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 5175564
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The PSNI's assessment is that, whilst there are individuals who are connected to existing paramilitary organisations and are engaged and active in a number of those protests, there is less evidence to substantiate any claim that those organisations are orchestrating or organising those protests. In addition to the more traditional actors in that space, groups of people are being radicalised online by far right organisations and networks. They are often lone actors, who do not have a network of support or a traditional base in Northern Ireland, but they are being activated online and are finding their community there and acting in that sense. There are two separate dynamics happening, particularly with the far right threat. It is far more likely that somebody will be radicalised individually, in the privacy of their own home, than in a more public way. Undoubtedly, however, both will take to the streets, and both will use muscle to intimidate people who are vulnerable in the community or those who dare to have the audacity to speak up on their behalf.
176 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: 0.10 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.65).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.51).
- 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 | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.65 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.51 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.12 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.36 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.96 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.