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 4937498
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her sentiments and her important question. There is always a balance when it comes to free speech in all of this. In any democracy, people should be able to freely express a view, but, where that crosses over into abuse or threats, that is clearly wrong. I welcome the fact that it has been recognised that a number of tools are needed to deal with the issue, including not just the new offences under the Online Safety Act that we have seen in action already but the aspects of that legislation that compel social media and online companies to take action. That is why the current Ofcom consultation is really important. I believe that it is open until 23 May. I encourage Members to respond to that by telling of their own experiences and the types of issues that the guidance needs to cover. That will be vital. I do not want any woman or girl to suffer abuse online. I certainly do not want it to get to a level at which a young person feels that they do not want to go into politics or at which a woman feels that they want to step back from front-line politics. It is really important that we tackle the issue. It is important for inclusion to be there and for our public representative space to be a safe one in which people are able to do what they need to do.
246 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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.71).
- 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 | 0.06 | 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 | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.71 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.29 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.71 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.29 |
| 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.