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 5686485
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member did not answer any of my questions, and, for the record, I emailed her party colleague back suggesting a date for a meeting, but that was not followed up on. Just for the record, I would not have said that if the Member had not started throwing accusations about.
My fourth question is on enforcement. Contractors that come into communities to remove flags sometimes, disgracefully, face threats and intimidation. That is completely unacceptable and out of order and should be condemned by everybody. The Bill's answer, however, is to create an obstruction offence alongside a targeted and prioritised approach. It should be said that the flags that are the most physically dangerous to remove are usually those that are backed by paramilitary organisations that are willing to threaten workers, namely UDA and UVF displays. If the Bill is enacted, the flags that will be easiest to remove are those that armed gangs will not defend, such as a Palestine flag, a strike banner or a housing campaign poster. It is not hard to imagine a resource-constrained, risk-averse Department taking enforcement action against what would be perceived to be soft targets such as those, whilst paramilitary flags stay up. The Minister for Infrastructure will say that her party would not take down a Palestine flag, and I am sure that that is true, but what happens if one of the Members to my right becomes the next Infrastructure Minister and that is in the legislation and those things can be done?
Yes, go ahead.
Maybe the Member should go to west Belfast and have a look at what is up on the lamp posts. He said that he has not been there recently. Have a look. It is vital that the Bill removes paramilitary flags without criminalising protest or political expression. I fear that it does all three of those things together, and I would appreciate the Bill sponsor answering those questions. If she can answer them clearly and assure me, my constituents, the people whom I represent and the people from the Palestine solidarity movement, who have genuine concerns, I will be happy to support it. However, if she cannot answer those questions adequately, I am afraid that I cannot support the Bill.
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: 0.43 (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 (0.80).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.67).
- 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 | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.11 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.30 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.40 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.19 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.43 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.12 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.09 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.67 |
| Adopts it | 0.12 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.77 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.17 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 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.