Debate contribution: Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5448462
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I think that the Member is conflating two slightly different issues. One is about gender or sex, as in male or female, and it was about the number of misogyny hate crimes that were picked up. The other is to do with transgender hate crimes, which, as we know, have increased.
The letter that I sent to colleagues in the Executive set out my reasons for wishing to include transgender as one of the protected characteristics. We have seen a massive increase in violence and hate crimes against those who are transgender. The issue is how much of the crime that we see happening on our streets could genuinely be said to be driven by misogyny. That is a bigger challenge, but it is something that will form part of the phase 2 consultation. In Scotland, the Government took the option of bringing forward a separate misogyny Bill because they did not believe that it fitted in the hate crime model.
161 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: 0.11 (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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.62).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.62 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.17 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.19 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.59 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.38 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:08 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.