Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence and Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 26 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Artificial Intelligence and Online Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5341417
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member will, of course, be aware but has not reflected that, initially, the deepfake issue was to be dealt with by Westminster legislation and that Westminster would then have sought a legislative consent motion (LCM) from us. It was only at the point at which the LCM was no longer a possibility that it even entered Westminster's consciousness that we would have to legislate locally. That is the reason that deepfakes were not covered in the first round of amendments. Initially, the deepfake issue was to be covered in the Crime and Policing Bill, and it was then moved to a different Bill. We were therefore not able to grant legislative consent within the required time frame. The Member knows all that, so why he is blaming me is beyond me.
132 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: 0.08 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.27 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.54 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.19 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.14 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.13 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.