Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- 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 5670494
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member is aware that it is a sensitive topic. Location is key. What is considered acceptable in one area might be considered unacceptable by a resident in another area. We agree with you that flags should not be used to intimidate people or create fear. That should not happen, but my main problem with the Bill is that it puts all the onus on the Department for Infrastructure. The test that you are putting in the Bill is whether, in the Department for Infrastructure's opinion, a flag or emblem is intimidatory or threatening, but matters of intimidation and threatening behaviour are for the police first and foremost. You are talking about a criminal act if there is a claim that someone is intimidating somebody or acting in a threatening manner or that a flag or emblem is likely to stir up hatred or arouse fear. A hate crime is a matter for the police first and foremost. You are putting all the emphasis on Department for Infrastructure officials to make a judgement and decide on criminal matters. Later, the Bill refers to a protocol or a code of practice and states that the police will be one of the consultees, but all the emphasis is being put on Department for Infrastructure officials. Location is such a key matter that the primary function is for the police to give the lead on whether something is considered to stir up hatred or cause intimidation or threat. The Bill puts too much of the onus on Department for Infrastructure officials, whose job is to ensure that street lights work, address potholes and deal with other matters of public infrastructure. The emphasis should be on the police and their guidance in deciding where flags or emblems cause a problem.
296 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: 0.10 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.56).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.56 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.43 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.89 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.11 |
| 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 01:21 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.