Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence and Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- 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 5341449
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Whilst the rapidly expanding development and use of artificial intelligence provides many benefits in productivity, enhanced innovation and economic growth, there is another side to it that we are all becoming way more aware of and that is enabling the exacerbation and acceleration of violence against women and girls in our society. I acknowledge the proposer of the motion's specific focus on the creation and sharing of degrading, non-consensual, sexually explicit images, including AI-generated deepfake images. Under section 138 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, it is a criminal offence to create or request the creation of non-consensual intimate images. In addition, work is under way to make non-consensual sexual deepfakes a criminal offence under the Online Safety Act 2023. That is vital to ensuring that platforms, rightly, are held to account in taking immediate, proactive steps to prevent and remove harmful content. As my colleague Aoife mentioned, the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 in the South of Ireland, commonly known as "Coco's law", criminalises the recording or distribution of intimate images without consent. That legislation is a vital tool in increasing prosecutions of such offences and empowering those who have been victims of such contemptible crimes. Sinn Féin fully supports Ireland's AI Advisory Council recommendation that Coco's law be strengthened to include a specific offence of creating deepfakes without consent, and we will pursue that in the Oireachtas. I also acknowledge that the legislation was named after Nicole Fox Fenlon from Clondalkin, who was affectionately known by her loved ones as "Coco". Tragically, Nicole took her own life at the age of 21, after being abused physically and online for three consecutive years. Reports indicate a growing issue of AI-generated, non-consensual, sick, sexually explicit content being created and shared among adults and young people alike throughout Ireland. As recently as last week, we became aware of active investigations having been launched in respect of that very issue for the protection and safety of local schoolchildren. I therefore acknowledge Safer Schools NI, which has created a guide for schools on preventing and responding to AI-generated image exploitation, alongside its guidance for parents and carers and its staffroom briefing PowerPoints and checklists. I also want to promote the Safeguarding Board and PSNI's Trust Trap online safety campaign, which is delivered as part of the online safety strategy. The campaign aims, through social media graphics and a campaign toolkit, to educate young people and adults about online abuse prevention and how to report it. The project also aims to reduce the number of children who fall victim to fake profiles, grooming and sextortion. Importantly, it also reassures those who feel in crisis that they are not to blame and works to enhance the confidence to report, alongside signposting to available supports. Developing understanding among children and young people of the harms caused by violating a person's consent, dignity and privacy is key. However, the focus, in the first instance, must be on adequately tackling the perpetrators of digital, domestic, sexual and gender-based violence and holding to account all platforms that enable them. Perpetrators must not be able to evade responsibility or hide behind a veil of anonymity due to weak or inadequate regulation. To that end, I acknowledge my colleague, Emma Sheerin, who condemned the owners of X, formerly known as Twitter, for their inadequate response to the use of the AI tool Grok on that platform. Disgracefully, X placed the feature behind a paywall, which served only to monetise the harms being inflicted, rather than remove it altogether. While I welcome its formal investigation of X, Ofcom also should reflect on the leadership required by being willing to label such content as unlawful and unethical urgently. I welcome the fact that the European Commission has now opened an investigation as well. To conclude, I recognise our Executive's strategic framework to end violence against women and girls. The framework rightly recognises the fact that online abuse normalises unacceptable behaviour, inhibits women and girls from expressing themselves and can have long-lasting impacts. Services here must be suitably equipped to provide consistently high standards of specialist, sensitive, trauma-informed care in response to cases of that nature. As AI systems evolve, so must our protections across the island.
We must strive to deliver proactive, inclusive and ethical policies.
718 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | 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 | 0.51 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.49 |
| 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.