Debate contribution: Hate: Executive Approach
Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on .
- MLA
- Mr Doug Beattie MC
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Hate: Executive Approach
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5124265
Read the official Assembly record
Text
One of the bravest and noblest men whom I have ever known was an Afghan Muslim whose name was Sher-Wali. He died fighting alongside me in Afghanistan. Why do I mention that? It is because I have been immersed in other cultures and religions. It is only when you do that that you get to understand better the people with whom you share this place. Racism and sectarianism is pure hate based on bigotry, prejudice and lack of understanding. It is hate due to someone's religion; hate due to someone's skin colour, culture or community; hate due to someone's opinion; or hate due to someone's job. In Northern Ireland, we are not unique in dealing with hate crimes, nor are we unique in that on this island, in the British Isles or in wider Europe. It is a global issue that is increasing exponentially, and it will be dealt with. In many cases, hate is perpetuated by ideals that conflict with others'. That is not an issue. People hate me because of my background. They hate my colleague because of his background. That is not an issue. You are allowed to do that. It is, however, an issue when you stir up racial and religious tensions, when hate spills into violence and when hate is used as a platform to dehumanise, isolate and intimidate others.
Hate can lead to violence. Hate can lead to murder, and we have seen that. We need to deal with hate, and, on balance and in truth, the motion raises that point well. We do not have many issues with the motion.
We are good in Northern Ireland at creating strategies and frameworks. If creating strategies and frameworks were an Olympic sport, we would be gold medallists every time. We need a strategy, however, to look at this matter. I mentioned that personal piece at the start of my contribution because I was lucky enough to be immersed in other cultures and religions not just in conflict areas but elsewhere. Many people in Northern Ireland do not get a chance to do that, because we are divided and segregated. I look forward to seeing the sentencing Bill in the autumn and the victims and witnesses Bill in spring next year. They will be incredibly important. In the meantime, we need to use what is available to us through the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to deal with hate crimes. That requires joined-up thinking, which, at times, we are lacking in. Our Criminal Justice Board, which is a high-level board, consists of the Minister, the Chief Constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Lady Chief Justice and many others. It is a high-level board, yet it has no shared vision and no strategic priorities. Hopefully, that will change in the next month or so. That is a big piece of work, and I hope that some of those strategic priorities will deal with hate crime and those who perpetuate it. However, right now, we are failing. In many ways, I look at the issues facing the Minister and see that the Justice Department has been incredibly underfunded. It is a good and fair argument that the Minister makes about that, but we will have to deal with what we have now as we speak. It takes far too long to gather evidence and put individuals through the courts, and momentum is lost. We have seen that, in England and Wales, it can be done in weeks. Here we take months and years.
Of course.
Thank you. If we were to sit here and go through sentencing criteria and out-of-court disposals, it would take an awful lot of time. It is complicated, and it cannot be done as a snapshot here. However, the point remains that it takes us far too long to get people through the courts at the other end. They do that quickly in England and Wales, and we take far too long here. Some of our sentences are pretty pitiful and do not act as a deterrent. We could deal with it if you sped it up, had momentum and had a sentence that matched the crime, and some of the crimes are awful and involve the most terrible violence. I support the call in the DUP's amendment for an:
"aggravation offence model for hate crime in sentencing".
I am in no doubt that the Minister will include that in the sentencing Bill. The thrust of where I am is that I absolutely support the motion and think that the DUP's amendment adds a bit to it, because we have to look at where we are in the here and now. Yes, the Minister will introduce a sentencing Bill, and I look forward to seeing it. However, I have not seen the text. It is hard to support something until you see it, unfortunately. I would like to see it. We need to do something, and we need to do it now. We cannot sit on our hands and wait until the sentencing Bill is introduced. We need to start acting now, and that is why I will support the motion.
875 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: 0.08 (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 (0.89).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.97).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 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 13:15 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.