Debate contribution: Protecting Victims of Coercive Control

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .

MLA
Mr Paul Frew
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
5 May 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Protecting Victims of Coercive Control
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5525200

Read the official Assembly record

Text

You mentioned child aggravators: that is really important in this setting and this legislation. When the perpetrator runs out of tools to control the person, the obvious place for them to look to is the bedroom where the child is playing a computer game. The child does not even know that they are being threatened, and the victim will do what the perpetrator wants them to do because they know that they will take it out on the child.

79 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.04 (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 (0.85).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.85Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.50
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.34
No identity-related subject0.16
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:38 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.

Challenge this classification