Topical question AQT 2044/22-27

Topical question by Mr Jon Burrows on 16 February 2026.

MLA: Mr Jon Burrows
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 16 February 2026
Type: Topical question
Assembly reference: AQT 2044/22-27
Business: Oral Answers to Questions
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5391384

Text

Mr Burrows asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after stating that First Minister's decision not to attend the White House on St Patrick's Day on humanitarian grounds is somewhat at odds with her party's conduct when it comes to visiting China, why it is OK to shake the hand of Beijing but not visit the White House.

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

Follow-ups by the same MLA in the Chamber

These were assessed together with this record:

16 February 2026 – That is really a non-answer, because you are still prepared to have the Economy Minister go to China, a regime that…

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: 0.35 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
Criteria met: Controversy escalation (0.71).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.64).
Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.19	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.06	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.09	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.27	No
Controversy escalation	0.71	Yes
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.16	No
Overall judgement	0.35	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.64
Reports or questions it	0.06
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.30

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)	0.53
No identity-related subject	0.35
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.03
Another identity-related subject	0.03
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.02

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:53 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