Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 14 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Paul Frew
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 5686683

Text

One hundred per cent. The Member is completely right in that regard, and that is the danger. When you bring legislation to this place, surely it should be watertight according to what you want it to do and should not put the intent into the hands of another individual. It should be the Member's Bill, and it should be clearly defined, but as I have articulated tonight, it is leaving the decision open to the whims of the Minister. The very fact that the code can be reviewed at least once every five years means that every new Minister who comes in can have a different code of practice on the display of flags and emblems. Is that not really dangerous? Is that not really reckless? Let me come on to that. I have covered sensitive places in clause 2, and I have covered clause 1 at length, so let us move on to the procedure. Clause 3 states:
"The Department must establish a procedure (or adapt an existing procedure), for example via an online portal, whereby— (a) a person may notify the Department— (i) that they have displayed, or wish to display, a flag or emblem, (ii) their reasons for doing so, (iii) their views on the display of the flag or emblem, and (b) members of the public may— (i) notify the Department of the display of a flag or emblem, (ii) give their views on the display of a particular flag or emblem in a particular place at a particular time."
Who is going to do that? Who is going to notify the Department? It is only the law-abiding people of the country, if they are aware of that burden on them, who will notify the Department. What happens if they do not? There is no offence here that I can see. What you will have is all the agitation and all the terrorist units, gangs and organisations. They do not even recognise the state or the Department. Why would they notify it? They will put things up whenever they want. I am not saying that because I perceive a threat: it is happening now.
I will go back to the point that Emma Little-Pengelly made: who is "the Department"? Is it a local office, a bunch of engineers within a local office, the permanent secretary or the Minister? Is it the Sinn Féin Minister? The emblem at the Egyptian Arch did not have planning permission. Nobody knew who put it up or what was happening. However, there was an email address, and it was sourced back to an MLA's office. Which MLA's office? It was the MLA who just happens to be the Infrastructure Minister.
How can no one else see the danger and jeopardy of this Bill? Of course, we know, through bad experience, that terrorist memorials will spring up overnight, glorifying terrorist acts that murdered our people — my constituents — yet you could have a Sinn Féin Minister accepting that through this code. How awful would that be? How awful would it be to allow the Sinn Féin Minister to have the power to approve a terrorist shrine because she can apply a code of practice? That is where we are going here. If the Bill sponsor cannot see that, and if she has not examined the detail on that, I fear for this place.

562 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Flagged Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials

Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for flagging as culture-war activity.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.73 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.88).
The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.93).
Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which is flagged even alongside legitimate scrutiny.

What a flag means. A flag means the activity contains at least one instance of culture-war framing that met the published test. It does not mean the whole activity is divisive, or that its substantive arguments are wrong.

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.41	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.55	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.35	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.88	Yes
Controversy escalation	0.44	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.57	No
Overall judgement	0.73	Above flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.04
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.03
Adopts it (chosen)	0.93

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.88
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.11
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.01
No identity-related subject	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	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?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.