Debate contribution: Irish Language Street Signage in Belfast

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 13 October 2025.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

13 October 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Irish Language Street Signage in Belfast

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5176354

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I suggest that the only people who are driving a wedge between our communities are those on the opposite Benches. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue concerning Irish language signage being imposed in parts of Belfast, particularly in areas where there is little demand or support for such measures. Let me say at the outset, as clearly as I can, that this is not about hostility to the Irish language. No one in this party objects to anyone learning, speaking or celebrating Irish as part of their cultural heritage. What we do object to is the use of language as a political weapon and as a means of advancing a nationalist agenda in communities that do not identify with it and did not consent to it. That is what we have seen at Belfast City Hall. Again, the parties that most strongly champion the Good Friday Agreement so easily set aside the fundamental principle of consent when it concerns unionists. That is not cultural respect: it is cultural imposition. Let us be honest: were the situation to be reversed and another community was being subjected to cultural symbols that they did not identify with, there would be outrage, protests and endless calls for respect. Indeed, a five- or 10-minute parade past a nationalist community once or twice a year is often deemed too much for nationalist parties in this place to stomach, much less the permanent imposition of divisive symbols in their communities.

Thank you.

The official name of the place is Londonderry, although I understand that some do not wish to use it. I hope that a similar attitude will be taken to the continuing damage to signage that has the name Londonderry on it, which has been happening for years across the Province, in light of what happened, for instance, in Shandon Park. I want to address a particular element of the debate that, I think, grassroots unionism is sick and tired of: the disproportionate weight given to outlying examples from a unionist or Protestant background as if they are examples of what unionism really desires or are paragons of what unionism ought to be; the suggestion that unionists resist only because they do not know. I have heard the usual things invoked today, including the history of the Presbyterians in the Irish language, which I respect. We have heard talk of Linda Ervine, who is no doubt passionate about the Irish language. As a unionist, however, I know that many people whom I represent are sick of having those examples thrown at us as if they mean that we must adopt it as our culture. Do not tell me what my culture is. Do not tell me what my language is. I respect your right to speak Irish if you so wish, but I will not be told that it must be my language. That is what is happening to communities in Belfast: they are being told that they must have the Irish language whether they like it or not; that is the reality. If people in the 18th or 19th century, such as Douglas Hyde, had an interest in the language, that is interesting. It is often quoted that King William had backing from the Pope. Those are interesting quirks of history, and some are vital to the history of the language, but they are not reasons why unionist communities today must identify with it. I tell you: 30 years of being bombed, murdered and maimed by people who stand and sit in front of tricolours and tell us that every word spoken in Irish is a bullet for Irish freedom will affect people's attitude. Therefore, when you find that unionist and Protestant communities in Belfast are resistant to the language, perhaps some people — particularly those on the Benches opposite — will look closer to home for the reasons. The Members of this place and of councils — the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin — and the Irish language lobby can engage in their culture as they wish, but they should rid themselves of the sanctimonious idea that they get to say what others identify with and how others celebrate their culture. I respect the right of all to engage in and express their identity, but we should not have the voices of 16% of people in a street being granted more weight than the majority, as we saw in Shandon Park. Since 2022, 228 streets in Belfast have been approved for Irish language signage, yet only a small fraction of those had the backing of a majority of residents. We are told that bilingual signage promotes inclusion and diversity, but inclusion cannot be achieved by coercion. Belfast is a shared city with shared spaces and is welcoming to all. It should not be dominated by one cultural narrative or another. Imposing Irish language signs in strongly unionist areas does not promote harmony; it drives division. It tells one community that its sense of British identity is secondary and that its voice can be overridden by political symbolism. The DUP will always support genuine cultural expression, but it must be done with consent and context.

Thank you.

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

Assessment

Qualifying Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:30 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.

Challenge this classification