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 5670701
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Does the Member agree that, when the Bill sponsor spoke earlier, she continually referred to examples such as "Snipers At Work" and Billy Wright flags?
Those are the most clear-cut examples that can be dealt with. The problem is that, when we hand this over to the Department, officials, as you rightly say, will be dealing with nuance and grey areas, and they will have to come down on one side or the other on what is a difficult, sensitive circumstance. It is therefore misleading at times just to discuss the areas on which everyone will agree and that are so clear-cut.
102 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: 0.27 (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 (0.73).
- The text reports, quotes or asks about the framing rather than adopting it (0.67).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.25 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.19 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.27 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.26 |
| Reports or questions it (chosen) | 0.67 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.90 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.09 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 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.