Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- 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 5670444
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I wanted to intervene in order to give some context to the complexity of the matter. I understand what you are saying; the greenway can be used by many people for dog walking, cycling and all of that. However, it could not be closer to houses in loyalist working-class communities. Before the greenway was there, flags were always put up, and there has been a tradition of that. There is a complexity if we are going to put in a greenway but then say to the local community that the area is not theirs any more, that it belongs to communities the length of that greenway and that therefore they cannot express their culture and identity in the way that they always have done. There is a constant tension in and around that area. CS Lewis Square is a wonderful facility, but the communities around it are working-class loyalist communities that have always identified in that way and celebrated that. There is a tension there in how we allow communities to celebrate, even in those areas.
176 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Uncertain: close call Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials
Uncertain: this record is published but not counted in any total.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.47 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.92); Cultural grievance politics (0.93).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.64).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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 | 0.92 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.93 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.21 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.52 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.49 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.47 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.17 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.19 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.64 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.65 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.34 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.