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 5348600
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Anybody who is subjected to a hate crime deserves to be protected, but, further than that, there has to be recognition that there are secondary and tertiary victims of any crime. That is particularly acute in marginalised communities, where people may feel that the justice system is not responsive, or they may feel more vulnerable as a result of such attacks, and that is the purpose of hate crime legislation. It is not to create a hierarchy or a tiered system of victims, because we recognise that a broken nose is a broken nose and a broken arm is a broken arm, but if you have been targeted because of who you are inherently, it has a different impact on someone's psychology and on other people who identify with that person. I believe that all of us in the Chamber wish to see an end to such violent activity. Therefore, I see no reason why we would not include transgender individuals in the hate crime Bill, given the evidence from the PSNI about the rise in hate incidents targeting specifically those who are transgender — and also, I have to say, a significant rise on the basis of race.
199 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: 0.06 (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 (0.91).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.66).
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.34 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.66 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.73 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.24 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 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.