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 5483324
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Absolutely. It is important that we call out that hate, prejudice and criminal behaviour wherever we see it. I was in the Chamber for Members' statements and listened to my colleague Deborah Erskine talk about the attack on a Sunday school hall in her constituency and about the importance of people calling that out. That is hate. Things that may not seem really big to others are incredibly important to those who use the hall. It is incredibly upsetting when people see that type of attack, which has been motivated by hate.
My colleague rightly pointed out that, in those circumstances, we need to hear all MLAs across all parties calling that out very loudly. It is about calling out not just those incidents that grab the headlines but all forms of hate, wherever we see it. We should stand united against them all.
144 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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.82).
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.09 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.15 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.18 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.82 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.54 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.46 |
| 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 15:17 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.