Debate contribution: Hate Crime: Proposed Legislation
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Hate Crime: Proposed Legislation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5348596
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I originally got permission from the Executive to include the standard protected groups in Northern Ireland, meaning those to do with religion, sexual orientation, disability and race; those are already included. In response to evidence presented by Judge Marrinan and further evidence that has arisen over the past number of years from PSNI statistics around hate crime incidents, I wrote to Executive colleagues recently requesting permission, not to change the Bill and its intent or how those aggravators would be applied, but to add transgender as a further protected characteristic. I am still awaiting a formal response from the Executive, but I have had responses from three of the parties in the Executive, which have been positive. I have had no response or, indeed, queries from the remaining party, and, on that basis, the legislation is now being drafted with transgender included as one of the characteristics. However, that clause will obviously come before the Executive for consideration in due course, and we will see if there is any further objection at that time.
174 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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.88).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.11 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.67 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.30 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:15 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.