Motion or amendment: Addressing Paramilitary Insignia
Motion or amendment by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 18 February 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Addressing Paramilitary Insignia
- Assembly identifier
- Document 428701
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Addressing Paramilitary Insignia
That this Assembly expresses grave concern at the ongoing prevalence and impact of paramilitary insignia, including flags and murals, within communities in Northern Ireland; condemns the continued use of this insignia to mark territory and control public spaces, long after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and the decommissioning of paramilitary groups; acknowledges the positive impact of re-imaging projects and the need for enhanced investment in cultural heritage artwork; welcomes the work of the Executive Programme on Paramilitarism and Organised Crime; believes the Executive Office’s delay in responding to the recommendations of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition is unacceptable and is holding back reconciliation in Northern Ireland; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to publish an action plan, before the end of the 2022-2027 Assembly mandate, to implement the Commission’s recommendations and rid our communities of paramilitary flags and other insignia.
152 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.13 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.72).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.86).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.18 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.12 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.13 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.70 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.27 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:20 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. This record has been assessed 8 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.