Debate contribution: Bonfires: Displays of Hate

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on 8 September 2025.

MLA: Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 8 September 2025
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Oral Answers to Questions
Heading: Bonfires: Displays of Hate
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5068334

Text

I thank the Member for his question. Sadly, throughout the year, we have seen demonstrations that have aspects that are hateful, unkind, unpalatable and entirely unacceptable. That happens throughout Northern Ireland in many different areas. First of all, we should recognise that it involves a minority of people. When we look at what happened over this summer and last summer, we see that a minority of people carry out those attacks. I believe that the vast majority of people are opposed to hatred and to any threat of violence or intimidation. The Member will be aware of the fact that we are looking at a review of Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC), which is our good relations strategy. We have agreed to roll the flags, identity, culture and tradition (FICT) recommendations into that process as we move towards T:BUC 2, in order to take some of those challenges into account. It is important to say that there is absolutely no role for any paramilitary symbols, flags, activity, glorification or whatever it may be, and it is hugely hurtful to victims on all sides when those things are seen. In all our displays of cultural identity, we should be respectful. That does not always happen, and we have seen the worst of that from a minority at times this summer.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.11 (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).
The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.97).
Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.39	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.04	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.16	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.10	No
Controversy escalation	0.12	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.52	No
Overall judgement	0.11	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.02
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)	0.97
Adopts it	0.01

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.72
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.13
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.08
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.07
No identity-related subject	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:58 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.

Challenge this classification