those who wish to exploit local communities in that way are not given any airtime or opportunity to do so. It is really important that we do that collectively and consistently and not just at times of crisis.
196 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: 0.11 (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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.42 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.48 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.01 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 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 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.