Debate contribution: Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 14 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4736374
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to address these critical and timely issues, which not only affect survivors and victims but act as a threat to our democracy. I rise to discuss the need to regulate deepfakes, a technology that has moved from the realm of novelty to become a tool for harm, exploitation and, of course, deception. I welcome the fact that, in recent weeks, the British Government have moved by announcing plans to change the law to address the malicious use of the technology. While that is a step in the right direction, we cannot wait to have that law brought forward, nor can we afford to wait. We need action now, and we need to keep the pressure on to ensure that there is immediate implementation. The words from the mouth of the British Government are "when time allows", but that language will offer little comfort to victims and survivors and future victims of the malicious use of the technology. Deepfakes are manipulated digital content that appears to be real. They are being used to humiliate, exploit and, of course, intimidate, targeting women in particular. They are so easily made — in mere seconds — through the click of a button on an app. A recent survey found that 96% of deepfake videos are non-consensual pornography. In the UK, a 2023 report stated that image-based abuse, particularly deepfake creation, is up 80% over the past three years. That rise really underscores the urgent need for our legal framework to catch up with technological advancements. Without adequate protections, victims are left vulnerable, while perpetrators will continue to act with impunity. The harm caused by deepfakes goes far beyond individual cases. Deepfakes are a threat to the sanctity of our democracy. Doctored videos of politicians and other public figures spread misinformation, eroding trust in institutions and the people in those institutions and, of course, influencing elections. In a study by the UK's Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI), 62% of people expressed concern that deepfakes could manipulate our political outcomes. Democracy relies on truth, and deepfakes distort truth. The longer we delay, the more vulnerable we become to that insidious threat. I am mindful that aspects of the law to do with communication are reserved, but let me say what we can do. Although the Minister of Justice is not in the Chamber today, I really believe that, in our devolved institution, we can make the changes that can help support victims and push for action against perpetrators. I call on the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland to treat the issue with the urgency that it rightfully demands. First, we need to ensure that sentences for those who create and distribute harmful deepfakes are robust and can act as a firm deterrent. Victims deserve justice, and perpetrators must face real consequences for their horrific actions. Secondly, we ask the Justice Minister to commission a comprehensive review of existing criminal law on online violence against women and girls to ensure that all forms of abuse are adequately dealt with. The review must include investing in cybercrime technology and resources for the PSNI so that it has the capacity to tackle that growing issue effectively. Sadly, only 15% of UK police forces have dedicated cybercrime units. That shows the glaring gap in our ability to respond to the ever-growing technological threats. We are really failing people, particularly women. They are really on their own with this one, and I feel strongly that that is just not good enough. We must recognise the need for investment in cybercrime units to ensure that law enforcement has the tools and the expertise to tackle the ongoing problem. The technology is advancing rapidly, so our capacity to combat it must advance just as quickly. That means that we need adequate training, resources and collaboration with tech experts to stay ahead of those who seek to use the technology maliciously. I am particularly concerned about how it can be used to harm children, so that is something important to include in today's debate. We need to step up, be firm and show perpetrators who maliciously use such tech that they will be dealt with. Sentencing here must be a strong deterrent. Lastly, I urge the Minister of Justice to write to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Secretary of State for Justice demanding a clear timeline for the introduction of legislation to criminalise deepfake abuse adequately. It is not a problem that respects borders, so our response must be unified, swift and comprehensive. Across Europe, there are AI centres that provide support for victims of deepfakes. We must see those changes and supports, with ethics, in Northern Ireland in the Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre (AICC), which is currently being developed. AI has incredible potential. It can be used for good, but we must use our devolved powers to stamp out malicious use. Today, every one of us is speaking up against online violence and harm against women and girls, so I urge every Member to support our motion.
856 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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.14 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.71 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.29 |
| 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 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.