Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence and Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 26 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Artificial Intelligence and Online Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5341383
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who have joined us for an important debate, and I look forward to their contributions. We speak often in the Chamber about ending violence against women and girls, and I am confident that every Member of the House wishes to do that and supports that objective. I want to make it absolutely clear, however, that the motion is about recognising a new and rapidly evolving entry point for that violence, one that the Assembly can no longer afford to ignore. Deepfake and so-called nudification apps represent a profound abuse of technology. They are designed to violate, humiliate and control. While women and girls are overwhelmingly the targets, I state clearly that men and boys have also suffered the abuse, and they, too, deserve recognition today as well as protection and support. What unites all victims is this: their consent is stripped away, their dignity is destroyed and the consequences can follow them for a lifetime. The issue is not niche, nor is it hypothetical. It is not something that happens elsewhere. The apps are being used every day in Northern Ireland in our schools, our workplaces and, sadly, our communities. Children's images are manipulated and shared before they fully understand what is happening. Lives are altered in minutes, sometimes irreversibly. That is why I want to start by sharing some of the testimonies of deepfake victims in Northern Ireland. They are individuals with whom I have had the absolute pleasure of engaging over the past number of years. I will begin with a young student. This is not her real name, but, for today, let us call her "Sarah". Sarah became aware that a normal image of her wearing a floral dress had been deepfaked so that her breasts were visible. To this day, she is too traumatised to tell her parents that that happened. When speaking about her experience, Sarah said:
"The thing I struggled with most was going through the justice system. It was just me. Literally just me. I wasn't assigned anyone to help, to liaise with, or to reassure me about what would happen next. It was just me and the detective — who didn't text me back. When my case was passed to the English police, I had to retell my story all over again. Shouldn’t my notes just have been passed over? I don’t think any of them genuinely understood how difficult it was. I felt no sympathy. I felt let down. I felt dropped — without any word or follow-up by either police force. They didn’t even seize his phone — the phone that would have had everything."
That is not just traumatic; that is a system failing a victim at every possible point. Another victim told me:
"The police have been good with me. The suspect has admitted to everything. But I’ve been told I can't find out who he is until the PPS decides when it's going to court. I don’t know how that works — couldn't that take months? I could bump into this person in town and be none the wiser. I want to know what is in place to protect me from him."
No victim here in our home in Northern Ireland should live with that fear. Sadly, the crisis recognises no border. The problem exists on an all-island basis and is escalating. I acknowledge the extraordinary bravery of Gráinne Seoige, a journalist of decades' standing and a Fianna Fáil candidate, who experienced one of the most horrific deepfake videos during the previous election. She shared her experience with RTÉ:
"I've had to deal with the shame and the humiliation for over a year and a half. It has been deeply traumatising. It was the most shocking thing that has ever happened to me. Not only was it sexual image-based abuse — it was election interference. I had to repress it, shove it down, and get on with the campaign."
Unforgivable stuff. Since then, Gráinne has become an unstoppable campaigner, writing to the Garda Commissioner, the Taoiseach, EU commissioners, Ministers, TDs, Senators and major tech platforms. Victims should not have to become full-time advocates just to survive, but thank God for voices such as hers and those of academics such as Professor Clare McGlynn at Durham University; for campaigners such as Jess Davies and Adele Walton, who do phenomenal work in safeguarding the online space; and for organisations such as Not Your Porn, founded by Elena Michaels, for stepping in when victims do not know where to turn or how to navigate the technology being used against them. Let me say this clearly to the House: victims should not have to advocate for themselves, and they should not be forced to retell their trauma again and again. They should not be left torn apart by faceless trolls who can ruin their lives at the click of a button and then move on and have a laugh in the group chat, while the damage to the victim lasts for ever. I ask the House what we Northern Ireland are doing in to stop this. What are we doing to ensure that it never happens again? I have spoken to teachers and school leaders every day this week who contacted me to say, "Thank God the issue is finally being flagged. We are dealing with it constantly, and we do not know how to protect the children we teach". Nudification apps are readily available. You do not need a degree in Photoshop any more; you could be a 12-year-old boy and use them. There are not enough words to describe the painful purgatory of victims who lie awake at night with phones pinging constantly with messages that say, "I saw that video of you. You must be a deviant. I saw it on my phone". That is what deepfakes are really about: reducing women to sexual objects — reducing them to nothing — and deriving sick satisfaction from the humiliation of and the harm done to women in Northern Ireland. To that I say this: no more. No more of that unique form of cruelty. Recent headlines have shown just how close to home the issue is. In early January, sadly, a GAA club in the Portadown area warned parents, after a young member was targeted in an AI-generated blackmail attempt. Sexualised images were created, faces superimposed, threats made and friendship networks weaponised, with a young person targeted in one of the most isolating ways humanly unimaginable. Today is not about pity. This is not a pity party. Every victim to whom I have spoken carries severe shame and embarrassment for something that, fundamentally, they did not do. Today is about lifting the blame and shifting the shame to where it belongs: with the perpetrators. That is why the motion matters. I welcome the engagement that the Minister has had on the issue. We need to get some clarity on timelines today. We need to understand what new laws could look like, when they could be introduced and how the Minister will engage with her counterparts in the South and across the water. Will it be retrospective? Will past victims be able to seek justice? We need to know how new laws will interact with encrypted platforms and, due to the intense sense of privacy that those platforms provide, how we can balance the right to personal freedoms with tackling harm and harassment. Something important that has come to my attention is the legal loophole of images being qualified for personal use and of that loophole being used for abuse. Stormont is often criticised for moving too slowly, but I believe firmly that today can be different. Let us show cross-party leadership on the issue. Let us show victims that this place really works for them and that their safety and dignity matter. Minister, today is the moment. We can provide assurances today, and we hope that you will do everything in your power to get this over the line within the mandate, because this issue affects every constituency, every constituent, every family and every child who is growing up online. Today, we can provide hope and understand the next steps in providing adequate protection for our children. Let us ensure that Northern Ireland leads, not lags, on the issue and stands up to AI-enabled abuse. I thank Members for their attention and their contributions. I thank those who have been vocal on the matter. I urge Members across the House to support the motion, please. I believe that we all share the core value that nothing should harm our children. What we have seen from those social media giants and tech companies over the past number of weeks has been truly abhorrent. It is despicable. Today, hopefully, the Minister will be able to provide clarity on those issues and on what legislation will be brought forward, potentially in this mandate, to protect our young people.
1,499 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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.92).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.76 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.24 |
| 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 14:31 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.