Debate contribution: Exclusion of the Minister of Education from Office

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .

MLA
Mr Paul Frew
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 5224335

Text

Mr Speaker, what a farce; what an absolute farce. When we in the Chamber could be debating housing — we have a Minister here — or education in our own country — the Education Minister is here — what a farce it is that we are debating something that will make no material difference or have no outcome after the debate. It is an absolute farce. Members are bringing the Chamber into disrepute by bringing the motion to the House. It is incredible that we are spending and wasting time on a debate on a motion that will make no material difference. Why do they do it? Mr Speaker, I suggest that the parties have brought the motion as a sham fight — a pantomime. However, it is even more serious than that, because they have all been led by the nose by a Member who, to his shame, tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists. On the day that babies were being burnt in ovens, when children were being executed by a bullet in their head and when young girls and women were being raped and gang-raped in their homes, the Member tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists. It is not the first time that Sinn Féin has been spooked by Gerry Carroll and People Before Profit. I remember when it voted, last term, to reduce everybody's rent by 10% and had to claw that back through legislation. It has been in embarrassing situations before. Of course, I have no confidence whatsoever in Sinn Féin, any of its Members or any of its Ministers. However, I expect a different level from the SDLP, which has, in the past, deemed itself to be non-violent, and, of course, the Alliance Party, which models itself as being middle-of-the-road. How middle-of-the-road is this? There is no middle-of-the-road here. Instead of spending time debating the important issues that will affect our people — every one of our voters in Northern Ireland — we have this sham fight that will make no material difference. Shame on you all, because you have brought the debating Chamber into disrepute. It should not be the case, but you have, and it is shameful. Why should I have confidence in the other Ministers in the Executive? At times, in my time, especially over the past five years, the Executive have been poor. They have brought in measures that have hurt our people dramatically and drastically. Anxiety levels and mental health issues are through the roof. It was the Executive — it was the parties in the House — who did that to our people. The DUP fought against it, resisted it and opened up sooner. Lockdown philosophy is your fault, and you need to be held to account for it. Even during that time, Sinn Féin had a sham funeral oration in a graveyard for somebody who was not even buried there.

It brought thousands out on to the streets at a time of public health dangers and risks. Did Sinn Féin care? No, it did not. Sinn Féin is just as bad as Boris Johnson, yet it will criticise him. Sinn Féin has the only Minister who has been taken to court and proven guilty on the grounds of religious discrimination against a protestant. Where was Alliance then? Where was the SDLP then? Why was there no motion then? This is drama, and you have all been spooked by the person in the corner: by the Member who tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists, when babies were being burned in ovens and young girls gang-raped in their homes. Shame on you all. When we should be debating issues important and significant for the children of Northern Ireland, the mask has slipped, and you have brought the House into disrepute. Shame on you all.

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

Assessment

Qualifying 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: 0.90 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
  • Criteria met: Identity framing (0.64); Dog-whistle messaging (0.70); Controversy escalation (0.83).
  • The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.77).
  • 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

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 framing0.64Yes
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.49No
Cultural grievance politics0.14No
Dog-whistle messaging0.70Yes
Controversy escalation0.83Yes
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.07No
Overall judgement0.90Above qualifying threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.08
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.15
Adopts it (chosen)0.77
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)0.49
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.44
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.05
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:41 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