Sinn Féin 'concerned' at removal of President Higgins portrait in Belfast
Sinn Féin now say they are 'concerned' at the removal of the portrait, which hung on a wall beside a portrait of King Charles in a room on the first floor of City Hall used for meetings and receptions. The location of the artwork is yet to be revealed, Belfast Live reports.
The party has now asked the new Belfast Lord Mayor, DUP Councillor Tracy Kelly where the portrait is, as well as 'what message' was being sent by removing it.
Back in 2011, Sinn Féin stirred controversy after removing pictures of the Queen and Prince Charles during their tenure as mayor, erecting a portrait of the United Irishmen and an image of the 1916 Easter Rising Proclamation of the Irish Republic instead.
Former mayor and Sinn Féin Councillor Ryan Murphy, spoke at the meeting, held on Tuesday night, of the full Belfast Council.
After congratulating the Lord Mayor on the birth of his child, Councillor Murphy said: 'I want to commend you on the first weeks in office, I think we have seen you hit the ground running.
'You have been out in all four corners of the city of Belfast, even representing the city at an international level in the New York New Belfast events. The role of the mayor really is an important one for the city - it is able to highlight worthy causes.
'But it is a role that is held in very high esteem and high regard from the citizens of Belfast. That is felt no more so than in our ethnic communities, and I want to commend you on the events you took part in Refugee Week, when you went to the Big Picnic.
'To see that taking place, especially in the aftermath of the attacks, where a lot of ethnic minorities across Belfast were targeted, that has been welcomed.'
He added: 'But at the same time, the role of Lord Mayor is one that the Belfast people take ownership of. It's a position where all the people feel you are the person that represents them.
'That is done in your deeds, when you are out in the city, but also when you are in the offices. And the Mayor's offices, for me it was about opening them up to the city of Belfast, and letting the people know it was theirs, that it was somewhere where they belonged, that they could also feel part of.
'That was even done through the stuff that was on the walls. When our representatives have been in the position of Mayor, there were certain things we never took off the walls. There were certain things we felt were off-limits.
'And so when we were offered the royal portrait of the British King Charles, we accepted it, and we put it up alongside the Uachtarán na hÉireann Michael D.Higgins, and we marked it with a small event at the Mayor's office. For us it is concerning that in recent weeks we have seen that portrait is no longer there.
'And we would ask, where is that portrait? And what kind of message does it send out to people in this city who hold the President of Ireland in high regard?'
'That has been noted, thanks Ryan,' the Lord Mayor then replied.
A DUP spokesperson later said: "Decoration of the lord mayor's parlour is not yet complete. There will be further artefacts to be added in the next few weeks."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Journal
an hour ago
- The Journal
Gerry Adams slams 'vindictive' UK government plans to block compensation for illegal internment
GERRY ADAMS HAS condemned as 'vindictive and unlawful' the UK government's plan to block compensation for hundreds of people interned without trial during the Troubles, calling it a political move to rewrite history and defy the Supreme Court. The former Sinn Féin president was reacting to confirmation from Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn that the Government will bring forward new legislation aimed at stopping payouts to those (including Adams) whose detention was ruled unlawful by the UK's highest court. 'I am not surprised by the British government's decision to retrospectively make lawful actions it took 50 years ago that were illegal and unlawful at that time,' Adams said today. 'The original injustice endured by the internees will be deepened by the stupidity of a vindictive British government which doesn't accept its own law.' The fresh legislation follows a 2020 Supreme Court ruling which found that Adams and nearly 400 other individuals were unlawfully detained in the 1970s because their Interim Custody Orders (ICOs) had not been personally authorised by the Secretary of State, as required by law. ICOs were emergency detention orders introduced in 1971 at the height of the Troubles, allowing authorities to detain suspects without trial. However, the law required these orders be personally signed by the Secretary of State — a step missed in many cases, including Adams's. The 2020 court decision opened the door for compensation claims – until the Legacy Act, passed under the Conservative government, attempted to retroactively validate the ICOs. That attempt was struck down by the High Court in Belfast in February 2024 as incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Now, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the UK government have pledged to rewrite the law again in a bid to stop the compensation payments. 'The main issue here is the application of the Carltona principle,' Benn said in Parliament last week. Advertisement 'The Government will therefore legislate to address this issue in forthcoming primary legislation.' The Carltona principle is a legal doctrine that allows civil servants in the UK to act on behalf of ministers or Secretaries of State, meaning decisions can be made without the official's personal signature. The UK government intends to use this principle to justify retrospectively validating ICOs. The DUP has welcomed the move. Party leader Gavin Robinson said it was 'right and proper that the Government ensures Adams does not receive one penny of taxpayer money.' 'Such a move would have been an affront to all those who uphold the rule of law and an insult to victims of terrorism,' Robinson added. But Adams, who has always denied IRA membership, says the planned law change only compounds the injustice suffered by internees. Many, now elderly, were imprisoned without trial under emergency measures introduced at the height of the conflict in 1971. 'They were victims of appalling treatment at the hands of the British state forces and were held in shameful conditions,' he said. Legal and human rights groups are expected to challenge the new legislation if passed, raising concerns about the use of retroactive laws to neutralise court judgments and deny victims redress. 'The British government is once again rewriting its own laws when they become politically inconvenient,' Adams said earlier this year. 'This is not justice. This is political manipulation dressed up as legality.' The bill is expected to be brought before Parliament later this year. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Dáil passes Defamation Bill by 83 votes to 61
Retailers should fight false defamation claims and 'not take the easy route' of paying out because that just encourages further claims, Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan has warned. He was highlighting a new defence for retailers subjected to defamation claims for challenging people on whether they had paid for goods before leaving a shop. The provision is part of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill, which includes the abolition of juries in such cases and protections for media organisations against strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapps), actions taken by usually rich or powerful individuals designed to intimidate media organisations in their coverage of such people. The Dáil on Wednesday night passed the legislation by 83 votes to 61 and it now goes to the Seanad . READ MORE Mr O'Callaghan said there had been 'ill-informed inaccurate commentary' that he had amended provisions of the Bill on protections for retailers. This was 'completely incorrect'. The Minister said the provision was a 'very powerful defence' and this power was to 'ensure that they aren't subjected to unnecessary defamation actions'. Sinn Féin justice spokesman Matt Carthy suggested the Minister talk to retailers because a representative group member had expressed 'real concerns' to him that the provision would not do what it was supposed to. Claims are encouraged when retailers have a 'tendency not to contest', Mr O'Callaghan said. If retailers contest claims which are not valid, 'the message will go out to litigants there is no point in taking those claims', he added. The Minister also said politicians 'should have a thick skin' about commentary in traditional media and 'perhaps we should also have a thick skin when it comes to comments made about us online, although that's a matter for each individual politician'. Introducing a measure to provide protections to individuals against online defamation, he said 'there has to be a statutory response' where 'really egregious defamatory statements are made about an individual falsely accusing them of the most heinous and serious offences'. The Bill also contains a provision to protect media organisations on occasions 'where a responsible journalist may have made a mistake in one or two details'. It was not Mr O'Callaghan's experience that 'the media has gone out of their way to tell lies'. But Mr Carthy said the Minister was saying this 'from the luxury' of representing Fianna Fáil . It was his experience as a Sinn Féin representative that 'there have been instances where our media outlets have published downright lies about my party and they done so knowing that [they] were lies'.
The Journal
5 hours ago
- The Journal
Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves in tears after criticism over major welfare reform u-turn
LABOUR CHANCELLOR RACHEL Reeves appeared to cry in the Commons this afternoon as British prime minister Keir Starmer declined to guarantee she would remain in place until the election. Starmer faced MPs at Prime Minister's Question after being forced to scrap key planks of his welfare reforms. The welfare u-turn has left an almost £5 billion (€5.8b) black hole in Reeves's spending plans and has fuelled speculation she could be forced to hike taxes. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and challenged Starmer to say whether the Chancellor would keep her job until the next election. Watch as Chancellor Rachel Reeves sheds tears during Prime Minister's Questions 📽️ — The National (@ScotNational) July 2, 2025 Starmer dodged the question about whether Reeves would be in place for the remainder of the UK Parliament, saying Badenoch 'certainly won't'. The Tory leader said: 'How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm that she would stay in place.' Despite Starmer not backing her in the Commons, Downing Street insisted she was 'going nowhere' and had the prime minister's 'full backing'. Asked about Reeves's tears, a spokesman for the Chancellor said it was a 'personal matter'. Welfare u-turn Welfare spending in the UK stood at £40billion before the Covid pandemic but is projected to skyrocket to £100 billion by 2030. In March, reforms to the UK's welfare system – aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work – were announced. The aim was to make welfare savings of £4.8 billion by 2029-30. But yesterday, Starmer was forced to abandon a key plank of his welfare reform package in the face of a Labour rebellion. Advertisement The climbdown came just 90 minutes before MPs were due to vote for the first time on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (Pip) Bill. Universal Credit is a means-tested benefit that replaced and combined six 'legacy' benefits – it is paid to those looking for work, unable to work due to illness or disability, those on a low income or those with caring responsibilities. Meanwhile, Pip is a payment for people who have extra care needs or mobility needs as a result of a disability. With around 1,000 new Pip awards every day, the UK Government argued the current situation was unsustainable. Proposals to cut the health element of universal credit by almost 50% for most new claimants from April 2026 remains in place following yesterday's u-turn. However, the UK Government shelved plans to restrict eligibility for the Pip and any changes will now only come after a review of the benefit, which is due to conclude in the autumn of 2026. The move caused a major headache for Reeves as the welfare squeeze was originally meant to save £4.8 billion a year, which was subsequently reduced to £2.3 billion when the Bill was first watered down last week. But after another concession yesterday, it is uncertain how much the reforms will save from the soaring welfare bill, if anything. Indeed, the Resolution Foundation think tank suggested the concessions meant there would now be no 'net savings' from the reform by the end of the decade. The Bill changed so much in the interim that MPs questioned if there was even any point in voting on it. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused Labour of 'utter capitulation' and said the legislation was now 'pointless'. She said: 'They should bin it, do their homework, and come back with something serious. Starmer cannot govern.' A previous effort to kill the Bill had attracted more than 120 Labour supporters, but was dropped after the first partial u-turn on the legislation last week. And in yesterday's vote, Starmer faced a revolt of almost 50 MPs despite the changes, with the legislation clearing its first parliamentary hurdle by 335 votes to 260, a majority of 75. -With additional reporting by Diarmuid Pepper
