Debate contribution: Sectarian Hate Crimes
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
- Sectarian Hate Crimes
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5175560
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Like many other crimes that are committed by cowards under cover of darkness to intimidate and threaten, it can be very difficult to identify the individual perpetrators or actors in those situations. I encourage people to continue to report, because patterns of reporting can, in themselves, help the PSNI when it decides where to deploy resources, where needs more attention in order to protect the public and what may be able to be done. It is important that people report crime, because without those reports we are unable to measure what is happening. I understand the Member's concerns, given the rate of hate crime in his city, and particularly around the increase in sectarian hate crime. It is not acceptable. It is completely unacceptable in today's society that people still find themselves intimidated because of who they are or how they are perceived by others. Unless we are all consistent in that message and unwavering in our condemnation, there is no point in us telling victims to have any kind of confidence in the system that, ultimately, we are the face of.
182 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: 0.07 (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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.57 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.08 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 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 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.