Debate contribution: Bonfire Regulation

Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on .

MLA
Mr Colm Gildernew
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
16 September 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Bonfire Regulation
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5111399

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

A chairde,

every summer, the issue of offensive and dangerous bonfires rears its head, and, this year, was, unfortunately, no different. From the outset, it is important to say that I recognise the importance of bonfires to unionist culture. The motion should not be seen as an attack on the practice of burning bonfires. Bonfires, when organised in a safe and inclusive manner, can be a positive vehicle for people from the unionist community who want to celebrate their Protestant heritage. The motion, however, is about what are known as "problem bonfires". Unfortunately, every year, a small number of bonfires become symbols of hate and division and display sectarian and racist messages. I am sure that Members will have seen images from July this year of a bonfire in Moygashel in my constituency that displayed an effigy of refugees in a boat along with a disgusting racist message. That raised fear and anxiety among many people across my constituency and way beyond. It is also important to say that offensive bonfires are not confined solely to the unionist community, as there are also a small number of bonfires in nationalist areas of Derry during the month of August. Each year, a small number of bonfires cause significant health and safety concerns. In the past, we have seen young people seriously injure themselves by falling off bonfires during the building process. A small number of bonfires are made from materials such as tyres, which, when burned, are harmful to the health of the people who are gathered and to the environment. We all saw the unacceptable behaviour earlier this year when a bonfire in Belfast was burned in an area that had been confirmed as containing asbestos but the organisers refused to consider the health and safety of the attendees or the local residents. We cannot continue to deal with the same problem year after year. It is long past time that we found a common-sense solution, and it is important that we start to discuss that now in advance of next year. The FICT report into flags, emblems and bonfires looked at the issue in great detail and made some recommendations on how to tackle problem bonfires. Unfortunately, none of those recommendations has been implemented. We have to ask ourselves why that is. All the unionist political parties have so far failed to show any of the political leadership that would create the space for a mature and constructive conversation about the best way forward. Finding a solution that meets the needs of all communities is in the best interests of everyone, and it is well past time that political unionism came to that realisation.

456 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: 0.21 (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).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.80).
  • The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.93).
  • Subject area: Parades, bonfires and commemorations.
  • 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.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.22No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.07No
Cultural grievance politics0.10No
Dog-whistle messaging0.21No
Controversy escalation0.17No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.80Yes
Overall judgement0.21At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.01
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.93
Adopts it0.05
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.52
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.47
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers0.01
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:13 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