Debate contribution: Exclusion of the Minister of Education from Office
Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- MLA
- Mr Jonathan Buckley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Exclusion of the Minister of Education from Office
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5224248
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Absolutely. When we come to a time when it is deemed that a Minister has breached the ministerial code — say, via a court ruling, rather than by a pan-nationalist kangaroo court — what will be the position of those parties? If we want to talk purely about confidence in Ministers, the Executive and indeed previous Executives, we had better do just that. What about confidence in our supposed "First Minister for all", a lady who said that there was no alternative to IRA violence? We are being subjected to lectures from none other than Declan Kearney and Pat Sheehan about the murder of defenceless, innocent children and babies when their own military wing took the life of many innocent babies and children in this country. Sorry, but there is a brave degree of self-denial from the Members opposite. What about confidence in another Minister who signed the motion, namely the leader of the Alliance Party, Naomi Long?
Sorry, I will correct that: she is the leader of a party that will support the motion, a lady whose party believes that those who planted bombs and pulled triggers must be elevated to the same status as innocent victims. What utter shame. She is a Minister of Justice who believes that men should be housed in women's prisons. I mean, is that not a point of confidence? Then, we have the Minister of Agriculture, Andrew Muir. Well, where do I start with this one? My goodness, his approach to agriculture is reminiscent of the man who thought that you could milk a cow by pulling its tail. This man —
The Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has demonstrated that it has absolutely no confidence in that man as Minister. Then, there is the SDLP. Well, this will be brief. It will be brief, because voters issued their vote of no confidence in the SDLP at the last election.
Alliance Members are interested in talking about other Ministers’ records, but, when their own Ministers’ records are put up in lights, they run for the hills. They are records of dismissal and of hiding behind the desk while their Departments are in absolute chaos. The voters had their vote of no confidence in the SDLP. They are in opposition not out of choice but because the voters put them there. That is the truth. Then, we have — come on now, Members — Comrade Carroll, the conductor in chief. He has the SDLP, Alliance and Sinn Féin all doing the 'Cha-Cha Slide' to a leftist agenda. I mean, I would expect it from Sinn Féin, but what a slide to the hard left by the Alliance Party. It is a shameful approach. On 7 October 2023, Mr Carroll tweeted: "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", when babies were being burnt in ovens, children were being killed and women were being raped. I will give him the chance, if he wants it, to withdraw it right now. Will he withdraw it? There is silence. That, my friends, is the man who is being propped up by the parties opposite. They have no shame. Mr Carroll, because you will not withdraw that comment, I cannot conclude anything other than that you are a rampant antisemite and that you hate Jews.
Withdraw your tweet.
The most interesting part of Mr Carroll's point of order is that he did not utter one word of regret about the tweet that he issued and had not one word of sympathy for those who were killed. That is hypocrisy, Members. The Minister of Education will still be the Minister of Education at the end of today's debate. He will get on with doing his job. He was put into office by members of this party, courtesy of those who voted for us at the election. He will serve all communities without fear or favour and ensure —.
645 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)
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 (0.84); Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.74); Dog-whistle messaging (0.92); Controversy escalation (0.82).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.93).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.84 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.74 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.92 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.82 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.07 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.93 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.01 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.70 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.16 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.13 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:38 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.