Debate contribution: Extremism: Sentencing and Interventions
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
- Extremism: Sentencing and Interventions
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5175604
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Online Safety Act is but one of the tools available, and, obviously, my Department has made representations to the Home Office, which leads on communications and telecommunications because it is a reserved matter. We continue to feed in our concerns in that space. Through the tackling paramilitarism programme, we are about to trial some desistance programmes for people who have already been radicalised into either paramilitary or organised crime but, we believe, are still reachable and teachable in that space, to get alongside them in order to start to change their attitudes and to offer them an alternative route forward at the very earliest stage of conflict with the justice system. That is one of the things that we can do. We also look at what is available in other places. There is a suite of interventions that are available when young people become radicalised. Where it differs from the traditional radicalisation that we have seen in our community over many years is that those individuals tend to be lone actors and radicalised in their own home. Therefore, it is only when their behaviours reach a certain level of danger that we become alert to their involvement or, alternatively, when they have undertaken an offence, which makes it slightly more complicated to address. One of the things that we need is for not just my Department but Education, Health and others to look at it as part of our wider safeguarding approach. The other thing to say is that many of the people who are being radicalised are very young.
261 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: 0.05 (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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.88 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| 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.