Debate contribution: Display of Flags, Emblems and Banners
Debate contribution by Mr Jim Allister KC on .
- MLA
- Mr Jim Allister KC
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 30 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Display of Flags, Emblems and Banners
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4487466
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Paramilitary flags are flown for one purpose: to glorify the hideous acts of the terrorist organisations that they represent. That is as odious to me as it is to anyone else. Also, when a national flag deteriorates to the point that it is in tatters, it is a manifestation of disrespect that does great discredit to the flag and to those who put it there. Here we are debating something after £800,000 of public money was spent on a commission that laboured much but produced nothing — not even a mouse. Indeed, maybe it typifies much of this place: deadlock and no solutions. Nothing at all. The Alliance motion is, as Mr Beattie pointed out, flawed, because it adopts an incorrect position. There was no proposed code of conduct: there was the citing of a possible code of conduct. Given that the motion was tabled by the Alliance Party, one's attention is inevitably drawn to its established anti-unionist credentials when it comes to our national flag, the Union Jack. Even though Ms Bradshaw told us that flags were suitable for commemoration, the Alliance Party objects to the flying of the Union flag at the most obvious site of commemoration, namely a war memorial. It has spent ratepayers' money on court actions and other things to object and call in and to try to ensure that the Union flag would not fly on war memorials. When the Alliance Party comes here with pious words and platitudes, I am sorry, but I am not buying it. Then they tell us, "Oh, we need some lawful authority to apply. Maybe we should give some powers to the councils. Maybe the councils should decide where the flag should fly". We know where that would go with the Alliance Party. It would be legions of call-ins at the first proposal that any flag should fly anywhere with it being a Union flag. We know the pedigree. We know the attitude. We know the despicable approach that has been taken to the flying of the Union flag.
Have your choice.
Well, I am so popular. I think that Mr O'Toole was first, so, on that basis, I will give way to him.
I would like to see those who were sufficiently exercised to put them up taking them down. They are the people declaring that they want to show respect to the flag, and then they end up showing disrespect. That is where the first responsibility lies. I am very cautious about the idea that we should give our councils the power to decide when flags can fly and when they cannot, given the experience of Ards and North Down Borough Council, Belfast City Council and other places. The Members who tabled the motion would be first in the queue to make sure that the Union flag comes down and does not fly, even where it is the most evident and appropriate indication of commemoration. For some of the people being commemorated at war memorials who had proper burials, the Union flag bedecked their coffin, but it cannot fly at the war memorial. Why? Because the Alliance Party objects.
The Alliance Party objects, so who, then, are the Alliance Party to come to the House and pretend that they are coming even-handedly and objectively to find a solution when they are partisans in the matter?
Who are they, when they have demonstrated the most partisan approach to the flying of the Union flag, to say that they want an even-handed, objective, enforceable and proper system, when, given half a chance, they are the very people at the front of the queue to ensure that the Union flag does not fly? That, of course, is because the Alliance Party is the ultimate chameleon anti-unionist party.
628 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.83 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.93); Cultural grievance politics (0.93); Dog-whistle messaging (0.88); Controversy escalation (0.77).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.95).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
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 | 0.93 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.59 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.93 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.88 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.77 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.19 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.83 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.01 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.89 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:02 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.