Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence and Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist 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 5341401
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Democratic Unionist Party is supportive of proposals to criminalise sexually explicit deepfake images as part of a holistic approach that includes legislation, enhanced support and resources for victims and increased public awareness, because we realise how important the issue is and how impactful such images can be on the victims. It is fair to say that it is mostly females who are targeted for that hideous activity. We should have legislation in place that makes it an offence to create, share or threaten to share a sexual digital forgery of an adult. It should also be an offence to request such an image. The manufacturers and the platforms should ban those requests or at least prevent them from being made. I am not for banning any social media platform, but it is really easy — it probably involves the flick of two switches — to ensure that the technology that is used to create nude pictures and deepfake forgeries that have sexual content is prohibited. The platforms should have no excuse. They should delete the parts of their apps and the technology that can do that. What good comes from using technology to do that? I can think of no positive outcome from creating nudity pics or forgeries of sexual activity. It just does not make sense to me. That is why I and my party will support legislation in that regard. I then come to my frustrations, because we have a vehicle to deal with the issue — the Justice Bill — and we have a Minister who has promised to bring forward amendments on deepfakes to her Bill. I was critical of the Minister at the Second Stage of the Justice Bill, which I have called "half a Bill". My frustration is that, although the Justice Bill was introduced on 17 September 2024 and the Second Stage debate was on 1 October 2024, we have yet to see the amendments on the deepfake issue from the Department and the Minister.
I will.
I thank the Minister for her intervention. The Committee has taken its time with the Bill itself but also with the Minister's proposed amendments. We have been in the precarious position of having had to scrutinise not only the detail on the blue pages of the Bill but the file of proposed amendments received from the Minister after Second Stage, which meant that the Assembly was not able to debate the detail of those amendments. She was able to bring forward amendments on restorative justice schemes, on organised crime groups, on matters to be included in criminal record certificates, on biometrics, on live links and on the repeal of public order offences, but we are still waiting for the deepfake amendments so that we can do some work on scrutinising them.
I will.
468 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: 0.06 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.61 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.39 |
| 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.