Member's statement: Innocent Victim: Definition
Member's statement by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- MLA
- Mr Jonathan Buckley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 September 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Innocent Victim: Definition
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5138802
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I begin by placing on record my deepest sympathy to the family of Ian Milne, who passed away suddenly just yesterday. Ian was a big character who often went above and beyond. He was known across the Chamber, and he will certainly be missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with his sons Andrew and Stuart. Last week, the House stooped to a new low. The Alliance Party helped and voted to remove the word "innocent" from a DUP motion rejecting amnesty for terrorists. We all know that Sinn Féin and Alliance are like Siamese twins when it comes to voting in this Building. However, to side with convicted bomber Kelly's definition of a victim really is a new low, and for Naomi Long, the Justice Minister, to have doubled down on that definition on the radio really does beggar belief. Does the Alliance Party really believe that a paramilitary bomber, regardless of their creed, is in some way to be equated with an innocent victim of terrorism across Northern Ireland? If we follow its logic to its natural conclusion, we find that it really is a sad indictment of how far that party has travelled. No longer is it the party of the middle road but a party that is prepared to put the victim maker on an equal footing with the innocent victim. Banbridge is a major town in my constituency. In 1982, the Provisional IRA detonated a no-warning car bomb there. It killed 11-year-old Alan McCrum. Are we in some way to believe that the man or woman who planted the bomb is equal to young Alan McCrum? Are the 10 victims of Kingsmills, Protestant men who were lined up on a road in south Armagh and killed because of their religion, in some way to be equated with the very men who shot them? What about 22-year-old Mary Travers, who was murdered by the Provisional IRA as she left Mass with her family? Are we in some way to believe that the Alliance Party, in supporting Gerry Kelly's amendment —
— believes that that is in some way on an equal footing?
Shame.
356 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Not flagged on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.77 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.73); Controversy escalation (0.66).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.42).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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.
Second assessment
Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works
- Verdict
- Not flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mixed
Against the published rubric
The statement concerns the definition of a victim of the Troubles, a recognised legacy flashpoint, and is sharply partisan, with lines such as "Siamese twins", "convicted bomber Kelly" and "Shame". However, it does not frame the issue as one community against another. It explicitly says "regardless of their creed" and cites victims from both communities, including the Kingsmills victims and Mary Travers. Its attack is on a party's vote and stated position, not an accusation of sectarianism or of hostility towards a community, which the rubric treats as legitimate criticism of a party's decisions.
Public interest or divisiveness
The text argues a substantive position on a live policy question: whether those harmed while carrying out attacks should share a definition with people killed or injured by them. It grounds that argument in specific constituency and wider cases. Its heavy point-scoring against opponents and its contemptuous tone do keep a bitter Troubles argument going. Both elements are substantial, but the core is a policy disagreement rather than hostility towards a group.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.73 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.16 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.21 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.56 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.66 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.23 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.77 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.24 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.33 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.42 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.77 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.13 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.10 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:17 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.