Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 7 September 2026.

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 5670644

Text

I am confused, to say the least. First, I invited the Member to make an intervention. Secondly, it is not the place for the Minister to intervene with the Member who was asked to make an intervention. Maybe it is just me who is confused, but what confuses me most and what should perhaps concern everyone in the Chamber is that the substance of my question was very clear: what part of the Bill specifically refers to DFI having responsibility only for DFI furniture? If that is in the Bill, does that mean that, in other contentious places where, as the Member has outlined, flags and emblems are clearly intimidatory and designed to hurt, they will stay in place under the legislation?
I am confused, to say the least, if the Member is not willing to answer that basic question. In fact, I will give her a moment to reflect on it while I continue, because it is very basic. Where in the Bill does it categorically say that DFI is responsible only for DFI property? If it does not say that and there is an expectation that DFI will lead for other Departments, I want the Member to show me where that is written on the Bill's blue pages. This is legislation, Members. It is not some private Member's motion, and we have to get it right. I will come back to the Member if she wants to clarify the point. Most important, we have to bear in mind who gets to decide. Who gets to decide what is intimidatory or threatening, which flag or emblem is likely to stir up hatred or arouse fear or which flag or emblem invites support for or is the flag or emblem of a proscribed organisation. I think that we can all find common cause around that point. However, that is where the Bill falls apart. Clause 1 talks about flags being "abusive, or insulting", or being:
"displayed in the vicinity of a sensitive place".
in circumstances that are:
"not conducive to good community relations".
What does that mean? Who decides what is insulting or what is conducive to good community relations? Who decides whether a flag is being displayed as a proud expression of someone's identity or is being used to demarcate territory? Those are not objective questions. In fact, my colleague Mr Kingston rightly outlined the words that should concern us all. They are written all over the Bill, and they are these:
"In the opinion of the Department".
We are putting in place a power for the Department to legislate on subjective terms that mean different things to different people. We live in a contested space. There are people who will look on the national flag, which I hold dear, as intimidatory and offensive, but, under the legislation, we are given a charter for grievance. Subjectivity runs through the heart of the Bill. The word "subjective" means "based on a person's individual feelings, opinions, tastes or experiences". You cannot legislate in subjective terms. You have to be categoric and clear, which is everything that the Bill is not. It is inherently subjective and open to interpretation. In Northern Ireland, where questions of identity, culture and national allegiance remain deeply contested, handing a Department the power to make those judgements is an unnecessarily dangerous step. Remember that the very Department that Ms Bradshaw wishes to hand powers over to is headed by a Sinn Féin Minister. She is the Minister who, in the Chamber, ruled that she would not remove, never mind take responsibility for, a Sinn Féin billboard on DFI land, despite sending letters as Minister on departmental headed paper to her own office. Yet, we are meant to believe that that Department would act as a fair arbiter in community resolution on flags and emblems about which there are clear differences. The Bill effectively asks civil servants to become arbiters of cultural expression. That is not and never can be or should be the role of the Department for Infrastructure.
I will indeed, Ms Armstrong.

677 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain: weak signal 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: 0.54 (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 (0.72).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.34).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.35	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.10	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.50	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.39	No
Controversy escalation	0.34	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.72	Yes
Overall judgement	0.54	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.34
Reports or questions it	0.23
Criticises or condemns it	0.22
Adopts it	0.21

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.98
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.02
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.

Challenge this classification