Debate contribution: Sectarian and Racist Intimidation
Debate contribution by Miss Deirdre Hargey on .
- MLA
- Miss Deirdre Hargey
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Sectarian and Racist Intimidation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111832
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Members who tabled this important motion. We have seen a stark increase in the number of racist and sectarian attacks on homes and families over the past year. The past year saw the highest number of racially motivated attacks since records on the issue began 21 years ago, so that puts it in context. Last week, North Belfast MLA Carál Ní Chuilín highlighted the ongoing campaign against Catholics and ethnic minorities who live in the lower Oldpark area. I saw attacks in my constituency last year and, indeed, this year, as well as in Ballymena over the summer. The normalisation of that behaviour and the rise of the far right should be an immediate concern for all of us in the Chamber. We know that loyalist paramilitaries have repeatedly been linked to involvement in attacks on ethnic minorities and have a long history of attacks on nationalist residents. The PSNI confirmed that the UDA is behind attempts to intimidate Catholics out of a shared housing site in the lower Oldpark area of north Belfast. A Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) report from May this year mapped out far right online activity and found that loyalist paramilitary elements are directly orchestrating racist violence and intimidation against migrants. It is also important to recognise the growth of misinformation and disinformation about asylum seekers. In August this year, the DUP MLA for South Belfast falsely claimed that Belfast has the second highest number of asylum seekers of any city in the UK. FactCheckNI fact-checked and debunked that claim. In fact, per capita, Belfast —.
Yes. Belfast houses the thirty-second highest number of asylum seekers in the UK. The point is important because, when you legitimise concerns, as it is called, they become war cries, and we see attacks on the streets. That serves only to inflame tensions. Indeed, when that statement was made, a house was attacked within a couple of days in that same area. The attacks are real, so I call on all elected Members to be accurate with the information that we put out, be it in a video or in the Chamber. We have a responsibility. When you look at last year's racist attacks, you see that almost half of those involved were themselves reported for domestic abuse, yet there is no focus on that or talk about it at all. In my constituency, racist graffiti — "Locals Only" — appeared on a new housing scheme. I, along with local residents and the community organisation, was out within half an hour of that graffiti being reported, and we painted over it. That is the proactive leadership that we need from politicians, community activists and other agencies. We also need to challenge the misinformation that leads to displays of hate. We need to focus people so that, if there are issues around housing — in my community, there are issues — rather than blaming them on somebody else and punching down, we organise those communities into housing campaigns for everybody. The Minister's housing supply strategy talks about safe, affordable housing for everyone. It does not define it as being for this or that section of the community: it is supposed to be for everyone. We see consistent efforts being made to attach the growing right-wing attention on immigration to the housing crisis that we face. While the Labour Party, the Tories and Reform in Britain compete to out do each other on hard-line tactics and rhetoric around immigration and human beings seeking shelter, our primary concern here needs to be for housing for all communities; theirs is a continuing programme of austerity, cutting public services and punching down on minority communities. Today, once again, presents us with an opportunity to call out sectarianism and racism in all its forms and to speak to those families in our communities who are not sleeping, are scared to cross the doorstep and are terrified in their homes because their homes have been attacked. There is no room for equivocation, no ifs and buts. Sectarianism and racism is not complicated: it is wrong.
684 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: 0.10 (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 (0.71).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.99).
- 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 | 0.44 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.94 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.06 |
| 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 13:16 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.