Debate contribution: Sinn Féin Billboards: Illegal Erection

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 20 January 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

20 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Sinn Féin Billboards: Illegal Erection

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5348805

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There has been a fair bit of knockabout today, some of which has been done in good part, and that is fair enough. There have been accusations of hypocrisy from the DUP towards Sinn Féin and from Sinn Féin towards the DUP. The truth is that there is pretty glaring hypocrisy from both parties. These issues — and the broader issues of symbols, flags, emblems and posters in a shared society in which space and identity are contested — are all part of the same challenge, and both of those parties are unwilling to confront it honestly. The motion is about the unlawful erection of Sinn Féin posters in Newry and other parts of the North. My wife is from that part of the world, my in-laws still live there and I know lots of people there, so I am regularly in that part of the world. I know the roundabout at the Egyptian Arch, and I know that there are Sinn Féin posters in several other places in Newry: around Greenbank; near the Showgrounds and Páirc Esler; and in the middle of the city. There are Sinn Féin posters in Warrenpoint, my home town of Downpatrick and other towns. It is important to say that there is nothing wrong with political speech. Political speech is a vital part of any democracy, and it can be in public spaces. There are multiple ways for political speech to be in public spaces. We are all entitled to have public events to give our views. We are entitled to buy advertising space. We are entitled to display political emblems and messages of all sorts on private land. All the instances that we are talking about, however, are where Sinn Féin has erected, either temporarily or quasi-permanently, political messages with its branding on public land. That is not a trivial matter. It is not the most important issue facing the North or in the Minister's inbox, but it is a real issue. There is a challenge when a Minister, who holds a particular ministry and has a statutory legal responsibility for roads infrastructure and signage, and the safety of road and rail users, is a public representative of a party that is in clear breach of the law, not occasionally but permanently. That is not a trivial matter, no matter what Ms Ennis says. She says that the DUP is not serious. The DUP may not be serious — I have no doubt that the DUP is playing politics here — but my party and I are serious about it. I, for what it is worth, care deeply about many of the issues that Sinn Féin puts on those posters. I care profoundly about Palestine. I care deeply about, and am in politics to help to achieve, a new and shared united Ireland. Here is the thing: I genuinely do not think that simply erecting Sinn Féin posters with the words "united Ireland" on them all over our towns will persuade people about a united Ireland. It might actually turn the odd, more persuadable, voter off it. What it will do, however, which is perhaps the purpose, is implant subtly in the minds of people, particularly those living in a nationalist area, that that area sort of belongs to Sinn Féin and then constantly remind them that Sinn Féin has part ownership of it or whatever. To be clear: that is not legitimate democratic speech. We seek a vote every number of years to represent people. We do not own those communities nor are we given that power. The SDLP still has a significant vote in Newry. We do not seek the right to put our emblems all over that or any other town.

Thank you very much for giving me the extra minute. You have given me the opportunity, Mr Speaker, to draw a differentiation between posters that are permanent erections of political messages and what she is referring to.

I will say the following to the Member. She and I share the constituency of South Belfast — we hear guffaws and whataboutery from all corners of the Chamber — and I agree with her position. She scored a point with me, and that is fair enough. She is entitled to do that. She is a politician, and I am too. You got cheers from Sinn Féin when you said it, but the point is that what Sinn Féin does with its posters undermines our ability, and yours, to regulate the unlawful flying of flags on the Ormeau Road and in Rosetta and Finaghy. The DUP's not standing up against illegal, unlawful displays across unionist, loyalist or mixed communities, such as those in South Belfast, undermines and makes ridiculous its motion about Sinn Féin posters. I am happy for Ms Bradshaw to challenge me on a poster with SDLP insignia. There are challenges for us all. We need to move to regulating properly —.

I will not give way, because I do not have time. We need to regulate properly the use of insignia in a shared space and a shared community. Why? It is because we live in a shared community. I want to build a new Ireland, but I do not think that I will do that simply by having Sinn Féin posters all over nationalist towns in the North, nor do I think that people will be persuaded of the benefits of Northern Ireland's being in the United Kingdom by having moth-eaten flags all over the Ormeau Road, Carryduff, Rosetta and other parts of my constituency. Let us be clear: the Minister has a statutory responsibility for roads, road users, railways and the safety of public highways. She should take that statutory responsibility seriously. As the largest party in Government in the North and the largest party on this island that wants to build a new Ireland, Sinn Fein should take this debate seriously. Simply scattering and littering this island with your party posters will not help us build that new society.

1,003 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mainly advances the public interest

Against the published rubric

The contribution addresses unlawful political posters and flags on public land in terms of legality, a minister's 'statutory responsibility for roads' and the need to 'regulate properly the use of insignia in a shared space'. It applies the same standard to nationalist posters and to unlawful flags in unionist and loyalist areas, and it explicitly rejects any party treating an area as though it 'belongs' to them. The criticism targets specific conduct by parties rather than any community, and the jibe about 'moth-eaten flags' is aimed at unlawful displays, not at a tradition's culture. On balance it does not meet the rubric for culture-war activity.

Public interest or divisiveness

The main thrust is opposing territorial marking of shared space by either side and pressing for even-handed enforcement of the law. There is some party knockabout, including accusations of 'glaring hypocrisy' on both sides. However, this serves an argument against division rather than an attempt to keep an identity row going. It mainly advances the public interest.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:15 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification