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
- 22 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5739315
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to speak for long, as I have already gone through the Bill at great length. Many's a time we see tattered flags on lamp posts, which we all want to see taken down, but having gone through the Bill and spoken on it, I feel that the Bill is in tatters. It is a reckless Bill. You do not need —.
Yes, I will.
I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. I spoke at length — over an hour — on decimating the Bill and telling the sponsor how it would not work. The Bill sponsor did not encourage interventions at that time, and did not make interventions. There were times when I was talking about the very serious issue of members of the security forces losing limbs or losing their lives when, in the past, they had to remove symbols and flags that were booby-trapped. That was a very, very serious aspect. The Bill sponsor was on her phone when I was speaking on that.
I will, yes.
180 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: 0.40 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.80).
- 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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.16 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.13 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.41 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.39 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.40 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.80 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.14 |
| Adopts it | 0.04 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.91 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:26 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.