Member's statement: Irish Presidential Election
Member's statement by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 September 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Irish Presidential Election
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5129092
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yesterday, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, I joined others in meeting the Fine Gael Oireachtas team, led by Emer Currie and Frank Feighan. As is always the case with good friends and colleagues, we had a full and frank discussion, about everything from legacy and Ireland's lack of defence spending to the Windsor framework, the stability of the Assembly and migration issues. Finally, we had quite an animated discussion about the Irish presidential election and the relative merits of the candidates.
Yesterday was such a busy day that, unfortunately, I had not heard the interview with the Sinn Féin and People Before Profit Irish presidential pick, Catherine Connolly, with William Crawley on 'Talkback' and nor had our Fine Gael guests. I have now. I encourage everyone in the Assembly to listen to it as well. You will note Connolly's reluctance to unequivocally condemn the 7 October attacks; her remarks that Keir Starmer should have no say about Hamas and that it should be up to the Palestinian people; that she does not believe that the murder, rape, torture and infanticide by Hamas of 1,195 people on that infamous day in October was genocidal; and that Hamas is part of the fabric of the Palestinian people and it is not up to us to dictate to them, though, hypocritically, she has no problem dictating to the people of Israel. You may also note that the leader of Sinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald, and, indeed, our First Minister called it a "game changer" when they endorsed Catherine Connolly for the Áras. The question for the Assembly is this: do Sinn Féin and People Before Profit support Connolly's assertions about Hamas? If they do, they should come to the Assembly and correct the record, as both parties have asserted regularly that they do not support Hamas and condemn unreservedly the violence of 7 October as war crimes and attempts to commit genocide on the Jewish people, the aim that has been stated clearly by the Hamas leadership. Which is it, Michelle, Declan and Gerry? How do Connolly's assertions match what you have said in the Assembly? With the First Minister's complaining about selling your soul for a sip of champagne with POTUS, how can you sell your soul and that of your party to Catherine Connolly? The question is whether you endorse or condemn her remarks. If, of course, you agree with her and believe that Hamas is to be rewarded by being given power in the future, that is a damning indictment of your support for the causes of peace and reconciliation here and everywhere else.
434 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Not flagged on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.75 (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 adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.60).
- Subject area: Another identity-related subject.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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.
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
- Not flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mixed
Against the published rubric
The statement uses a foreign conflict to press named Assembly parties on whether they endorse an Irish presidential candidate's remarks about Hamas and 7 October. It is sharply adversarial and seeks to embarrass opponents, asking "Which is it, Michelle, Declan and Gerry?" and accusing them of selling their "soul". But its target is the parties' stated positions and their consistency, not a community, faith or people as a whole. The rubric treats criticism of a party's record or positions, and taking a side on a foreign conflict without portraying a people as a group in a hostile way, as outside culture-war activity, and the text stays largely within that.
Public interest or divisiveness
The statement asks a real accountability question: whether parties that have condemned the 7 October attacks in the Chamber stand by that while endorsing a candidate whose reported remarks appear to contradict it. Its tone is point-scoring, using sarcasm about champagne with "POTUS". The closing line about "peace and reconciliation here" ties the foreign conflict to local politics in a way that deepens partisan antagonism. Both the accountability purpose and the partisan antagonism are substantial.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.52 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.19 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.49 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.41 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.14 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.75 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.19 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.18 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.73 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.11 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:10 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.