Debate contribution: Tackling Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- 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 4736635
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
A world in which anyone can impersonate you, steal your image or have you do and say outrageous things would have seemed closer to some sort of sci-fi horror film than to reality just a few years ago. When combined with entrenched misogyny, that technology becomes a recipe for the worst types of abuse and amplifies harm. The use of deepfake imagery disproportionately targets women — over 90% is a staggering statistic — often using their image to create exploitative content. The abuse not only invades privacy but leaves lasting emotional scars. Social media remains a Wild West where harm goes far beyond deepfakes. The anonymity that it provides to some makes it an inherently dangerous arena to be utilised by perpetrators of abuse, whether through the spouting of racist, sectarian or misogynistic rhetoric. That digital harm ultimately stems from the toxicity and violence that is embedded in our society. Social media exposes abuse to a global audience, providing perpetrators with the means to tighten their grip on victims and creating a sense that nowhere and no one is truly safe. All too often, bystanders watch as lives are torn apart online, fuelling harmful behaviours, addictions and the real-time unravelling of human beings. In some cases, there is a deliberate and orchestrated effort to silence and suppress the truth. We have seen that happen repeatedly to victims of abuse who have bravely taken the decision to share their story. Máiría Cahill's case is one that comes to mind. Pile-ons from Twitter trolls who thrive on spreading misinformation and use online platforms as yet another avenue for intimidation have become par for the course. Social media is not just the playground of bullies from the far right. While it is encouraging that some prosecutions have been made against those who issue threats and misinformation on social media, legislation has clearly failed to keep pace with a rapidly evolving medium. We need to tackle all forms of online violence — yes, violence against women and girls but also violence against children, society's most vulnerable, who remain inadequately protected within current frameworks. What a person does and says online remains for ever. It can have profound and lasting consequences. I think of the tragic case of Jo Cox MP, which reminds us all of the real-world impact of online hate and urges us to consider the weight of our online behaviour. Eight years on from her murder, little has been learned. Social media giants have not done enough to protect people, and legislation continues to fall short. I stand in solidarity with women across the North, across the world, in the Chamber and across the political spectrum, including, of course, my party colleagues, who have been the targets of horrific online abuse. I commend Cara, the proposer of the motion, who has spoken out so bravely about it. The courage that it takes to step into the world of politics, especially in today's climate, must not be underestimated. If we are to foster a safe, more inclusive space for all, we first need to be mindful that words are combustible. What is said on the Floor or shared online has the power to ignite. Sadly, it is a power more often used and seen for bad than for good. I regret that we will oppose the Alliance Party's amendment. We recognise, as the motion does, that this is a reserved matter, but that is not to absolve the Executive of their responsibility or the Justice Minister of hers. We have heard from Alliance today that the Minister has shown great leadership on the issues. I do not dispute for a second that she has, but you cannot take responsibility for all progress that has been made and, at the same time, seek to be absolved of responsibility for any further progress that is required. We welcome the strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, but it is null and void without the necessary funding to support it. The Executive need to put their money where their mouth is. Existing criminal law must be reviewed here and in Westminster in order to offer proper protection to victims of online abuse, and we will —.
708 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: 0.08 (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 (0.90).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.09 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.83 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.17 |
| 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.