Debate contribution: Pornography Ban
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Pornography Ban
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5348546
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The UK Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently making its way through Westminster, contains provision to criminalise the possession and publication of pornography portraying strangulation and suffocation. I have been engaging with the UK Government and intend, subject to Members' agreement, to extend that provision to Northern Ireland to ensure that similar protections are afforded here. The provision aims to strengthen existing protections provided under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which extends to Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales and criminalises the possession of extreme pornographic images. Under the existing provision, an image falls within the scope of the offence where it portrays an act that threatens a person's life. However, the independent review of pornography commissioned by the previous UK Government and carried out by Baroness Bertin was concerned that images of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation may not be caught by the offence, having found no evidence of anyone being prosecuted for content on the basis of such images. Worryingly, the review also highlighted that strangulation and suffocation pornographic content is rife on mainstream platforms and is having real-world impacts on how people are having sex, particularly amongst young people. The provision proposed in the Crime and Policing Bill implements the recommendations of that review that depictions of non-fatal strangulation and suffocation should be clearly and explicitly captured in illegal pornography offences. Non-fatal strangulation and asphyxiation or suffocation is already illegal across the UK. As Members know, I provided for that offence in the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. However, its depiction in pornography normalises the behaviour and, as the review found, is having a malign influence on men and boys' perceptions of its real-world impact.
290 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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.61 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.31 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:15 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.