Member's statement: Terrorism: Innocent Victims
Member's statement by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 March 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Terrorism: Innocent Victims
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5462705
Read the official Assembly record
Text
One of the greatest and most enduring scandals in Northern Ireland is the disgraceful treatment of innocent victims by successive British and Irish Governments. For decades, those who suffered most have often been pushed aside, ignored and, at times, treated as a political inconvenience. They watched as, under the Belfast Agreement, prison gates were opened and those responsible for the most brutal, cold-blooded and sectarian murders walked free. They watched as some even sought to glorify that violence, and they listen now as the First Minister of no alternative praises their evil deeds. They watched as successive Governments blurred the moral line, equating victims with the very perpetrators who caused the suffering. They now watch as proposals are advanced to hand a role in legacy matters to the Irish Government: the very Government who presided over a sanctuary for terrorists.
Those are not abstract issues; they relate to real people — families who carry loss every single day. Those families are from all backgrounds and from all political traditions and none. They deserve better than warm words; they deserve action. Labour came into office promising change — a new dawn — but the Labour Government are failing to deliver on many of those promises. They are failing innocent victims, failing those who stood against terrorism and failing those who have upheld democracy. They have now been forced to delay the next stage of their legacy Bill as a result of amendments tabled by this party. We cannot continue down a path that rewrites history or diminishes the suffering of victims. There must never be any moral equivalence between the people who carried out acts of terrorism and the people who suffered at their hands. That principle must be clear and unwavering, and reflected in every policy brought forward by Government. It is time to put victims first and to ensure that their voices are finally heard. The Democratic Unionist Party will always stand proudly on the side of innocent victims. We will never allow the past to be rewritten. As long as I am in office, I will use my voice to stand up for innocent victims of terrorism.
359 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: 0.63 (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).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.42).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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
- Mixed
Against the published rubric
The statement's main subject is a live policy question: the treatment of Troubles victims, the UK Government's legacy Bill and proposals to give the Irish Government a role in legacy matters. It says explicitly that victims' families are "from all backgrounds and from all political traditions and none", rather than framing the issue as one community against another. It does contain pointed political jibes, such as the sarcastic "First Minister of no alternative" and the description of the Irish state as having "presided over a sanctuary for terrorists". These are aimed at a specific office-holder's remarks and at a government's past conduct, not at a community as a whole, so the text sits within contested but legitimate legacy debate rather than meeting the rubric's test for culture-war activity.
Public interest or divisiveness
Much of the text deals with substance. It covers early releases, moral equivalence between perpetrators and victims, delays to the legacy Bill and the role of governments in legacy arrangements, all of which are matters the Assembly and governments actively decide. Alongside this, it engages in party positioning on a recognised flashpoint ("we will never allow the past to be rewritten") and in sharp point-scoring against political opponents. That point-scoring contributes to the continuing argument over competing accounts of the Troubles. Both elements are substantial, so the balance is mixed.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.58 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.13 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.11 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.51 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.27 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.34 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.63 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.32 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.26 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.42 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.94 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.06 |
| 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 15:15 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.