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
- 14 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5686142
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member spoke about the street in Ballyhackamore, as I did during the previous iteration of this discussion. Is that an example of what he wants the system to be used for: to take those flags down? In those circumstances, that street hosts probably the biggest parade of the year in east Belfast — the Somme commemoration parade. It is my understanding that it is lined with Union Jacks and only Union Jacks for a set period in a way that flags around east Belfast are not. Is that the kind of instance that, you think, the Bill should target? To be honest, it sounds like exactly the kind of example that your colleague was pointing to and saying that it would not be threatened, as it is time-bound, the flags come down before they are ripped and shredded, and it is for the purpose of a parade. If the Bill comes in, would you like to see it being used to bring those flags down?
Will the Member give way?
My understanding — I am happy to be corrected by you or by the people whom I am going to mention — is that the lodge organises it. At that stage, we met the lodge involved, which is based in that area. It asked for the flags to be put up for the Somme commemoration parade, which is a relatively inoffensive parade for an inoffensive reason, and it is time-bound. It goes back to all the things that we talked about. If that is the bar that we are using to say that flags must come down, it concerns me what would be targeted beyond that, because that is by far not the most offensive. I understand that there are some people in that street with particularly strong views. There is a spectrum. Some have a very strong opinion that they should come down and never be seen. Some do not want them, and there are people who clearly do want them and enjoy the parade. There is a spectrum of belief there. If that is the kind of example that will be targeted by the legislation, it leaves me with grave concerns about how low the bar is in that regard.
373 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.39 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Cultural grievance politics (0.80).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.76).
- The text reports, quotes or asks about the framing rather than adopting it (0.69).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.39 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.80 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.22 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.44 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.39 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.24 |
| Reports or questions it (chosen) | 0.69 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.79 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.11 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.10 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:17 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.