Member's statement: Glorification of Terrorists
Member's statement by Miss Michelle McIlveen on .
- MLA
- Miss Michelle McIlveen
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 6 May 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Glorification of Terrorists
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4929221
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Bobby Sands was not a freedom fighter. He was a convicted criminal; someone wedded to violence; a member of a brutal terrorist organisation that was responsible for the murder and maiming of thousands. To honour his legacy is to reopen the wounds of the past. For the innocent victims of the Provisional IRA and their families, that is not distant history. It is lived pain. It is the empty chair at the dinner table. The First Minister's attendance in Twinbrook on Sunday was a wilful decision to reopen that hurt. As we are all aware, the ministerial Pledge of Office requires an unambiguous rejection of violence and paramilitarism. Glorifying, through speeches or shrines, people who broke the law is a gross abdication of those duties. There are serious question marks over the role of others in that event, in particular Mr Sheehan and Mr Baker. Political leadership demands moral clarity. Social media remains fertile ground for radicalisation, and the glorification of figures like Bobby Sands, Séamus McElwain or Jim Lynagh emboldens a new generation to romanticise violence. The First Minister is the first one to point out the harm that can be caused on such platforms when abuse is targeted towards women and girls, including those in the public eye, but what about the women and girls who were left bereaved or whose lives were indelibly scarred when their father, grandfather or brother was barbarically attacked by the IRA? Do they not matter? The hypocrisy on display by Sinn Féin is breathtaking. Sinn Féin attacks the DUP support for our unionist culture and identity because of the distasteful actions of a few, yet it has absolutely no problem giving full-throated support for the veneration of terrorist godfathers within their own communities. For republicans and for the First Minister, it is a case of, "Do as I say, not as I do". Glorifying terror will only poison the future. There is an onus on all of us to lead with integrity, truth and a shared commitment to peace.
337 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism
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: 0.72 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.68).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.77).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- All qualifying thresholds were met.
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 | 0.56 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.33 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.28 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.68 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.48 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.19 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.72 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.07 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.16 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.77 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.77 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.22 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:23 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.