Motion or amendment: Delivering an Irish Language Strategy (revised wording) - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr Maurice Bradley on .
- MLA
- Mr Maurice Bradley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 March 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Delivering an Irish Language Strategy (revised wording)”
- Heading
- Delivering an Irish Language Strategy (revised wording) - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 432508
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Delivering an Irish Language Strategy (revised wording) - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘importance of the Irish language’ and insert:
‘, as well as the Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture; recognises the vibrancy and growth of these languages in music, education and film; commends, for example, all those who have participated in another Seachtain na Gaeilge, celebrating and appreciating the vibrancy of the Irish Language; is committed to promoting cultural and linguistic diversity across Northern Ireland, and to upholding related rights, whilst ensuring that future strategies do not place unfair burdens on public bodies and our public finances; and calls on the Minister for Communities, building on the continuing efforts of the current cross-departmental working group, to present the draft strategies on Irish language, and Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture, for Executive consideration as soon as practicable.’
138 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 flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.18 (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 (0.96).
- Subject area: Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy.
- 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 | 0.18 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.53 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.58 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.04 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:03 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.