Debate contribution: Bonfire Regulation
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Bonfire Regulation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111646
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Here we go again: another day, another lecture from Sinn Féin, aided and abetted by its little helpers in the Alliance Party in taking a swipe and looking down their noses at unionism and, in particular, loyalism. No one believes for one minute that Sinn Féin cares about dangerous bonfires in unionist areas. It is the party that tells us that there was no alternative to La Mon, where 12 innocent people were burned alive. Yet, it suddenly pretends to care about a bonfire in the same constituency as La Mon at which no one was injured, never mind killed. The leader of the Opposition represents the Donegall Road, but the only time that I have heard the words "Sandy Row" cross his lips in this place was last December, when he gave off to me for daring to raise the plight of unionist businesses cut off by Grand Central station. The only time the lofty establishment in South Belfast gets exercised about loyalist areas is when people dare to stand up and celebrate their culture. During the summer, many people rightly asked me this obvious question: why do those people get interested in asbestos only in early July? Why was Boron Developments — coincidently, it lists the wife of the Armagh GAA captain and manager — which owns the site, not forced to clear the site months or years before? As for the outrage about what is burned on bonfires that we have heard today, the hypocrisy absolutely stinks. They are the people who gave artistic licence to Kneecap, who unveiled the mural of a PSNI Land Rover on fire.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take your wisdom and guidance. In England, burning effigies on bonfire night is accepted as a cultural expression. In Lewes, it is even promoted as a tourist attraction. However, when unionists do it, suddenly it is treated as a hate crime. The truth is that the lectures are predictable. The lectures are condescending and are rightly ignored by a community that sees through the hypocrisy of a political class that despises them.
Careful about my language? Will any unionist who is in the Alliance Party please step forward? I certainly do not see too many in this Chamber. The motion says nothing about the cultural importance of bonfires to the unionist community. It does not admit that only 18% of unionists support a regulatory commission for bonfires and flags. Without community support, such a system is doomed to failure from the start, and unionists do not need to guess how regulation works: we have already seen it in action. Let us look at the Parades Commission, and at North Antrim in particular. Dunloy Accordion Band can go to the Belfast Tattoo, be rightfully praised by the Sinn Féin Lord Mayor, but it cannot play a hymn, something as simple as 'Jesus Loves Me', while walking up Dunloy Main Street. That exposes the contradiction at the heart of the motion. Republicans believe that unionist culture should be policed by the state, while their culture should be promoted by it. Support of just 15% is enough for Irish language street signs. An Irish Language Commissioner is to be appointed. Meanwhile the Parades Commission bans hymns being played by an accordion band. Now the Assembly, in its wisdom — my goodness, nobody knows better than the Assembly — calls for yet another part of unionist culture to be policed. My culture does not need Sinn Féin's permission. My community sees through the hypocrisy of the nationalist/republican agenda, which flows from the House. We will not be lectured by those who excuse firebombs while they condemn pallets being burnt on a bonfire.
617 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations
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: 0.93 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.97); Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.68); Cultural grievance politics (0.97); Dog-whistle messaging (0.93); Controversy escalation (0.90).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.98).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
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 | 0.97 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.68 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.97 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.93 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.90 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.15 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.93 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.64 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:15 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.