Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance 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 5670630
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I make the point that some of this is in the terrorism legislation at Westminster. As I mentioned, we as a party have fed into the review, and we support the police's having more powers to take down flags etc. We are, however, still dependent on Westminster for that coming through. I would like Mr Buckley to reference the wider point that I outlined in my contribution, which was on the sense that flags cannot be taken down because of community tensions. Local paramilitary organisations — criminal gangs that should be long gone — are saying that they cannot come down. I read into the record the statistics on the number of times that the Department has asked the police for an assessment and they said, "You shouldn't intervene because of community tensions". We should not be allowing paramilitary organisations — local self-appointed chiefs — to dictate what happens in public spaces. You are therefore missing the point about what my Bill is about.
Will the Member give way?
169 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: 0.23 (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 (0.74).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.65).
- 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 | 0.26 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.11 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.13 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.34 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.74 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.23 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.17 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.65 |
| Adopts it | 0.18 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.68 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.25 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.07 |
| 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.