Debate contribution: Irish Language Street Signage in Belfast
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Irish Language Street Signage in Belfast
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5176502
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is pathetic but not surprising that we are dealing with a DUP attack on the Irish language once again. When unionism is in crisis, it seeks to sectarianise things. It is like clockwork, or, as we say in Irish, iontas na n-iontas.
Is cuid lárnach dár gcathair iad pobal na Gaeilge. Tá na mílte daoine óga ag freastal ar scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge. Tá tuismitheoirí ar fud na cathrach cosúil liomsa, ag tógáil a gcuid páistí trí mheán na Gaeilge. Is ceart agus is cóir go raibh an Ghaeilge le feiceáil i mBéal Feirste. Is ceart agus is cóir go raibh sí in úsáid ag an chomhairle, ag an stát. Agus tá focal coitianta ann a dhéanann cur síos ar ionsaí an DUP: seicteachas. Mar a dúirt mé, nuair a bhíonn an DUP faoi bhrú, déanann siad an druma seicteach a bhualadh.
Bomaite beag.
Agus cén t-iontas ann sin nuair a bhíonn bagairt lofa ar chéad leathanach na nuachtán? Dílseoirí le gunnaí, ag rá go ndéanfaidh siad ionsaí ar an chomhairle, ar oibrithe, mar gheall ar an Ghaeilge.
Go ahead.
Go raibh maith agat.
No, but I believe that your party's motives are sectarian. I remind Members that, across 536 streets in Belfast where there is approved street signage, only 3% of residents opposed the use of Irish. I think that you are trying to make an exception for a small minority that you, as a party, have tried to elevate. When unionism has spent months and years whipping up hysteria about the language, which it has done quite well, it is no surprise to see armed threats on the front pages. The deputy First Minister tried to downplay those threats and say that they do not exist, but the evidence is there for every single one of us to see. A sectarian agenda gives confidence to and legitimises loyalist paramilitaries
— you can tut all you want — as does working and sitting down with the Loyalist Communities Council. We have heard much in the debate about cost. I remind Members that the DUP should not be trusted on accounting matters. The spirit of the RHI scheme is still alive and well in that party. Sa dara háit, mar a deir an seanfhocal atá scríofa ar an bhealach isteach go Coláiste Feirste: Is fiú ór í an fhoghlaim. Is fiú ór í an méid atá le foghlaim faoin Ghaeilge sa chathair seo. Is fiú ór í Béal Feirste ina bhfuil an Ghaeilge lárnach inti. Is fiú ór í an infheistíocht a dhéantar sa teanga.
Let us be clear: the DUP is trying to sectarianise the Irish language by talking about costs, trying to whip up racism and talking about transphobia, because working-class communities are suffering, and they are angry. The Executive share a lot of the blame for that stuff.
Sure.
Tá fáilte romhat.
Those ridiculous and embarrassing attacks on the Irish language are designed to distract from that reality and keep working-class people angry at the wrong things. Sectarianism lets the whole establishment off the hook. Nationalist parties here are right to defend the language — we all agree on the need for that, obviously — but, in the same breath, all Executive parties implement a neoliberal agenda that punishes working class Gaeilgeoirí and working class people in general. They are complicit in the crises in our public services and housing. Mar a deir muid i nGaeilge, tá siad ag baint ó Pheadar le tabhairt do Phól.
We have to reject the DUP's sectarianism. The rights of Irish speakers should be respected and resourced. Narrow nationalism will not serve the needs of working-class Gaeilgeoirí in Belfast or anywhere else. We need to take a socialist approach to the questions of the Irish language. There has been a lot of talk about the Irish language being weaponised by some people. I will make a point of who is doing the weaponising tonight: it is the DUP. DUP Members are clearly vexed at the sight of bilingualism and of Irish anywhere. They are the biggest culprits when it comes to weaponisation and negative politicisation. I will address some points that were made in the debate. Unionists may be in the minority in the House, but they are not an oppressed minority. Despite what spin Members try to put on it, unionists are not an oppressed minority. Of all the issues that the DUP could have brought to the Chamber tonight on poverty or inequality, they, instead, try to stir the pot of sectarianism. Shame on them for that. Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na hateangairí don díospóireacht seo.
773 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy
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: 0.77 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.90); Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.78); Cultural grievance politics (0.95); Dog-whistle messaging (0.76).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.79).
- Subject area: Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy.
- 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 | 0.90 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.78 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.95 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.76 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.49 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.25 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.77 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.21 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.93 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.07 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.