Member's statement: Belfast City Council: Sectarianism
Member's statement by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 February 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Belfast City Council: Sectarianism
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5399689
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I call out the continued sectarian campaign that is targeting members of the Protestant workforce at Belfast City Council. Just three weeks ago, three members of staff who were out doing their job, which is to keep our city clean and safe, were attacked for no reason other than their religion. In the past week, that targeted campaign against the Protestant workforce has intensified and put lives in danger. Other members of staff at Belfast City Council have falsely claimed that staff in the cleansing team in Belfast are members of a proscribed terrorist organisation. That has put a target on the back of our dedicated front-line workforce. I do not know the religious background of the cleansing team in North Belfast, but I know that they are the salt of the earth. They do a job that many of us would never do. They go out early in the morning to clean up messes left by others and respond to elected representatives of all hues and political persuasions without fear or favour. If any other religious minority were targeted in this city, it would be on the front page of newspapers, and it would not take 37 minutes of Members' statements for the issue to be raised in the House. When it comes to Protestants being targeted, however, some people want to adopt the mantra that, if the person is a Protestant, it does not matter. Under the leadership of the DUP's Sarah Bunting, a formal complaint has been made to the chief executive of Belfast City Council to ensure that any person, regardless of their religious background, can carry out the job that they are entitled to do. The Democratic Unionist Party stands with our council workers, and we will continue to call out the sectarian targeting of Protestants.
305 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Not flagged on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.61 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.94).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.57).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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.
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 statement's central point is condemning reported physical attacks on council cleansing staff and allegedly false claims that they belong to a "proscribed terrorist organisation", which it says "put lives in danger". Under the rubric, sectarian abuse, intimidation and threats are genuine safety questions, not symbolic ones, and seeking action against them is condemnation rather than adoption of a divisive framing. The lines suggesting that attacks on Protestants are treated as if they do "not matter" add a note of comparative grievance, but they are aimed at unnamed "some people" rather than at a whole community. The statement also stresses that anyone, "regardless of their religious background", should be able to do their job.
Public interest or divisiveness
The statement mainly advances the public interest by raising alleged sectarian attacks and endangering claims against front-line workers, and by noting a formal complaint to the council's chief executive about workers' safety. The comparison with how "any other religious minority" would be treated brings in some grievance framing and party positioning. However, it does not portray another community as a threat or attack one as a group, and it is secondary to the safety concern.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.94 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.14 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.14 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.25 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.22 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.34 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.61 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.01 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.57 |
| Adopts it | 0.42 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.92 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.08 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:57 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.