Debate contribution: Hate Crime
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Hate Crime
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5483316
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am not aware of the removal of specific funding. The Member will be aware that, due to the situation with the Budget, each Department is liaising with the organisations that they have funded to try to ensure that there is some certainty, while discussion of the overall issue continues. It is, of course, important that we support our third-sector partners. They are critical to us in trying to tackle such issues. We work with statutory bodies as well. We work with the PSNI and very closely with the Department of Justice. That is important. At a time of budgetary constraints, however, it is more important than ever to work with existing programmes to mainstream some of their core values, tackling some of the attitudes and issues that give rise to hate and prejudice. That includes those in the Department of Education and the Department for Communities. We support so many projects with funding, including through councils, through which we could mainstream that and use the money that we have in a way that maximises outcomes.
176 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.75).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.75 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.25 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:17 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.