Debate contribution: Jewish Community: Protection
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 6 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Jewish Community: Protection
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5156767
Read the official Assembly record
Text
So many issues come into play in that. We often talk about being responsible in what we say and how we say it. That is said an awful lot, yet we see so many examples, particularly in relation to the Jewish community across the UK, not just of carelessness but of deliberate attempts to intimidate and create hostility towards people. Of course, that community should be valued and protected in the UK. The emergence of social media has been toxic. We see antisemitic and other abuse on social media: not just a handful or hundreds of messages but thousands and thousands of messages daily, spewing hate, intolerance and bigotry. Everybody has a responsibility, and I would like to think that we could stand in solidarity across the House to condemn clearly antisemitism, wherever it occurs.
135 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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.99).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.53 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.14 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.19 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.01 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 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 01:21 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.