Debate contribution: Gillen Review: Implementation Update
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Gillen Review: Implementation Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5453228
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I can indeed, and I could talk about a number of the other issues, too. I plan to deliver independent legal representation for specific pre-trial applications; to publish media guidance to encourage a trauma-informed, victim-centric approach to reporting sexual crime; and to consider options for a Barnahus-informed facility. Unfortunately, rape and sexual assault myths are still widespread, and they can be a deterrent to people coming forward and disclosing. In the report on how we handle sexual offences, Sir John Gillen highlighted the fact that rape myths represent some of the greatest impediments to justice for all victims and survivors of domestic and sexual abuse but especially women and girls. We have been working alongside partners such as the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), Victim Support, Nexus, Women's Aid and academics who have expertise in the field. We have developed a series of graphics to challenge those misconceptions. The graphics will be issued through my Department's social media channels and will then be shared by our partners through their social media channels. Importantly, CCEA and the Department of Education have also agreed to support the campaign and make those resources available to teachers through the relationships and sexuality education (RSE) hub. Challenging rape myths is essential if we want to build a society where survivors are heard and supported free from shame and stigma. The social media campaign will shine a light on the facts, counter long-standing misconceptions and help to change our public narrative.
248 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: 0.03 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.67 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.33 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:05 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.