Debate contribution: Sectarian and Racist Intimidation

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 16 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

16 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Sectarian and Racist Intimidation

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5111782

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am pleased to debate the motion, and I hope that, unlike in the previous debate, we can maintain some degree of equanimity. I do not think that equanimity needs to mean perfect agreement or, necessarily, that calmness or consensus is always evidence of progress. There are issues where we need to be respectful but also challenging. It has been often said to me in TV studios and, sometimes, online or in person, that people like me, who are very robust when it comes to their anti-racism and anti-sectarianism, are somehow delegitimising the views of "ordinary decent people" who simply have concerns about, for example, migration. Let me say again that no topic of public policy, whether it is the health service, education or, indeed, migration, is a taboo subject. People can talk about it, but what we have seen in Ballymena or on the streets of Belfast, including, last summer, my constituency, is not people having legitimate concerns that they want to debate. Those people went out to loot, riot, do damage to property and injure other human beings. The person in Connswater who tried to lift a person of colour out of their car and the mob who tried to lynch a black man who was trying to deliver food were not, I presume, on their way to a policy discussion. They were not going to a university debating society or a community centre to have a debate only for someone to stop them from airing their legitimate concerns; they were going to express hate. That is what they were doing. We have to be wary about conflating legitimate concerns that people can have about any subject with other matters. The availability of housing is a legitimate concern, specifically when we are, it appears, already failing on our social housing targets. In many of these areas, by the way, housing waiting lists exist, but, in other areas, there is availability of housing that has been bought up and turned into houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). All of those are things that people can debate and talk about, but, whenever that strays into hate mobs and lynching, which we saw in east Belfast, or a virtual attempted pogrom, which we saw in Ballymena, it ceases to be something about which we can say, "Well, there is a legitimate debate to be had". As public representatives, we have to be direct and call it out. When it comes to the Executive Office and T:BUC, by all means, let us hear it see it and debate it. There are two quick points to make. Number one, I am the leader of the Opposition. We are in opposition, and it is our job to be robust and direct. I welcome the fact that there was, at least, the appearance of consistency of response, but it is also important to say that the public do not elect politicians just to engage in rhetoric. People accuse me of engaging in rhetoric sometimes, and that is fair enough. It is my job as leader of the Opposition to challenge and to use rhetoric. The people who are in the Executive and have power are expected to use it. When we came back after the summer, after an attempted pogrom in Ballymena, more sectarian and racist violence in north Belfast and what happened in Connswater and elsewhere, people would have expected a coherent, joined-up response. They simply got a press conference with some platitudes. Those platitudes were better than nothing, but the coherent reaction should have been, number one, what is called for in the motion, which is an updated good relations strategy. That should specifically also have had to look at the activities of loyalist paramilitaries — not just loyalist paramilitaries, if other paramilitaries are involved, but it appears to be a specific issue with loyalist paramilitaries. That brings me back to the point about north Belfast, where there is clearly an issue that the UDA appear to see themselves as some kind of pseudo- or quasi-housing association. I welcome the fact that Andy Allen was direct in calling out the brigadiers who appear to see themselves as commandants of the area and are able to say who does or does not live in a housing estate. We have to be direct about that: people from all parties need to call that out and confront it. We need to see the tackling paramilitarism programme updated so that we can understand how that is happening. I would also like to see the Communities Minister and Housing Executive work with that to get to the heart of what is happening in the communities where loyalist paramilitaries are trying to exert that control. Lastly, it has to be said that, in addition to the Executive Office and the Communities Department, the Justice Minister has a role.

Thank you very much. I acknowledge my colleague for intervening with that pertinent point. It is important to say that there is a critical justice component here, so I want to hear from the Justice Minister not just condemnation but clarity on when we will get the sentencing Bill with, apparently, actions on hate crime. That has to be the three-pronged action. Number one: what is happening on good relations and tackling paramilitarism and, by the way, a beefed-up racial strategy? Number two is in relation to housing. Clearly, there are people in those "stakeholder organisations" who are gatekeepers. We all know that those gatekeepers exist. The police engage with them; others engage with them. What action is being taken in relation to housing? Lastly, there is the justice intervention. All those things need to happen. There is more in the motion, but we are content to support the motion as it is, because this is one of the most pressing issues that our society faces right now.

976 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:16 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