Debate contribution: Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4736627
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will try to speak fast. I wish that I had more time. I echo my colleague Connie's personal thanks to Cara Hunter. We know only too well the abuse that comes when a woman speaks out about her personal experience, as my colleague Sorcha Eastwood is unfortunately experiencing this week and has probably experienced every week since she became an elected representative. We know that artificial intelligence holds great promise. When it is abused, however, it can cause such immense harm. The rise of AI-driven deepfake technology is such a rapidly evolving and metastasising problem. It is spreading across platforms and creating really serious societal challenges. It is not just a technological issue but is deeply tied, as others have said, to the broader issues of misogyny, harassment and, ultimately, control. In looking at AI, deepfake imagery is particularly alarming. They are such hyperrealistic images that women are left completely vulnerable, simply for existing online. The issue is not just hypothetical. It is not just pie in the sky. It is happening now and on a massive scale. Look at the case of Taylor Swift, bigger than us, whose AI-generated pornographic images went viral and garnered millions of views before they were deleted 17 hours later. There was also an AI-generated image that falsely showed her endorsing Donald Trump, which completely distorted that public discourse. Those examples illustrate how deepfake technology can destroy reputations, manipulate public conversations and inflict serious emotional and psychological damage. There are also sinister viral acts happening virtually, about which Deirdre Hargey talked. I welcome the UK Government's announcement of a new criminal offence of creating sexually explicit deepfake images with penalties of up to two years in prison. I welcome the call to liaise with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. Legislation must do so much more than keep pace with technology; it has to get ahead of it, which is why we tabled our amendment urging the Executive Office to engage with that Secretary of State. The First Minister, the deputy First Minister and all Ministers should engage to ensure that the changes are implemented quickly and effectively in Northern Ireland, as Connie Egan outlined and Diana Armstrong mentioned. The fastest way in which we can get there is by working with Westminster. While we would love to see further legislation here, we will not get there in this mandate. It is not solely a Department of Justice issue. It is cross-cutting and involves the Department of Education, which deals with young people; the Department of Health, which deals with online victims who require robust mental health interventions; and the Department for the Economy, which looks at cyber skills. The regulator, Ofcom, has to hold the platforms accountable, as Maurice Bradley referenced. Telecommunications legislation is reserved by the UK Government, but we need legislation in order to move forward. Deepfake imagery is —
— not just online violence: it is violence full stop.
499 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: 0.05 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.60).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.40 |
| 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 11:50 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.