Member's statement: Legacy of the Troubles: Victims
Member's statement by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 September 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Legacy of the Troubles: Victims
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5123325
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The weekend brought yet another dark day for truth and justice in Northern Ireland. For decades, innocent victims have, time and time again, been promised fairness, only to be denied justice. The Belfast Agreement was sold as a new beginning, but, from the outset, justice was corrupted. Victims watched as the gates to prisons were thrown open and saw their pain ignored. Republicans on the run were handed secret letters of comfort from Tony Blair, while the families of their victims were left in torment. We have seen the shameful spectacle of victim makers being celebrated and eulogised, with our "First Minister for all" telling us that there was no alternative to IRA violence. That is not justice but a betrayal of justice. When others turned their back on them, my party stood up for innocent victims and ensured that there would be a victims' pension for those harmed by terrorists during the Troubles. Once again, however, victims are being betrayed. We see a new so-called legacy deal with the Irish Government. That is another political stitch-up that has been designed not to deliver truth but to rewrite history. For years, Dublin has failed to cooperate with Omagh bombing investigations and refused to come clean about its collusion with the Provisional IRA. That is a national disgrace. Now, instead of the Labour Party standing up to Dublin and standing with victims, it has outsourced legacy to the Irish Republic. Let me be clear: the Labour Party has no interest in victims. Its record is one of equating victims with victim makers, of announcing one-sided public inquiries and of bending to republican demands, yet some would happily hand over the future of Northern Ireland to that Government.
Let me say this with absolute clarity: the DUP will never support arrangements that bury the truth, elevate terrorists above their victims or condemn the victims of terrorism to the shadows. We will stand firmly with the innocent victims. Be it London, Dublin or anywhere else, this party will continue to call out the rank hypocrisy of those who do down the victims of our past.
352 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism
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: 0.68 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.65).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.67).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The answers did not meet either automatic threshold.
What a flag means. A flag means the activity contains at least one instance of culture-war framing that met the published test. It does not mean the whole activity is divisive, or that its substantive arguments are wrong.
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
- Flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mixed
Against the published rubric
The statement opposes a new legacy arrangement, which is a legitimate subject, but it says almost nothing about what the deal actually contains beyond calling it a "political stitch-up" designed "to rewrite history". Most of the text is a competing account of the Troubles and the peace process: "Republicans on the run", "victim makers being celebrated and eulogised", a sarcastic "First Minister for all", Dublin's "collusion with the Provisional IRA", and a claim that some would "hand over the future of Northern Ireland" to the Irish Government. This framing of victims against republicans and Dublin, with constitutional insinuation layered on, meets the rubric's tests for identity framing and escalation of a recognised legacy flashpoint.
Public interest or divisiveness
Speaking up for victims of terrorism and criticising a government's legacy policy are genuine public-interest activities, and that concern runs through the statement. However, its main thrust is grievance and point-scoring: sarcasm aimed at the First Minister, sweeping claims that a governing party "has no interest in victims", and the suggestion that opponents would hand Northern Ireland to Dublin. It continues a communal argument over the past rather than engaging with how the arrangements would work for victims.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.65 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.22 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.57 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.28 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.25 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.68 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.20 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.13 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.67 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.98 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:11 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.