Debate contribution: Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on .
- MLA
- Ms Joanne Bunting
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4736393
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The internet is a great thing when it is used for good. However, it has also brought about and normalised some of the worst behaviours in human nature. The problem has worsened exponentially as technology has improved. That improvement, coupled with the advancement of AI, must be harnessed before things that are now out of control grow beyond any control. The inception of social media brought about the horrific abuse of those who do not share the views of the ubiquitous trolls. Frequently, the aim is to intimidate, to embarrass and, ultimately, to silence. In the past few years, the situation has plumbed a whole new level of low. It is critical that there is action without delay before nothing meaningful can be done. For too long, the online world has been a deeply unpleasant place where people abuse others to the extreme, usually behind a cloak of anonymity. No one should be expected to accept that kind of disgusting abuse, particularly the vulgar abuse that is targeted at many females. The DUP wants to see an improved response to the many forms of technology-facilitated abuse against women online. Far too many women and girls have experienced violence and harassment, including online, due to their sex. Indeed, shockingly, a 2023 study by Security Hero showed a 550% rise in deepfake pornographic videos since 2019, and evidence shows that these videos target women. Deepfake videos degrade, demean and deceive. During the most-recent Assembly election, some female candidates were subject to horrendously offensive deepfake content. In addition to the personal trauma that that will cause for our colleagues in elected politics and their families, it is concerning and sinister that such content may be used to attempt to influence the outcome of an election. Technology to create explicit deepfakes without consent is readily available, with research showing that one in every three deepfake tools allows you to create deepfake pornography. That means that someone with access to the internet who has a clear photo of a person's face can make a deepfake video of them in less than 25 minutes. The pace of development with generative AI is concerning, and we must be in no doubt that the impact of its misuse could and likely will be far-reaching, including in cases of child sexual abuse, where the National Crime Agency (NCA) and the police cannot distinguish between an image of a real child and a generated image. Progress has been made on strengthening the police and legal response by including four new offences in the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. However, the pace at which technology advances is staggering, so we must ensure that the police have the means to tackle online abuse in all its forms and that our legislation keeps pace with technological progress in order to avoid loopholes. It will be important for there to be a comprehensive review of existing laws across Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK so that where there are gaps, what more could and should be done and what best practice is on and beyond our shores can be established.
Thank you.
525 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: 0.06 (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 (0.92).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.54).
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.46 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.54 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.92 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| 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.