Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- 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 5670713
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member as ever for her thoughtful contribution. I enjoy debating with her across the Chamber, but she has actually made my point for me. She is absolutely right.
People in Northern Ireland, particularly those of traditionally different communities, will have different experiences associated with flags that are on display. That is inevitable. It would take a long time for me to explain to someone who has had direct association with and hurt from the modern UVF and its despicable display of hatred, murder and mayhem on the streets of Northern Ireland — I can say that without fear of retribution — that the historical 1912 UVF, in which my great-great-grandfather served, is very different. He fought for values and my ability to stand in the Chamber some day in the future to debate with passion the interests that affect this country. That is very different. My main point of contention is that the Bill enables "the opinion of the Department" to remove a flag or emblem that is "intimidatory or threatening" or:
"likely to stir up hatred, or arouse fear".
That is subjective, and that is my exact fear when it comes to the Bill. We cannot legislate for that.
I will, indeed.
The Member makes a valid point. It goes to the heart of why the legislation is simply unworkable. We all know that there is no legal right not to be offended. UK human rights laws include freedom of expression. Yes, it is within a context and has limits, but it is a subjective term. I worry about where the position that the Member seeks to place DFI in will ultimately leave community relations. We can support community agreement without creating an authoritarian authorisation regime.
I will make some progress first. We can deal with genuinely threatening or unlawful displays without creating a bureaucratic apparatus that is capable of deciding whether someone has offended somebody else. There are basic principles on which, I believe, we can all agree. Before I come to them, I give way to Mr O'Toole.
344 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: 0.20 (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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.46 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.12 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.18 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.26 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.65 |
| Adopts it | 0.07 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.49 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.26 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.25 |
| 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.