Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- 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 5686716
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have two other points to make, one of which is on the offence of obstructing the Department in the removal of a flag or emblem. Clause 5 states:
"(1) A person who obstructs the Department, or a person acting on behalf of the Department, in the removal of a flag or emblem in accordance with this Act, is guilty of an offence. (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
Then, clause 6, which is "Request for assistance from police", states:
"The Department may request assistance from the Police Service of Northern Ireland in removing a flag or emblem if the Department is of the opinion that, in removing the flag or emblem there may arise— (a) a breach of the peace, or (b) an offence under section 5."
This is a funny old world. I had to deal with an incident in which a group of workmen got out of their workplace at lunchtime to do exactly what the Department has been burdened with doing: remove flags. They were arrested for a breach of the peace for removing flags. It is a funny old world. The proposer now wants to give the Department the power to take the flags down — something that my constituents were doing — yet, if someone obstructs the Department from taking the flags down, they will have committed an offence. It is twisted in the way that it is written, and I am sure that those people who were affected when they took those flags down will have a wry smile to themselves tonight if they are watching the debate, because it will be flipped right on its head, and you will now be in breach of the peace if you obstruct the Department in the action of taking flags down. You can see how that is twisting into all sorts of connotations. I have a final point to make on a really serious matter. Have we not lived through the Troubles? Some of us served and fought against terrorism, both in the police and the armed forces. What if a terrorist organisation that is totally opposed to the state does not recognise a Department of that state and uses the legislation as a new front? What I mean by that relates to the "sniper at work" signs and awful signage like that. It would not be the first time that a booby-trap device had been placed on a flag, a billboard or a sign, and such devices took the lives of or injured service personnel, either police officers or army personnel. They lost limbs during the Troubles due to devices like that, yet the proposer wants to place at risk engineers from DFI who will have had no training as service personnel, no training in law enforcement and no training in how to keep themselves secure. You are asking them — engineers — to go into hotbeds of society, such as Crossmaglen in south Armagh, where those "sniper at work" signs were put up, and take such material down. Are you serious? The Bill will lead us to a place where terrorist outfits can use the legislation as a front to attack service personnel.
It will not only be service personnel; it will be engineers in the Department for Infrastructure. I will give way.
And they should be down.
Not by this Bill. That is the point that I am making.
I will, in a moment. The Member made a flippant comment about filibustering. This is the man, the leader of the constructive Opposition, who has had an Opposition day, yet he will not sit there and be patient when I express my concerns about this woeful Bill. There is no respect in that whatsoever, and I ask the Member to consider his words. I will give way to Mr Brooks and then to Jonathan Buckley.
That is a very good point. It is what I have been fighting against for all of my political career: the need to do something, and the need for the state to intervene, overreach and make things worse. That is what the state does when it intervenes. I will give way to Mr Buckley.
716 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: 0.36 (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 (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.50).
- 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 | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.12 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.21 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.35 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.23 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.36 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.50 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.28 |
| Adopts it | 0.19 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.71 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.26 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.