Member's statement: Online Abuse

Member's statement by Ms Cheryl Brownlee on 20 January 2026.

MLA: Ms Cheryl Brownlee
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 20 January 2026
Type: Member's statement
Business: Members' Statements
Heading: Online Abuse
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5348200

Text

An important issue that concerns everyone in the Chamber is the growing tide of online abuse, particularly the personalised and appearance-based attacks directed at women in public life. In recent days and weeks, our MP Carla Lockhart has been subjected to utterly appalling abuse on social media. It is not a criticism of her politics, which is, of course, a legitimate part of debate, but vicious, demeaning comments about her appearance. That behaviour is not political discourse; it is bullying, pure and simple.
Carla's response has been powerful and dignified. By calling out the abuse for what it is, she has stood not only for herself but for each and every one of us who is constantly attacked on social media.
When individuals resort to personal abuse rather than argument, they have already lost the debate, but we should be honest about the damage that the abuse causes. The harm does not stop with the individual but extends to their families, children and loved ones. When we look in the mirror in the morning, we may wish that we looked slightly different, but that gives nobody the right to pass judgement or hurl abuse at another human being.
Much of the abuse comes from trolls hiding behind anonymous profiles, and there is a lack of consequences for them. Platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have done little to tackle the problem. There is no doubt that stronger account verification, faster removal of abuse content and real sanctions are needed, but what we see from regulators at the moment is simply not good enough. Women and girls are vulnerable users and continue to face harassment, exploitation and intimidation online, with little meaningful protection or recourse. Voluntary compliance has failed. Without legally binding obligations and penalties that actually hurt them, the platforms will continue to prioritise profit over people. The abuse that has been directed at Carla is horrendous. Nobody in public life or on any side of politics should have to endure it. She is a tireless advocate for her constituents and serves with integrity and strength. Those who resort to such vile personal attacks are not fit to tie her laces. That behaviour must be called out for what it is. It must be challenged, and it must be stopped. We stand with Carla and every person who is the victim of such abuse. It is time for social media companies and regulators alike to move beyond words and take real action.

412 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.60).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.57).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.16	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.03	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.02	No
Controversy escalation	0.11	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.60	Yes
Overall judgement	0.06	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.57
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.43
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.95
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.05
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 14:12 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.

Challenge this classification