Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- 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 5686459
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Well, hold on a second.
You have not heard my concerns: you might backtrack quickly on that. If the Member can answer my questions correctly, I will be happy to support the Bill. If she cannot, I will have serious concerns outstanding. As I said, in its current form, it raises a few potential issues. I agree with the Member and others that the likes of the UVF and UDA hanging flags outside schools and around new housing developments to tell families which estates they are not welcome in should not happen. Clause 1 creates a hard duty to remove those flags, and I welcome that. Moving on from that, as a general point, I want to ask this: where is political expression protected in the Bill? Clause 1(4) talks about "celebration or commemoration". Can the Member tell me which of those definitions would protect the flying of a Palestinian flag in west Belfast or anywhere else in the North? Such flags are not about "celebration or commemoration", but Palestinian flags have been displayed in west Belfast and many other places for a very long time, well before the genocide of the last few years. That would clearly fail the "excessive period" test as well. Does the Member accept that, under the Bill as drafted, a display of solidarity with people who are facing years-long genocide risks being removed, not to mention any other country in the world? I have a serious concern about that, and other people in the community share that concern. Secondly, under clause 1, can the Member explain what:
"not conducive to good community relations"
actually means and who decides that? I do not think that that is the test. If you mention intimidation or threat, that is fair enough. There is broad agreement on what intimidation or a threat would be, but the wording that I quoted appears to be a test of whether somebody is annoyed or not, and it is not categorised or explained. Some Members may be aware that, in Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, we heard elected representatives describe Palestinian flags as "aggressive" and "offensive". I totally disagree with that. That is a ridiculous and over-the-top reaction, but would that be enough to prompt the removal of those flags under this legislation? That is unclear to me. If I can get a guarantee that it will not be enough, I will be happy to support it.
I thank the Member. Unusually, I agree with him. Yes, that is correct. Like I said, the —.
I will make a bit of progress. On the example from Fermanagh and Omagh council, the Bill, as drafted, may be enough to lead to the prompt removal of such flags. Thirdly, where is the provision for the display of a trade union banner, an anti-racism poster or a football club crest? Clause 7 ties national and cultural identity to the Identity and Language Act 2022. Does the Member accept that the likes of a sports club emblem falls outside that definition and that there are problems? Linfield is not my football team, but a Member mentioned Linfield and the Alliance Party publicising that graphic. I ask the Bill sponsor this genuinely: does she believe that a civil servant in DFI would draw the line a bit more carefully than her party colleagues did with that video? There are huge problems, and they have not been addressed. My fourth question is on —
Sure.
577 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: 0.42 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Cultural grievance politics (0.65).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.85).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.85).
- 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 | 0.20 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.65 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.22 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.42 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.04 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.10 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.85 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.95 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| 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 16:17 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.