Debate contribution: Integrated Status: High Court Decision

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .

MLA
Mr Paul Givan
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
21 October 2025
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Oral Answers to Questions
Heading
Integrated Status: High Court Decision
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5197554

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I have not yet received an apology, but I have no doubt that when those who commented earlier in the year have the opportunity to read the full judgement, they will be in touch. Professional courtesy demands no less. However, I assure those Members that I will accept any such apologies, and I will not then take every opportunity to point out their errors. If Members are unclear about who is required to apologise, they should feel free to speak with me, as I have compiled a comprehensive and extensive list.

91 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.20 (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 (1.00).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.04No
Cultural grievance politics0.05No
Dog-whistle messaging0.08No
Controversy escalation0.59No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.04No
Overall judgement0.20At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.96
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.02
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.01
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:33 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.

Challenge this classification