Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- 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 5740237
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Absolutely. I thank all my colleagues for their interventions. To Ms Brownlee's point, yes, it is about public confidence. Every time that something else went out from the Alliance Party about the Bill, it seemed to antagonise people, and the rate at which I got responses became stronger. To Mrs Erskine's point, we talked, throughout her contribution, about how far-reaching the unintended consequences would be. On Mr Buckley's point, it is the lack of definitions in the Bill that gives rise to that. Anything could appear in a graphic, and anything could be drawn into the conversation. The legislation gives no protection to the Union flag, the Ulster banner, military flags or anything of that nature. To me, it is cultural; it is any type of flags; it is the community flags; it is the messaging. It is very concerning that anything could be next. Back to my point about significance and controversy. It would require Executive agreement. That is an important point to note. The Member is getting close to reaching into that sphere with the Bill. That speaks to the point about unintended consequences. I believe that clause 1(2) demonstrates some of the legal incoherence of the Bill. It includes the creation of an objective test — what is "in the public interest" — but, in the same sentence, inserts a subjective test of:
"in the opinion of the Department".
Colleagues have spoken about that. That is a dangerous line to have in the Bill. In that statement, who is "the Department"? Clause 7 defines "Department" as "the Department for Infrastructure", but what does that mean? A Department is not a person.
Yeah.
Absolutely. That is why I ask whether:
"in the opinion of the Department",
refers to individuals on the ground, a senior civil servant, a panel, a board or a Minister. Who is "the Department"? It says:
"in the opinion of the Department".
DFI workers who are fixing potholes out on the road often experience the front-facing aggression of unhappy members of the public. We have seen that many times. It could be much the same in this case. The term:
"in the opinion of the Department"
is very loose and needs to be defined. The objective test of what is "in the public interest" is set and then contradicted by inserting a presumption into the subjective test at clause 1(3) that creates a list of factors. Clause 1(4) goes on to provide for that presumption to be rebutted, but enshrines no evidential basis for the rebuttal or the objective test to be applied. It therefore includes an objective test on which the Department will make a subjective decision, and presumptions limiting the subjective test, which may nonetheless be rebutted without an objective or evidential standard for rebuttal. Does the Member not understand how that looks legally illiterate?
Yeah.
473 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: 0.28 (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 (0.84).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.59).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
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 | 0.17 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.48 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.12 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.24 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.28 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.59 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.20 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.18 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:40 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.