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 5483333
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member is likely aware that, after the issues that arose in Ballymena, we have invested over £500,000 through local councils to support resilience work right across Northern Ireland. We have also worked with partners, including the PSNI, the DOJ, local councils and others, to try to ensure that a range of actions come forward. We have the refugee integration strategy. A lot of work has been happening under that, including a number of key actions that are being driven forward in the collaborative groups. Of course this is incredibly important. It is about a combination of showing political leadership and saying very clearly that any aspect of hate, intolerance and prejudice is wrong, and investing in communities to support their resilience in order to resist that.
127 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: 0.06 (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 (0.60).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.76).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.60 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.24 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.76 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.92 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.08 |
| 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.