Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence and Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Ms Aoife Finnegan on .
- MLA
- Ms Aoife Finnegan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- 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 5341439
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I start by echoing the comments commending Cara for moving the motion and for sharing her difficult story. I can only imagine it. Sinn Féin welcomes the motion and supports its core intent. The use of artificial intelligence to facilitate online violence against women and girls is deeply concerning, rapidly evolving and causing real and lasting harm. It is not an abstract or distant issue. In my constituency of Newry and Armagh, we saw a deeply disturbing example just last week where AI-generated deepfake images were created and circulated in a school setting. That incident underlines the urgency of the debate and the reality that the abuse is already affecting our young people, our communities and our families. Sinn Féin is committed to tackling the scourge of violence against women and girls, and I am proud that our First Minister and the Executive have shown real leadership by prioritising the ending violence against women and girls strategy. That strategy recognises that online abuse is not separate from real-world harm and that technology is increasingly being weaponised against women and girls. In a world where coercive control is becoming better understood, where perpetrators are increasingly being held to account and where we acknowledge that we still have much more to do, online platforms now represent an additional and dangerous layer of abuse. Those platforms can enable coercive control, harassment and humiliation at scale. Platform owners and AI developers must not be allowed to be complicit in protecting perpetrators through inaction or weak safeguarding. The issue cannot be addressed in isolation. Online violence does not respect borders, and our response should reflect that reality. There is a strong case for an all-island approach. Coco's law is in place in the South. It not only criminalises the sharing of intimate sexual images without consent but has made it an offence to send deepfake images. There is no doubt that the law can be strengthened to include deepfake images. We can work together to properly protect women and children across the island. Education is vital, but the responsibility does not rest with the children or victims. The buck stops with the online platforms. Technology companies and AI developers must be held to account through regulation, enforcement and meaningful penalties. Sinn Féin supports the motion and urges the Minister of Justice to act with urgency, ambition and cooperation to ensure that women and girls are protected and perpetrators are held to account.
407 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: 0.04 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.07 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.56 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.44 |
| 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.