Debate contribution: Naomi Long: Intimidation at her Home
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Matters of the Day
- Heading
- Naomi Long: Intimidation at her Home
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5175313
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Let me be clear: there is no place in our society, or in any democratic society, for threats, intimidation or harassment, especially against those who stand up and step forward to serve the public, and there never was. We may sit on different Benches and stand for different things, and we may disagree, often passionately, on direction, policy and approach, but there is and must always be one fundamental truth: violence and threats are not tools of political expression. They are tools of fear, division and destruction. Minister Long has shown strength, courage and dedication in her role. The recent intimidation of her at her family home and the recent intimidation of Minister Kimmins and her colleagues at their office are attacks not just on those people as individuals or on their political parties but on democracy itself. We in the SDLP have always stood against violence and threats, and we stand firmly with our colleagues from different parties and their families. I call on everyone here and on every leader in our communities to stand united not only in condemnation but in action.
We must challenge the culture that allows and, sometimes, even encourages such behaviour to fester. We must ensure that voices of peace always shout louder than those of hatred. The Assembly must be a place of civil discourse even when our differences are huge. We owe that to one another, but, more importantly, we owe it to the people whom we represent.
246 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: 0.04 (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 (0.62).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.10 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.38 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.62 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.70 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.26 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:27 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.