Debate contribution: Hate: Executive Approach

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 22 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

22 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Hate: Executive Approach

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5124210

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. We think that our amendment assists and strengthens the motion and places focus where it should be, which is on providing additional resources to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service; the PSNI, which investigates and fights crime; and the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme that is meant to tackle the spectre and leftovers of the paramilitary world, which the leader of the Opposition just talked about. Those are the areas where, we believe, more resource should be placed in order to fight crime. When it come to fighting crime, what is a crime? I have always had a discomfort with regard to the phrase "hate crime", because we know that a lot of the incidents that the police are obliged to report are not necessarily a crime. That blurs the lines for me — it really does — because I do not think that to hate something is actually a crime. I hate all sorts of things. I hate crime. I hate violence against women and girls. I hate terrorism. I hate the measures that were brought in during COVID that caused so much pain and suffering to our people. I hate all those things. That is not a crime, so "hate crime" in itself is a bit of a misnomer.

Yes, I will.

Absolutely, and I thank the Member for raising that. As a party, we condemn all sectarian/racist attacks on individuals and their homes. There are absolutely no circumstances in which such actions and threats of violence or intimidation are justified. That also goes for race, religion, disability, sexuality, gender or age. It is all totally unacceptable. No one should be threatened or attacked for those issues. We have always been clear —.

Yes, I will give way to the Minister.

I thank the Minister for that intervention, because it actually does do that. We would not be on the same page as the leader of the Opposition on stand-alone hate crime legislation. That is why, I think, the Minister is taking a good route. My worry about the legislation that is coming forward is that it is rushed or botched. What do we have as an example? We have the Justice Bill, where the Minister brought only half a Bill, and, on the half that she did bring, she is now seeking amendments. Therefore, we worry that the sentencing Bill may well turn out the same way. I ask the Minister to make sure and to assure us that, in her bringing forward the sentencing Bill in haste, it is fully covered and all content and clauses are before the Assembly at First Reading and Second Reading. I hope that the Minister can give me that reassurance today. I also have an issue —

Yes, I will.

I thank the Minister for her intervention. There is a world of difference between an amendment to a Bill from the Department and the Minister bringing 50% of her Bill through amendments at Committee Stage to Further Consideration Stage and also amending all the previous text at Second Reading. That is really worrying when it comes to the Justice Bill. There is also an issue with how we perceive an aggravated hate crime, even through the sentencing Bill, because the victim alone can perceive it to be a hate crime. There have been many instances of that. In fact, there was one that I had to deal with through constituency work where people threw eggs out of a car at three victims. The first victim did not report it. They were born here in Northern Ireland. The second victim did not report it. They were born here in Northern Ireland. Then a newcomer family was attacked, and they perceived it to be a hate crime. They thought that they were attacked because they were a newcomer family, but that was not the case. So, there are real worries about the only parameter being the perception of the victim. They could be misinformed, and so, then, could the police be, about the motives for criminal activity. That is vital.

I agree with the Member. That is why I think that we will be pushing for a more substantial burden of proof to be established in law that requires evidence of the existence of direct prejudice or hatred at the time of the offence and that that was the primary motive of the crime. I think that it is realistic and sensible to put that safeguard in the legislation. Any new legal definition should not weaken the rights of those with deeply held legitimate religious views, or any other views for that matter, to express opinions that may be contrary to the views of those advocating for protected groups. What I mean by that and why I am worried and nervous about that is that we have seen Labour produce the Online Safety Act, which has resulted in people being incarcerated for tweets. Horrendous as they were, they were text. A lady was incarcerated. Others have incited violence on the streets, but, because they did not admit guilt, they were allowed to say things without any punishment. I really worry that we have a Labour Government in power who are bringing in laws that are quite draconian in nature. The SDLP is Labour's sister party, and maybe it could speak for Labour. Maybe the SDLP is as concerned as I am. At times, the Alliance Party, with its liberalism, can be quite intolerant of other people's views, and I really worry. I hope that the Minister will bring forward the sentencing Bill, and I hope that the measures in it will do the job of protecting people no matter their race, religion, disability, sexuality, gender or age, because that is critical. I go back to the point that our law enforcement agencies and court system need to be fully resourced to combat all crime in this day and age. It is vital that the people who keep us safe have the money and means to do so and that justice is not delayed when a crime is committed and investigated and when it goes to the PPS and through our court system.

It is not fair that victims must sit for years before they have their day in court or at least see that the perpetrator who made them a victim has been through court and punished sufficiently. It is not fair that those people have to wait years for that.

I extend goodwill to the Minister in bringing forward her legislation. I want to see good legislation as much as she does, but my party will scrutinise every line, clause and measure in her Bills to ensure that the powers that we grant are appropriate and right to protect our people.

1,140 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification