Member's statement: D-Day Commemorations
Member's statement by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 June 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- D-Day Commemorations
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494773
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On D-Day, scores of men went from these shores to Normandy to fight the tyranny of Nazi occupation. The debt that we owe to those men is immeasurable. Those from these shores who fought against Nazi occupation did not care about the religion of their fellow soldiers. Across Northern Ireland, it was poignant that all sections of the community came together to pay our respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the civil and religious freedoms that we have today. The Royal Ulster Rifles played a critical role on D-Day, with soldiers from across the island of Ireland volunteering to play their part in the war effort. In my constituency, the Royal Air Force, which had bases at St Angelo airport, Enniskillen and at Castle Archdale also played a significant role. Their sacrifice must never be forgotten. The freedoms that they helped to win must always be honoured and protected. As elected representatives, we, in particular, enjoy the benefits of those hard-won freedoms. Democracy and freedom to put forward our different viewpoints were secured by all those who landed on the beaches of Normandy. We all, from whatever background, enjoy those freedoms. People from across Northern Ireland were pleased to see the deputy First Minister join veterans and leaders from across the world in Portsmouth and Normandy. It was humbling to see veterans of over 100 years of age or in their late nineties travelling to remember their friends and comrades on the Normandy beaches. Despite their frailty, they stayed to the end of events. It is disappointing that the First Minister was not present. I do not know what other engagements, she felt, were a higher priority, but perhaps she will spell out the reason for the decision that she took. The veterans who made the trip deserve an explanation, but so do the wider public. The deputy First Minister represented not just all those who stepped up to fight from Northern Ireland; I am glad that she also referenced those from across the island of Ireland who joined the Allied fight against the Nazi regime. The mistakes of our political representatives were not confined to the First Minister. Our Prime Minister was in Normandy, but he prioritised an election interview and left early. His decision to leave is inexplicable, but he has at least taken the step of apologising: the least that could be expected. The veterans of D-Day landed on those beaches to fight for freedom for everybody; they did not discriminate. They were heroes for all. The First Minister, unfortunately, fell short of her promise to be First Minister for all.
437 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: 0.22 (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 (0.86).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.09 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.57 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.12 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.22 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.14 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.69 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.24 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.04 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:37 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.