Member's statement: St Brigid's Day
Member's statement by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 2 February 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- St Brigid's Day
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5356183
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thosaigh an t-earrach inné ar Lá Fhéile Bríde. Thug ár sinsir Imbolg ar an am sin, sin é tús nua na bliana. Sheas Naomh Bríd ar son chearta na mbocht, agus bhí sí cineálta le cách.
Whether you subscribe to the notion of St Brigid the Christian missionary or Briege the Celtic goddess, we can all agree that she was a woman ahead of her time. I was heartened that, at the weekend, in homes and around hearths across the country, we saw the old Irish traditions to honour her live on. I particularly commend the people in my community who came together, at the Shepherd's Rest in Sixtowns and An Ráth Dubh in Moneyneena, to offer people the opportunity to make St Brigid's crosses. It is hard to believe that anybody in Ballinascreen would be short of rushes: that took some of the work out of it. Today, we can all learn from the tradition of making something for you or a neighbour to hang over the door in order to bring health and happiness for the coming year.
We have had conversations in the Chamber in recent weeks about the dangers of social media and AI and all of the problems that they pose for our young people. We can see that the old community spirit could be the solution to a lot of those worries. We can all learn a lot from that influential woman.
238 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.06 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.90 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:18 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.