Motion or amendment: Replacing Irish Language Street Signage Policy in Belfast - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 9 October 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Replacing Irish Language Street Signage Policy in Belfast”
- Heading
- Replacing Irish Language Street Signage Policy in Belfast - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 454143
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Replacing Irish Language Street Signage Policy in Belfast - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘That this Assembly’ and insert: ‘affirms its support for the promotion and development of the Irish language; notes that Belfast City Council's 15 per cent threshold for support for Irish language signage is informed by guidance from the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues; condemns attempts by elected representatives to weaponise the Irish language to stoke sectarian division; further notes that Belfast City Council's Dual Language Street Signs policy is consistent with the British Government's ratification of the European Charter for Regional Minority Languages, and its support for both Irish and Ulster Scots; calls on the Executive to appoint the Irish Language and the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition commissioners without further delay; and further calls on the Executive to meaningfully invest in Irish-medium education, Irish language community groups, youth services and to expand the number of public services delivered in Irish, including health and social care.’
164 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: 0.17 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Cultural grievance politics (0.71).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.67).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.87).
- 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 | 0.26 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.71 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.24 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.13 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| 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 09:15 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.