Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence and Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance 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 5341445
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Cara for tabling the motion. She is an extraordinary advocate on the topic, and we are lucky to have her in the Chamber. I welcome the debate and thank Cheryl for how she ended her piece. I wrote a speech, but so much of what I wanted to say has been said already, so I will focus on a few core areas and on what Cheryl ended her contribution on: the victims. There are so many dark elements to humanity. The creation of non-consensual sexually explicit images is just another example of the abuse that so many women face. The way in which such technologies are being used, particularly around children, is incredibly troubling. That is an area that I have been thinking about a lot: how the victims of abuse in all its guises feel during discussions such as this and how, as an Assembly, we pass the right legislation and have conversations, as a society, to end such abuse. So many people live in shame and fear, and we need to do more on the societal conversation. I am the founding chair of the all-party group on artificial intelligence. I believe passionately that, when used responsibly, AI has enormous potential to transform our public services, boost productivity and find solutions to some of the most pressing issues that we face as a society, but we also have to recognise the enormous harm that it can bring. If we are talking honestly about wanting to end violence against women and girls, the way that we deal with it is a massive part of that. I echo what everyone else has said: the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit images is abuse and must be treated as such. With technologies evolving so quickly, legislation needs to follow suit. Naomi Long has been such a strong advocate for ending violence against women and girls in this mandate and the previous mandate. The work around deepfakes is so important and something that she personally cares about deeply. We have seen changes made in the House of Lords and legislation in Australia and Minnesota seeking to ban nudification apps. I have been working with the Bill Office on an amendment to bring an end to those apps. It is beyond belief that it is perfectly legal to have one of those apps on your phone. You can download them: you can have one of them, and that is totally legal. That needs to change. As a mother and a politician, I think that it is a pressing issue. Parents raise it with me. They are really scared. They do not understand the development of technology and the impact that it will have on their children. Someone said to me that parents in every generation worry about what their children will face: at one point, it was rock and roll. Now, however, it really feels as though we are living in the complete unknown, and it is so hard for parents to understand how they can support their children. My colleague Michelle Guy has been doing really important work in that area. As legislators and representatives, we need to do more to have those community conversations and to bring people together. Ultimately, how we tackle it is a societal issue that needs a holistic response.
On Wednesday, I will host a town hall meeting with the YMCA at Stranmillis, and anyone who wants to come along will be welcome. We will have senior people from tech companies, members of the PSNI and people who work in safeguarding, as well as people who care very much about online safety. Facilitating conversations that will be led by young people, who are most impacted, is really important, as well as legislating to end the behaviour. I thank Cara again for the work that she is doing. I am really heartened by the fact that we are all on the same page on the matter. It is about keeping people safe and making sure that they are treated with dignity. It is also about sending a clear message: if you are a victim of abuse, whether online from AI or in any other circumstance, please come forward to speak to one of us so that we can signpost you to the support that you are entitled to and deserve.
722 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: 0.03 (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 (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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.57 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.43 |
| 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.