Debate contribution: Victims/Perpetrators: Court Support
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Victims/Perpetrators: Court Support
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5175541
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I certainly understand the hurt felt by victims' families and the sensitivity of the issue, which is why it is particularly disappointing that there has been so much politicking, particularly around the interview that I gave after the event. What I said has been thoroughly and deliberately misrepresented. To provide reassurance, I will put on record what I actually said about the difference between victims. I will read the part of it that was curiously edited out of what was shared on social media:
"It doesn’t change the moral authority around whether or not what somebody did was right or wrong. That’s unquestionable. If people were doing things that were wrong, they should be held to account for that, and we’re clear about that".
Hopefully, that provides the reassurance that Members and families are looking for. Nothing that we did in that debate, and nothing that we voted for or against, in any way changes our view that those who go out with the intent to cause harm should be held accountable for their actions, and that there is no moral equivalence between those who go out to cause harm and those who are harmed by their actions. I was simply pointing out a matter of fact: at different points in a person's life, they can be both a victim and a perpetrator. It is important that we provide trauma-informed support based on what will lead to reconciliation and recovery and will end the cycle of intergenerational trauma that blights this community.
252 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: 0.24 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.78).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.27 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.24 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.18 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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 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.