Motion or amendment: Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 6 January 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Document 422733
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
That this Assembly expresses alarm at the growing issue of online violence against women and girls, particularly the increasing use of deepfake imagery; notes that deepfake abuse disproportionately targets women, with studies indicating that over 90 per cent of non-consensual deepfake imagery involves female victims; acknowledges that current legislative frameworks are unfit in addressing emerging forms of online abuse, such as deepfake technology; calls on the Minister of Justice to commission a comprehensive review of existing criminal law on online violence against women and girls to ensure all forms of abuse are adequately captured and dealt with; and further calls on the Minister to write to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, requesting a clear timeline for the introduction of legislation to adequately criminalise deepfake abuse.
147 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: 0.04 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.85).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.85 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.15 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.76 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.24 |
| 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 09:01 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.