Debate contribution: Palestine Action: High Court Ruling
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Matter of the Day
- Heading
- Palestine Action: High Court Ruling
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5391002
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The interpretation of the law and the rulings of the courts have never been a strength for some Members. Let us be clear about what the court ruling did and did not do. Palestine Action remains an illegal organisation and a proscribed terrorist organisation; the courts have made that clear. There are Members on my left and straight ahead of me who stand up in the House to praise the work of a proscribed terrorist organisation. It is rather surprising that some Members who claim to take every opportunity to stand up and speak up for the rights of women have remained silent when the opportunity to speak on this issue has arisen. I will read into the record some of the actions that Palestine Action has been involved in: a female police sergeant was left unable to drive, unable to shower and unable to dress herself as a result of an attack with a sledgehammer by Palestine Action. It is no wonder that the SDLP and Alliance Benches have remained silent on the issue. Those parties take every opportunity to claim that they stand up and speak up for the rights of women, but that terrorist organisation attacked a female police officer with a sledgehammer. Where are the remarks from the party opposite on that attack? Nowhere to be seen. My party warmly welcomes the fact that the Home Secretary will appeal the judgement. Let me be clear: it is for Parliament to set the law and for government to ensure that it is policed. The courts in this country will never set the law. Politicians voted to proscribe that organisation as a terrorist organisation — that is what it is; that is what it remains — and those who champion a terrorist organisation should be ashamed of themselves.
300 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: 0.48 (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 (0.76).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.13 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.39 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.21 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.31 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.48 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.76 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.11 |
| Adopts it | 0.13 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.64 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.19 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.07 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:53 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.