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 5348550
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Members will know that I am passionate about that. Where possible, I want to address serious sexual offending. In the previous mandate, I introduced a new domestic abuse offence that marked a step change in capturing controlling and coercive behaviour. I introduced new offences of stalking, upskirting, downblousing and cyberflashing and four new offences to tackle adults who pretend to be a child with a view to sexual grooming that bolstered the child grooming offences and are unique to Northern Ireland. I also created a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation and enhanced protections around offences of the abuse of a position of trust and the disclosing of private sexual images. Those measures have added real, tangible and valuable protections, and the extension of the Bill will add to the cadre of offences that we are dealing with. It is important that people recognise just how serious the issue is, particularly for young people. The study that was done and the evidence that was presented to it showed that a significant number of young women around the age of 14 had already been subjected to suffocation and strangulation. Young men as young as 10 had asked teachers how they could safely choke girls during sex, and 13% of sexually active girls aged 14 to 17 had already been choked. If we do not get to grips with the issue now, we will see an epidemic of that kind of behaviour. It is putting young people's lives at risk: young women's lives, when they get involved with partners, and young men's lives, because they will end up in prison for serious offences.
270 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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.52 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.47 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.