Debate contribution: Rule of Law

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 20 October 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

20 October 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Rule of Law

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5801194

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Events since the decision of the Parades Commission to dare to grant permission for the return Drumcree parade have shone a light into the dark corners of the peace process. Those corners must remain dark and cannot be talked about. If they were exposed to the light, they would show the sinking sand that the Executive are built on. In order for Stormont to survive, and to protect the hallowed peace process, those dark corners have grown increasingly murky because of revelations in the High Court today. The PSNI was challenged on what the intelligence references to "feelings of" — the Provisional — "IRA" actually meant. It confirmed that that reference was not about the lack of ability on the part of the IRA to control dissidents.

When asked by the judge what it meant, however, the PSNI refused to say. Why? What are the police hiding about the paramilitary wing of Sinn Féin? Is it that the IRA mobilised in a structured way to take to the Garvaghy Road? Was it because identifiable units of the IRA took the lead in blocking the Garvaghy Road, which had been surrendered to the chief constable and bomber, Breandán Mac Cionnaith? On behalf of grassroots unionism and loyalism, I ask what the political consequences are of what we have seen. The DUP motion calls for the Justice Minister to remove Deirdre Hargey: good. That is great, and I agree. It calls for the Secretary of State to change the law: again, that is fantastic stuff. There is not one word from the DUP, however — not even a suggestion — about doing anything itself. The DUP calls for others to do something but never calls on itself.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I will support the motion, but grassroots unionism and loyalism does not want to see TikTok videos and Facebook clips; it wants to see actions being taken. I support the honourable Member for Upper Bann, Carla Lockhart, who has rightly pointed out that the DUP has the ability at its disposal to remove Michelle O'Neill with the stroke of a pen. That is not in the motion signed by two of Ms Lockhart's constituency colleagues. The motion asks for the Justice Minister to do something and for the Secretary of State to do something, but it falls short of mentioning what the DUP itself is doing. Yes, you signed my exclusion motions, but you did not table them; I did.

You did, but you did not initiate that, Mr Buckley. You have been found out. You are happy to prop up Sinn Féin —

— and you are happy to accept mob rule without any political consequences for Sinn Féin. It is business as usual, with no intention to touch the Establishment. The Establishment must be protected at all costs. You have one lever at your disposal, and, to date, you have not pulled it. When the Chief Constable made it clear that the stability of the Executive was a consideration that formed part of his request to ban the parade, he rightly came under criticism. He crossed the line from impartial policing into the political realm, and he should resign for having done so. Sadly, the Chief Constable knew all too well and could conclude that the rights of unionism could be trampled over and treated with contempt without any danger to the Executive. Imagine if David Trimble had been in the same position as Gavin Robinson and the DUP find themselves in today. Would the DUP have brought a motion to the Chamber suggesting that others do something about it and that he not pull the lever at his disposal? Of course not. This motion is good for one thing: sound bites. There is no action attached to it. It simply asks that others do something that you are not prepared to do. It is the embodiment of why unionism has got into the position that it is in. It is a case study for why Establishment unionism needs to be replaced, and the electorate will get the opportunity to do that in May. The First Minister for lawlessness has swanned about. Today, we have heard from her Benches time after time that they will do what they like — they will stand on the side of the Garvaghy Road residents and break the law — while, on this side of the House, you are not prepared to offer any political consequences by putting Michelle out of office, which is what needs to be done. Show your teeth; grow a backbone; stand with Carla Lockhart. It is time to evict Michelle O'Neill from office.

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

Assessment

Flagged Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 23 October 2026 at 12:25 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.