Member's statement: Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats
Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 2 December 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5271690
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will speak on the same subject as Mr McMurray. No doubt, other local reps in the Chamber will wish to mention it. Last evening, a video emerged to which I am almost loath to give the oxygen of publicity. It was clearly, in part, a disgraceful attempt to garner publicity for a group of masked men who were wearing balaclavas and holding what appeared to be weapons, although we do not know whether they were real. Thankfully, the PSNI has moved quickly to investigate. Those individuals sought to verbally intimidate and issue threats to elected members of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, which stretches from Saintfield at the outskirts of my constituency all the way to Crossmaglen at the border. A number of months ago, a vote took place endowing the council with the status of council of sanctuary. That status is not in any way what lots of online misinformation has suggested that it is. Lots of that misinformation has been grotesque and deliberate, and online actors have used it to stir up hatred. Social media companies have allowed that to fester and ferment, and that has culminated in masked men regurgitating last night the tropes that so many of us thought that we on this island had moved on from. Masked men with guns issuing threats to elected representatives is grotesque, contemptible and unacceptable. I do not wish to overestimate what this means, nor, however, do I wish to minimise it. Individuals have been elected to that council, many of whom are friends and colleagues of mine for whom I have the utmost respect. I have the utmost respect for representatives of all the parties that are represented in the Chamber who are on that council and who serve as elected representatives more broadly. They get up in the morning — often they have their own family responsibilities and things going on in their lives — and they do their best, whatever their political perspective, to represent their district and constituency. Those representatives put themselves forward; we all put ourselves forward. We put our faces on election posters and our names on a ballot paper. We put our email addresses and other contact details out there so that the people who elect us can contact us with their views and we can articulate those views. That is the precise opposite of the cowardice that is represented by people putting out a video threatening elected representatives. That is grotesquely anti-democratic. I stand in solidarity with colleagues not just in my party but in every party. I also say to all Members in the Chamber that we need to stand united as democrats against this kind of wicked and grotesque intimidation, which is being fomented online by parts of the far right. We do not know which international actors are helping to spread it. There is, apparently, no accountability for social media companies, but we cannot allow this incident to chill democracy. In Newry, Mourne and Down, as well as everywhere else, the people who are elected —
— will do their jobs without intimidation.
517 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).
- 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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.15 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.04 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Adopts it | 0.04 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.56 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.20 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.13 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:06 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.