Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 14 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4736325
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Change has been slow. That is all that I will say, because I have limited time. I send my solidarity to all women who have been impacted on by violence and threatening and abusive behaviour, including women in the Building who have spoken out in recent days such as the MP for Lagan Valley. We need to be careful about focusing our language on racial minorities and on thoughts or perceptions that people from the Muslim or Asian communities are perhaps more predisposed to committing violence against women. That is nonsense. It is factually incorrect. It is dangerous language to use and a dangerous road to go down. Across these islands, perpetrators are more likely to be white and, as the Member opposite said, more likely to be a family member or known to the victim. People should therefore be careful about the language that they use in the debate. Any serious plans to end violence against women and girls must be clearly targeted at the root of gender-based violence. Deep-rooted, institutional misogyny stems from old ideas about women and their bodies being the personal property of men. Those ideas, as outdated as they seem, are —
— still being reinforced by the system today. I have plenty more to say, but, unfortunately, time is against me.
217 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: 0.07 (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 (0.69).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.99).
- 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 | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.01 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.62 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.32 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.05 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:47 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.