Debate contribution: 10 November 2025
Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on .
- MLA
- Miss Michelle McIlveen
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- 10 November 2025
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5349092
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During yesterday's debate on an independent environment agency, when I was explaining the risks of independent bodies having complete control over enforcement policy, I used the example of the Equality Commission pursuing Ashers bakery in a case that ultimately cost the public purse over £250,000, which could have been more if Ashers had pursued the Equality Commission for costs. That example was completely relevant to the risks of establishing an unelected quango with independent enforcement powers. However, Mr Tennyson interrupted to make a spurious point of order and accused me of engaging in a "homophobic dog whistle". That is a grossly defamatory comment. It was clear from my contribution that that was not the case, and to interrupt in that way and make such an offensive and scurrilous accusation was wholly inappropriate. I ask that Mr Tennyson withdraw his disgraceful and inappropriate comments and offer a full apology for the accusation. I am happy to leave that with you, Mr Speaker, for a ruling. Thank you.
173 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: 0.36 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Controversy escalation (0.63).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.68).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.17 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.15 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.63 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.14 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.36 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.26 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.68 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:37 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.