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 5448943
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I initially drafted the Bill with transgender identity included, because I do not think that anybody in the Chamber would argue that, when it comes to being a victim of crime, somebody who is transgender should be any less well protected than a member of any other vulnerable group. Initially, that was agreed by three of the four parties in the Executive. Unfortunately, to date, we have not had agreement from the fourth party, which is why it is not included in the Bill as introduced. I have not given up yet, however. It was made clear that the door is still open for more engagement, and, with Executive approval, we may be able to table an amendment that would address what the Member asks. That would be the ideal circumstance for that to happen. I provide reassurance for those who may have some concerns in that regard that there are no implications for the Supreme Court judgement or for any of the other factors that we have heard debated today. When it comes to hate crime, it is simply about individuals who are being attacked because of hostility towards them.
198 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: 0.08 (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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.64).
- 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 | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.64 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.35 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.86 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:13 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.