Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- MLA
- Mr Jonathan Buckley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 7 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5670403
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I will address the issue in my remarks. The examples that she cites are examples around which we could all unite.
However, I asked a question about national flags. Clause 1(2) states:
"For the purposes of this Act, it is in the public interest to remove a flag or emblem if, in the opinion of the Department— (a) the flag or emblem is intimidatory or threatening, (b) the flag or emblem is likely to stir up hatred, or arouse fear,".
We have seen examples where people have cited the national flag as giving such fear. Beyond the Member's comment, what assurances will the Bill give in legislative content that the national flag will not be pulled into the debate around flags?
128 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.29 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Cultural grievance politics (0.65).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.76).
- The text reports, quotes or asks about the framing rather than adopting it (0.66).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.24 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.65 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.20 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.19 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.29 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.25 |
| Reports or questions it (chosen) | 0.66 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.08 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.99 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:13 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.