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 5670535
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way and for the information that she has given so far. She said earlier that she was not trying to establish a Parades Commission mark II, but it sounds like an awful lot of information will be required from people who want to make an argument for the flag to be flown. On top of that, it appears to me that you will have to have some kind of structured decision-making body if you want to do this effectively. Whilst I have no doubt about the genuine intent behind it, so much of what you are saying is completely subjective. What makes it controversial or what makes it a shared space or shared area? Those things will have to be defined in one way or another, and, if that sits with the Department, the Department will have to find structures in which to do that. That is going to look an awful lot to people like the Parades Commission, which, at the moment, does not fill people with confidence. I am not making a defence of any particular flag. We do have to address the elephant in the room around the minutiae of this. Like Nuala, I get emails from people who are not happy with flags, and I try my best to mediate in those circumstances to find a solution.
Can I ask one question? There are, for instance, flags that people perceive to be UVF flags, but they are dated. A plethora of flags can come under this scenario, but that is one example. I understand that people perceive them in that way, and, sometimes, they are intended in that way. However, how do you propose to deal with that, given that some of those flags can be used for commemorative purposes as well? Those are the kinds of grey areas that will make it really difficult for the people who have to decide. Thank you very much for your time.
329 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: 0.16 (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 (0.87).
- The text reports, quotes or asks about the framing rather than adopting it (0.79).
- 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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.24 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.22 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.16 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.20 |
| Reports or questions it (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.95 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 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.