Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937494
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Absolutely. Women have a right to participate in public life without suffering abuse or threats of violence. Indeed, we want to actively encourage women to get into public life. However, sadly, we know from personal experience — we have heard the stories from many people, not just in this place but in other public roles — that women in public life are subjected to serious, sustained and severe abuse on social media. Often, one cannot identify who the person is or that the threat may include a specific act or threat of violence. Nevertheless, we know that the abuse builds up and has a negative impact on not just those individuals but the participation of women generally, with women not wanting to be part of public life or to become a public representative due to that. It is an important issue that is right at the heart of our strategy to end violence against women and girls. It is one of many behaviours that takes place because of prejudice and misogyny. It needs to be stamped out.
177 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 (0.69).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.56).
- 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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.56 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.44 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.91 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.09 |
| 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 12:22 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.