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 5670733
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his intervention. That goes to one of the core problems with the legislation. It is reliant on a code of practice to inform the Department's opinion. It is reliant on a voluntary online portal to inform the Department's opinion. Those will all be subjective opinions and will be based on individuals' experiences. If we are getting into the business of saying that it could ultimately result in legal action from you-know-what-where-and-wherever in Northern Ireland, again, that is the basis for bad law. We can support community agreement without an authorisation scheme.
As I said, there are some basic principles on which we should all agree. Flags should not endanger road users; they should not promote proscribed organisations or glorify violence; they should not be displayed with malicious or illegal intent; and, where possible, they should be displayed with local agreement. A large number of issues go to the heart of Mr Kingston's comment about policing: they are policing matters. I have only to look at my constituency, where I can point to community engagement on the erection of flags and local flag protocols. There was serious local engagement to bring together those who had erected flags to ask them to take them down, whether they were loyal orders or bands. The system largely worked, but it was based on dialogue, not something that was being imposed on them. It was about a group of people coming together to understand that there needed to be a better way forward. It was not perfect — far from it — but, if that was the type of incentive that was pushed out across Northern Ireland by all political parties and Departments, it could work. Ms Bradshaw fails to take it into account that dialogue and community engagement are the only way to ensure that we have a respectful debate about flags and emblems. The Bill runs the real risk of heightening community tensions and resulting, as I said, in the repeated proliferation of flags.
I will in a moment. None of those principles requires us to criminalise the act of displaying a flag rather than deal with the intent and conduct of the person displaying it. I will give way to Ms Armstrong.
375 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: 0.15 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.60).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.15 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.15 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.39 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.97 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| 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 16:15 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.