Naomi Long
East Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate.”
“There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victi…”
“It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.”
“The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way.”
“Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,548 lines we hold for Naomi Long, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 151.
“I fundamentally disagree with him, but the idea that he would be taken to court for his beliefs was such an outrage in the Republic that the offence was removed from the statute book, because people recognised that to prosecute somebody for expressing a view that they were asked to express was a ridiculous situation to be in. There is no protection in saying that people will not be prevented from speaking their mind because that law is never used. It could be used, and, for that reason, I believe that it should be repealed. <BR /> <BR />I also ask Members to consider the reasons that they gave as to why one religion in this country should have more protection than all the others.”
“I will not at the moment, because I am about to say something else. <BR /> <BR />On the idea of simply saying that this is a remote chance, let us not forget how Ireland ended up repealing its blasphemy laws. They were also thought to be inoperable and unworkable, until Stephen Fry was on 'The Meaning of Life' programme on RTÉ. To summarise, when he was asked what he would say to God if he were to meet him, he said that he thought that it was a very vindictive and nasty God who would create people and allow them to suffer. I believe that he is entitled to have and express that opinion.”
“Some people will stand up and say, "I might not agree with what you say, but I would die to defend your right to say it", but they do not say that if it is blasphemous or if they do not like it in a religious setting or because someone is making a joke about their faith. How does one put those limits around what people can and cannot say? I am offended by much of what I hear, not least in the Chamber, but I do not have a right not to be offended. I do not have a right to stop other people from having their views, nor would I wish to have one.”
“What you think in your head is entirely for you, but how you express it and how you act is a matter that impinges on other people's rights, and it is right that there should be boundaries to protect people. <BR /> <BR />To be clear, the nonsense that I have heard this evening that Alliance is anti-faith or that we are seeking to do this because we do not believe in the Christian faith or because we disparage it is an absolute and outright lie. It is a lie, and I find it profoundly offensive that anyone would make that case in the Chamber against me. I believe that people have a right to freedom of expression and religion, and that means not just the religion or set of beliefs that I choose but all the other beliefs that people may choose, because that is real freedom. That should be recognised.”
“I believe in a free and open society. In a democracy, people should have the right to have and express a faith, to change their religion if they so choose and to live a life free of interference from religion if they choose, because it is not only about belief and faith but about conscience. People have the right to believe whatever they wish. That is an unfettered and undisputed right. That is clear from reading article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of belief, thought, conscience and religion. Equally, article 9 of the ECHR guarantees those same rights. The right to belief is unfettered. The right to express belief and how to do so is in no way unfettered, because that right intersects with the rights of others, as do all our rights.”
“<BR /> <BR />Unlike others, I am not a hypocrite. I do not seek the protection of my faith, nor, frankly, do I need my faith protected. If you believe in an all-powerful God, I can assure you that He does not need the Assembly's backing to do His will. However, if you believe in blasphemy laws, you are, by default, saying that you are content for people in other places, who have different faiths from us, to also have blasphemy laws that act against those who share our faith, or who persecute those who have no faith. I think that that is morally repugnant. If I am going to say that about laws in other places, as I did to the ambassador from Algeria at the time, I am going to say it about our laws. I am going to be consistent.”
“That is exactly it: they are not used. They are unlikely to be used, and it is to our detriment that they remain on our statute book. <BR /> <BR />I know that there were some rather disparaging comments made about me in that regard, and about my thinking that I was more important than I really was. Just to be absolutely clear, as the Parliamentary Champion for Open Doors, I sat in an office in the House of Commons opposite a number of ambassadors from countries that have blasphemy laws in place. They came to meet me when I raised those issues in Parliament, as I did consistently and persistently during my time there. They came to meet me and asked, "How can you chastise us? You have blasphemy laws in Northern Ireland. Are you going to repeal them?", and I said, "Yes, I will, at the first opportunity that I have".”
“For me, the issue is not about attacks on Christianity, as some would wish to make it. There are some who cannot see any issue through any other lens than one that shows it as an attack. There are some who cannot see the wider implications of what we are trying to achieve and the importance of it. The truth is that the laws are rarely, if ever, used, so removing them from the statute book or retaining them on the statute book is not an attack on Christianity or a protection for Christianity: it is, simply, lazy politics.”
“The only shame that should be felt about the homelessness crisis in our city is by those of us who are in a home — by those of us who are in this House, directing government, in that we have not been able to solve that crisis. There is no shame on those who find themselves in such desperate circumstances, and holding them accountable under the law is not the way to deal with that. <BR /> <BR />On the blasphemy offences, I am afraid that there was much heat and very little light coming from some quarters. However, I say this as a Christian who has availed herself of the right of free speech; who avails herself of the right to practise my faith; avails herself of the right to read my Bible, both alone and with others; and avails herself of the right to pray, both alone and with others.”
“From our perspective, the DUP amendments, on this occasion, do no harm to our overall intent, which is to decriminalise poverty, and do no damage to that objective but perhaps provide the additional reassurance that is required so that people are happy to move in that direction. <BR /> <BR />The PSNI has indicated that it will produce operational and policy guidance to officers when that law is repealed to guide them on how they should engage with people when they receive concerns around begging or rough sleeping and on how officers will be able to direct those people to the appropriate services. That is an important reassurance for those of us who want to ensure that there is no shame or stigma to being homeless.”
“The strong links between support organisations and the police across Northern Ireland will still be there, but the activity will change somewhat, in that, potentially, people will not be threatened with arrest if they do not move on. However, if they are being a nuisance, causing threat or intimidation or alarm, they can be charged with offences, just as anyone else would. It is important to recognise that, from our perspective, we want to deal with that in a proportionate manner. The PSNI has supported that. <BR /> <BR />I also believe that, whilst I personally do not identify, and the Department has not identified, any gaps that will be created, there is an opportunity to assuage some of the concerns that some Members have that that would leave some kind of gap in the law.”
“On the repeal of rough sleeping and begging offences, community police will continue to engage with vulnerable people and, in line with the PSNI's Right Care, Right Person approach, ensure that the appropriate agencies become involved. That is a vital bridge between those who are most in need and the services that there are for them. I do not want to remove that bridge where the PSNI works in partnership with Health and Social Care partners. That aims to ensure that individuals are directed to the most appropriate agency for support and that we do not create the stigma of criminality for someone who happens to be rough sleeping or homeless.”
“If they commit a crime, intimidate, threaten, alarm or cause harm to an individual, they should be dealt with in exactly the same way as somebody who is housed or someone who is earning. I consider that to be a comprehensive cross-departmental and multi-agency response by statutory and voluntary and community sector partners that addresses the underlying issues around rough sleeping and begging is a far more effective and proportionate response than the criminalisation of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. <BR /> <BR />During the debate, the question of whether repeal would limit the ability of the police to engage with those who are in need of support or guidance was raised. I want to make it clear that that is not the case.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to raise the issue of how this will be implemented. A number of Members wanted to be assured that it would be implemented sensitively and proportionately. There will be robust training and guidance for operational partners to ensure that it is done sensitively, with a view to those concerns, and to ensure that we bring before the law those who are guilty and not those who are simply vulnerable or amenable. <BR /> <BR />On vagrancy, I very much welcome the broadly supportive approach that we have had around the House. The proposals in the public consultation were also broadly supported. I believe that there are sufficient defences available to deal with associated behaviours that cross the criminal threshold. Those who beg or are rough sleepers should not be dealt with differently from anyone else.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to provide reassurance to the public and send a strong message that law enforcement has all the tools that it needs to ensure that no one in our society who engages in organised crime will be untouchable. As I said earlier, I reassure Members that this is not about trying to criminalise people who are vulnerable, coerced, threatened or intimidated into engaging in crime. We know that young people are often coerced into committing crime in order, for example, to pay off a drug debt or to right some other perceived wrong of the organised crime gang. They will be looked at, and the defence of coercion will still be there for them. We know, for example, that there are vulnerable adults whose houses are cuckooed. Again, if they are allowing their property to be used in that way, coercion is a reasonable defence.”
“Those tend to be the people who end up in front of the court while the kingpin sits at home with his feet up and simply benefits from the profits of the crime. It is those kingpins who I want to see brought before the courts and made amenable to the law. <BR /> <BR />If we are going to stand up against organised crime in our society, it is important that we do so in a coherent way. The Member who just spoke mentioned the organised crime task force and the work that it does. I see real opportunities for the Bill to allow the organised crime task force to do more of the good work that it has been doing. Co-location with the paramilitary crime task force means that there is the opportunity for a two-way conversation to happen within the structures of the PSNI. All of that will allow us to tackle organised crime more effectively.”
“It is important that we continue to do that, because these are important matters. Whilst we may go about our business slightly differently, there are more points in this that we agree on than we disagree on. It is important to recognise that. <BR /> <BR />I want to look at each of the sets of amendments very briefly. Many Members raised the issue of organised crime and how we want to tackle that. It is important that we deal not only with participation activities, which are the most common activities that people are caught for, where they are engaged, often, in rather low-level offending, but more serious offending that they are doing on behalf of an organisation. They may be doing it willingly or because there is personal benefit, or they may be doing it to pay off a debt to somebody who is coercing them.”
“First of all, I want to say that, by and large, it has been a constructive debate. It is clear that people can be passionate and, in the main, exchange their views with courtesy.”
“To clarify, PSNI deals with both. The Assembly deals only with paramilitaries because terrorism is a reserved matter. There is a terrorism investigation unit in the PSNI that deals with both groups. You are right: it will capture all the organisations that engage in organised crime, and it is entirely appropriate that we have that.”
“Indeed, if they have been exploited criminally, that may provide them with the opportunity to be referred to the national referral mechanism if it cuts across modern slavery. I want to reassure the Member that there is nothing in this that is about trying to put more vulnerable people in front of the courts. It is about trying to get to the kingpins of criminal organisations.”
“Two offences are being created because I share, to a degree, the Member's concern. One is participating in organised crime, and, crucially, the other is directing it. I think that many people are concerned that those who participate, particularly at the margins, may be the ones who normally face court and sanction while those who sit at the centre, directing it and benefiting most from it, often have the ability to evade that because they are not hands-on in committing the crime. This legislation gives us the opportunity to catch those individuals for directing the organised crime, but, crucially, it does not cut across the defence of coercion. Therefore, if somebody has been genuinely forced to undertake criminal activity, either as a result of intimidation or threat, or some other form of coercion, that is a legitimate defence.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Speaker has already ruled on and written to Members about the interaction between my Department, including me, and the PSNI, and for what I am accountable and for what I am not accountable. The Member to my rear is now challenging the authority of the Speaker in the House. I ask you to consider his remarks and ask the Speaker to rule on them. It is clear that I do not give an account of the PSNI, and nor do I interfere in its operational decision-making.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to refer to me as a "part-time" Justice Minister? I have been in the Chamber more often than the Member has over the past number of weeks, and I have never resiled from doing my job fulsomely. Will the Member retract that scurrilous accusation?”
“The repeal of blasphemy laws in these islands gives us the power to call for the repeal of blasphemy laws elsewhere because they negatively affect the very people about whom he claims to be concerned: Christians.”
“I have set out a few times the harm that it is doing, but I am happy to do so again: it makes hypocrites of those of us who argue for freedom for Christians in other countries and ask them to repeal their blasphemy laws. The blasphemy laws of other countries are often draconian and enforced with a heavy hand, and can lead to Christians being held on a register, imprisoned and, in some countries, stoned. In some instances, the Churches have to list their premises on a government list and be inspected, and people cannot carry a Bible home for private reading, or cannot pray together in their own home. Does the Member accept that that is a harm that is worth standing up against?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just set out very clearly my position, but it seems that the Member behind me is intent on misrepresenting it, despite the fact that I could not have been clearer about what I said. Is it in order for a Member to go out of their way to deliberately misrepresent another Member's contribution in the way that he just has?”
“The Member may not be familiar with article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHR) or article 9 of the ECHR, which make it quite clear that freedom of religion and belief and freedom of conscience are intertwined. Therefore, your freedom of belief and my freedom of belief, in terms of our religious faith, come with the attachment of other people's right to live a life free from religious interference. That is what freedom is about. I am surprised that someone who lectures others on freedom of speech does not know that.”
“Just to be clear, I still do not believe that they are necessary, but I also do not believe that they are harmful. If they provide the reassurance needed to get the vagrancy law repealed, they are worth accepting on that basis.”
“On the basis that it is OK for us to do it because Christianity is important here, do you accept that it is OK for those countries to do that because Islam is important there, or do you agree with me that people should be free, without fear of prosecution, to hold, change, practise, observe and speak about their religion, and to disagree with any religion, irrespective of what religion it is?”
“Hopefully, this intervention will allow us to move things on. Let us take a country that is not Northern Ireland and where, for example, the Islamic tradition has been the foundation. Do you agree with countries that persecute people who want to convert to Christianity under blasphemy laws; that prevent people taking a bible home; that do not allow people to meet privately for prayer in their home; where people have to register their church on a list; and where prosecution for such blasphemy against Islam can result in death?”
“When I chaired the Westminster all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on international freedom of religion or belief, it was called "an orphaned right": it was said that the left did not like it because it involved religion, and the right did not like it because it gave people freedom to dissent. That has been exposed clearly here this afternoon.”
“I share the Member's respect for faith traditions. As a Christian, I believe that it is right and proper that we should be able to discuss and practise our faith openly in the public domain and that it should not have to be hidden away. I disagree with the Member, however, in that I believe that people also have a right, under freedom of conscience and belief, to not have a faith and to live their lives free of faith. We should not use blasphemy law or the threat of blasphemy law to impose our faith and beliefs on other people or to circumscribe what opinions people are allowed to hold and express. The Member's party has, I think, championed free speech to date, but it seems that that free speech is allowed only if the DUP agrees with what is being said. That is a real challenge in this society.”
“We are working to address that, because I want to ensure that the young people and vulnerable adults who have been made available for criminal exploitation in their community and been coerced into criminal activity do not get lost but get the supports that they are entitled to as victims of modern slavery and trafficking.”
“Again, I thank the Member for giving way; she has been very generous. I have raised the matter with the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. I have also raised it with the modern slavery commissioner, who is independent. It is concerning that, very often, what people see is not what they think of as slavery. People's perceptions can warp their view on whether it is an offence. Similarly, with trafficking, people assume that it means that people are being moved across boundaries or across the country. In fact, trafficking simply means to make somebody available for exploitation. Sometimes, language can be a barrier to people seeing the crime for what it is.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I want to offer assurance to the Member and other members of the Committee that the amendment will not cut across our work to protect children or vulnerable adults who have been coerced into committing a crime; nor will it limit the ability to refer those who have been coerced to the national referral mechanism (NRM) and provide them with the necessary supports. We would not want to be a position in which we could not do that, and it will be for the police to judge whether somebody was a willing participant in whatever organised crime activity has happened or whether they were placed under pressure to do so. We do not want to stand in the way of people getting the support that they need if they have been coerced.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I disagree with the previous intervention: we are not comparing apples and pears. The fact that blasphemy laws are on the books here is held up as an example by other countries whose blasphemy laws are more draconian and are regularly used to persecute those who dissent by having either no faith or a different faith from that of the state. I had personal experience of that when I was campaigning as part of the Open Doors network at Westminster. Ambassadors who came to meet me pointed out the hypocrisy of Northern Ireland's having blasphemy laws on the books while I was out there arguing against blasphemy laws in their nation.”
“I thank the Member for that assurance. On that basis, I am happy to support both amendments. Particularly, those that bring the civil orders into line and explicitly mention the impact of not only companion animals but other domesticated and farm animals is a really important piece of work. I am happy to work closely with the Member before Further Consideration Stage so that that anomaly can be resolved because I do not think that any of us wants abuse involving an animal to be treated as though it is more important or more concerning than any other kind of abuse. At the same time, we will want it to be recognised on an equal footing with other kinds of coercive control. I am more than happy to work on that. Thank you.”
“It is important that they have the confidence to come forward and seek the support that is available. All of us, irrespective of whether people are engaged in prostitution or otherwise, want to ensure that they are not coerced to do so and that they are safe as possible.”
“I appreciate the point that my colleague has raised, and I wanted to shine a bit more light on the support that is available. DOJ has a support contract with Belfast and Lisburn Women's Aid (BLWA) for female adult victims who consent to entering the national referral mechanism (NRM). The Department of Health has lead responsibility for policy and support for exiting prostitution, which is separate from the modern slavery work that we have done. There are a number of routes whereby people can exit prostitution voluntarily and there are places that they can go to for support and for opportunities to get that support. Kate is, of course, entirely correct in that we are often dealing with people who are marginalised and fearful that contact with statutory agencies may lead to their being further criminalised and excluded.”
“Sometimes, when people hear about others being trafficked, they think that it involves moving them long distances. It is not; it is about being made available for exploitation. Sadly, that happens in our communities and on our streets daily.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned the case of Caitlin Hanna, in which, I think, a total of 11 women were being trafficked and made available for prostitution and abuse by a gang of men here. Sadly, two of them died. One of the survivors, Rebecca, spoke very powerfully at recent events. When you hear the level of degradation, the harm that has been caused to those women mentally, physically and psychologically, and the damage that has been done, it is remarkable, frankly, that any of those women have been able, first of all, to get out of the situation that they were in and, secondly, to find the courage to speak out about it. I just want to put on record that I believe that she has done a real service to other women by speaking out about her experience.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is just to say that the PSNI has also indicated that, when the amendments pass and the repeal happens, it will go on to provide guidance to officers on the application of the law and give them assistance when it comes to how it will be implemented in practice to avoid situations such as those described by Homeless Connect.”
“However, again, if the Members who brought the amendment will undertake to review the provisions and amend them at the Further Consideration Stage to remove the changes to section 2 of the 2021 Act, I would be content to give it my support today. <BR /> <BR />That is all that I wish to say about the amendments in the group, and I look forward to hearing from those who have tabled complementary or competing amendments in those policy areas. I look forward to a healthy debate on those matters.”
“There is a benefit in ensuring that those various protective regimes can operate consistently with one another, and I am supportive, in principle, of that aspect of amendment No 89. <BR /> <BR />Given that it is important to have consistency, we need to look at how we handle amendment No 89. The first part of the amendment is not helpful, but the second part is very valuable. Whilst I support the intention behind amendment No 89, and of the proposed amendment to section 27 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, I am concerned about the unintended consequences of the amendment to section 2 of the Act.”
“<BR /> <BR />That aspect of amendment No 89 would allow regulations made under section 27 of the 2021 Act to provide powers for the court to include such requirements for pets as it considers relevant in a DAPO. I believe that that could help to prevent the use of harm or the threat of harm to pets to perpetuate abuse and/or coercive control over a victim. In addition, subject to amendment No 88 receiving the support of the Assembly, the provision will allow the regulations for DAPNs and DAPOs under section 27 to be framed in such a way that there would be a consistent and aligned approach with non-molestation orders and occupation orders made under the 1998 Order.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second part of amendment No 89 would amend section 27 of the 2021 Act, which provides an enabling power for my Department to make regulations to give effect to protective measures for victims of domestic abuse, now commonly referred to as domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs). Members will be aware that DAPNs and DAPOs have not yet been introduced in Northern Ireland, and my Department continues to work with partners to develop a model that will be appropriate and effective in this jurisdiction, having first been informed by early lessons learned from pilots in England and Wales. I hope to introduce regulations and to launch a pilot DAPN and DAPO scheme for Northern Ireland towards the end of the financial year.”
“As such, I am satisfied that the existing framework already permits the courts to take account of behaviour involving animals where it is relevant. I have also not seen any evidence that the current legislation fails to address the issue in practice. Whilst I acknowledge Members' intent that explicitly referring to animals could provide additional clarity, there is a risk that rather than filling an identified gap in the law, the effect of that aspect of amendment No 89 would be to inadvertently place more focus and emphasis on one type of abuse than on others, which would not be helpful, and I do not believe that that is the Members' intent.”
“However, as our law is framed differently, with a more expansive approach that can include animal abuse, it would seem slightly contrary to have only animal abuse listed and specified as a form of abuse. <BR /> <BR />Neither harm nor the threats of harm to pets are explicitly listed in section 2 of the Act. We sought to make it absolutely clear in the explanatory notes, which provide insight into the policy intent, that the provisions extend to behaviour concerning animals, and we provided some specific examples of behaviours towards animals that could constitute abuse under the Act. The broader approach to defining abusive behaviour was previously accepted and supported by the Assembly when the Act was first passed.”
“I have heard numerous stories from victims with direct experience of that kind of abuse, who have written to me and met me. However, for that reason, I was determined to adopt the broadest possible definition of domestic abuse in section 2 of the 2021 Act. Section 2 of the Act does not provide an exhaustive list of behaviours, but rather was intentionally framed in broad and flexible terms to empower the courts to consider the full context of abusive conduct rather than relying on a prescriptive list. Ruby's law was originally conceived as an amendment to the English legislation, which had a prescriptive list that did not include the abuse of animals. In that context, it made sense for the abuse of animals to be specified.”
“As such, I will be supporting it, and I encourage others to do so. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 89 would amend the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to give effect to two separate key provisions. First, it would amend section 2 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021 to explicitly include harm or the threat of harm to an animal within the behaviours that constitute domestic abuse in the Act. As I have noted, I recognise that the threat of harm and harm to pets and animals can be used to perpetuate domestic abuse and coercive control, and I wholly condemn it. As an animal lover, I need no convincing that harm to pets and animals could be part of domestic abuse and coercive control.”