Debate contribution: Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls

Debate contribution by Miss Deirdre Hargey on .

MLA
Miss Deirdre Hargey
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
14 January 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Opposition Business
Heading
Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4736391

Read the official Assembly record

Text

These are important topics that we are discussing here in the Chamber today. Indeed, online abuse and the use of cyber-flashing, catfishing, targeted abuse and the emergence of the use of deepfake imagery is extremely concerning. We know that with the advancement of technology and, indeed, artificial intelligence, their use has become more widespread and often more sinister. I have been raising the issue of fast-emerging technology at the Justice Committee and have been asking what the Department and the Minister are doing to respond to these advancements. The impacts are devastating to their victims and have profound consequences that can often be long-lasting. The use of deepfake imagery is an extremely deep form of abuse that violates the intended victim and survivor, often impacting on their safety and well-being. It is perpetrated without consent and often involves the sharing of sexually explicit images that have been altered. Often, the victims and survivors do not know the identity of the sender. The concerns around online abuse are amplified by the fact that it disproportionately targets women and young girls. That amplifies what we heard during the previous debate on the increase in violence against women and girls. We live in a society where technology is an ever-increasing part of our lives and work. Many of us cannot do without our phones or our laptops. It is essential to understand that technology is now being used to further target people, with the aim of discrediting or undermining them or to perpetrate sinister and violent actions virtually. We know that it does not stop with the virtual world. The impacts reach beyond that to harassment and sometimes death. We saw that last year in the case of Alexander McCartney, who was behind one of the largest catfishing cases to date, which impacted on over 3,500 people throughout the world and involved the extreme sexual abuse of children and the manslaughter of a 12-year-old girl. That is how sinister and far-reaching the action can be. We need to ensure that our laws are equipped to deal with such incidents and can respond to advances in the technology, whether they are reserved or devolved matters. It is also essential to have an ongoing review and to look at best practice. Alongside that, we need more robust adherence to guidelines by social media companies, and we need to ensure that there is robust enforcement if they fail in their duty to protect people. Wider strategies are important, including the ending violence against women and girls strategy, which is being led by TEO but is a wider Executive strategy for all Ministers and Departments. Indeed, all of us in the Chamber and in society have a duty to drive systemic change and promote grassroots support and education.

461 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.91).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.06No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.91
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.09
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.80
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.20
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification