Debate contribution: Opposition to Racism

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 8 August 2024.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

8 August 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Opposition to Racism

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4500464

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Let me be crystal clear: I utterly condemn the violence that has taken place on our streets and across the United Kingdom: no ifs, no buts. I express my sympathy to the families of Elsie, aged seven, Alice, aged nine, and Bebe, aged six, who were so callously murdered in Southport. The violent scenes across the United Kingdom in the aftermath of those horrendous murders do nothing to honour their memory. Such actions are illegal, reckless and counterproductive to the vital discussions that we need to have about our country's immigration policies. There can be no doubt that the UK's long-term uncontrolled immigration policy has sparked considerable concerns across the nation. Many citizens, me included, feel that it is contributing to the considerable strain on our public resources. Ignoring those concerns does a huge disservice to the very people whom we claim to represent, regardless of background. The issues deserve proper scrutiny, political debate and policy changes, but never — never — should they result in racist street attacks, whether those be in east, west or south Belfast or across the United Kingdom. No. It is therefore essential to differentiate between opposing uncontrolled and illegal immigration and opposing immigration altogether. Most people support legal, controlled and managed immigration. Our country has a proud history of welcoming those who seek a better life, who contribute positively to our society and who respect our laws and values. They are vital to sectors such as healthcare, as has been mentioned, in which we rely heavily on skilled professionals from abroad to maintain the quality of our services. Immigration that is tailored to our country's specific needs is beneficial and necessary. Conversely, large-scale, uncontrolled immigration over a prolonged period is causing serious issues for local constituents. As an elected representative, I would be failing my constituents if I were not prepared to speak about those issues in this place.

I will in a moment. The additional strain — I emphasise the word "additional" — on public services such as housing, school places and council services cannot be ignored. I see this day in and day out as an elected representative. My first duty is to ensure our citizens' security, well-being and prosperity. One of the most dangerous aspects of the current debate is the tendency for commentators and politicians to brand anyone who questions uncontrolled immigration and its contributing impact on society as far right and racist. Members, the mother who has concerns about getting her child a school place is not far right or racist. The 25-year-old who cannot get housing in his local community is not far right or racist. The elderly citizen who is angered that their winter fuel payment has been taken from them whilst £80 million a day is being spent to house asylum seekers in hotels is not racist or far right, Members. To label them as such is a mischaracterisation and stifles the constructive dialogue and alienates a large section of the population who have legitimate concerns. The current Westminster policy —.

Go ahead.

I thank the Member.

It is an absolutely critical point, because the current Westminster policy failures in relation to immigration have led to a situation where many people feel that their voice is not heard nor their communities protected. I understand that I may speak from a different point of view than many Members in this Chamber, but it is better for me to say it in this place than for people outside of this place to express it in a violent way, which is unacceptable. We must channel this energy into meaningful dialogue and actions to address the underlying policy failures, whether that be weak border controls, underinvestment in key public services, low police numbers or a UK-wide benefit system that continues to attract illegal immigration to the United Kingdom. We need a targeted immigration policy that deals with societal realities, grows our economy and, crucially, —

— enriches our country by representing and respecting its cultural identity.

666 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Qualifying

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The contribution opens with a clear condemnation of the violence and praises legal migrants, including those in healthcare. It then follows the 'I condemn the violence, but…' pattern the rubric describes. In a debate on opposing racism held days after racist attacks, it presents immigration as a burden on local people, contrasting the elderly citizen who lost a winter fuel payment with '£80 million a day' spent on 'asylum seekers in hotels'. It also says communities are not 'protected' and that the benefit system 'continues to attract illegal immigration'. This sets local people against migrants and invites resentment without engaging with any specific measure, which meets the identity framing and antagonism parts of the rubric.

Public interest or divisiveness

There is real public-interest content: the speaker unambiguously rejects racist street attacks and raises pressure on housing, school places and council services. However, the main thrust is to recast the grievances behind the disorder as legitimate in a motion about racism. It does this by pitting citizens against asylum seekers and by defending a 'cultural identity' said to need protecting. That deepens rather than eases the division the motion was addressing, so both elements are substantial.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:57 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.

Challenge this classification