{"id":23694,"date":"2024-02-23T08:11:17","date_gmt":"2024-02-23T08:11:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/factcheckni.org\/?p=23694"},"modified":"2024-02-23T08:35:13","modified_gmt":"2024-02-23T08:35:13","slug":"is-belfast-city-councils-policy-for-dual-language-street-signs-extremist-and-provocative","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/factcheckni.org\/articles\/is-belfast-city-councils-policy-for-dual-language-street-signs-extremist-and-provocative\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Belfast City Council\u2019s policy for dual language street signs \u201cextremist and provocative\u201d?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A column in the News Letter examined changes in Belfast City Council\u2019s processes for erecting dual language street signs. We take a look at how this process has evolved over time and compare this to claims made in the newspaper. Our analysis found several mistakes, or omissions, in the News Letter article.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CLAIM ONE:<\/strong> Belfast\u2019s process for erecting dual language street signs was loosened in 2012, when the need for a two-thirds majority of consultation responses in favour was changed to a simple majority. The process was eased further when the need for explicit support of 15% of a whole street was changed to 15% of households which replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RATING:<\/strong> INACCURATE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CLAIM TWO:<\/strong> When Belfast City Council consults residents about whether their street should have a dual language sign, only 15% of responses have to be positive for an application to proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RATING:<\/strong> INACCURATE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CLAIM THREE:<\/strong> The council is \u201chiding\u201d behind its discretionary powers on erecting dual language signage to \u201cpretend\u201d it has robust systems to take due consideration of residents\u2019 views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RATING:<\/strong> INACCURATE WITH CONSIDERATION.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 17 November, News Letter Editor Ben Lowry wrote a column examining Belfast City Council\u2019s processes for erecting dual language street signs<\/a>. It claimed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/em>For a quarter of a century Belfast has had generous provision for the miniscule demand for Irish signage. In 1998 it adopted a sensible policy that any resident could apply for a dual language sign in their street provided it was backed by least [sic] a third of the street\u2019s residents. The bid would then be approved by the council if, after a consultation, it was supported by two thirds of the street\u2019s residents\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut this fair and moderate policy did not bring about the republican goal of Irish signs all over the city. <\/em>So, in 2012, the two thirds consultation majority was dropped to a bare majority<\/em><\/strong>\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHowever, even the 2012 loosening of the dual language (ie Gaelic) threshold to 50% did not have the result that Irish republicans wanted\u2026 Slashing the threshold for support for dual signage in Belfast from two thirds, which was too high for republicans to achieve their aims, to a majority, was still too high. Now it has been cut to 15%.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut the new policy does not merely have an outrageously low threshold, it also requires only one resident to request a dual signage (equal Gaelic and English). If none does, an elected representative for the electoral area can do so, or a developer. Then it goes to consultation needing only 15% support in the street. <\/em>But the policy has been diluted even more than that threshold implies \u2013 the minimum 15% support no longer applies to the whole street, but only to the percentage of households who have replied.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe new policy means that a Sinn Fein councillor who represents a mixed electoral area can apply for Gaelic in a street of 40 people, and, if only 20 people reply to the consultation and a mere 15% of that number support it \u2013 three people \u2013 [it] will pass.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe council is hiding behind a discretion it has to turn down dual signage to pretend that there is a robust system to prevent Irish signage in such circumstances, but I predict that it will be of minimal effect.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is this a fair outline of the process? In particular, are the following assertions true?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. In 2012, the need for a two thirds majority to support dual language signage was dropped in favour of a simple majority<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Is the explicit support of only 15% of respondents to the council\u2019s consultation needed for an application to meet the threshold to proceed?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Is the council just pretending that it has a robust system of discretion which can prevent the erection of unwanted signs?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Claim one is inaccurate.<\/strong> In 2012, the council considered reducing the required majority but this move was rejected. The News Letter corrected this error in the online version of the article days after it was first published, although the original published version<\/a> contained the error as quoted above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Claim two is also inaccurate.<\/strong> The council\u2019s policy states that if \u201c15 per cent or more of occupants within a street or road want to have a dual language sign, we will provide a report to the People and Communities Committee\u201d \u2013 i.e. the application can proceed to the next stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There could be some ambiguity in this wording, however FactCheckNI asked Belfast City Council to clarify what the threshold means. The council told us that this means 15% of residents in total<\/strong>, rather than 15% of respondents<\/strong> to any consultation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Point three is unfairly made, due to significant omissions.<\/strong> The News Letter\u2019s article says the council is \u201chiding\u201d behind discretion to \u201cpretend that there is a robust system\u201d \u2013 but makes no effort to look at what this system actually is. There is a clear process for discretionary decision making, which we outline below. Whether you think that process is robust is up to you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The writer also suggests that the policy is \u201cis part of a low-level republican culture war that increasingly has the support of people in the political centre ground and even of some unionists\u201d and that \u201cthe new language policy has extremist and provocative intent\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    FactCheckNI contacted the author of the article, and received no response. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The article is an opinion piece. Whether those opinions chime with your reasoning, or not, is entirely up to you, and is not something that can be fact checked.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    However, it is important to base your opinions on actual facts. Let\u2019s look in detail at the council\u2019s dual language signage policy and how it has changed \u2013 and not changed \u2013 at various points since it was first implemented just over 25 years ago, and compare that to the contents of the column.<\/p>\n\n\n\n