Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence and Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- 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 5341457
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Members who tabled the motion. Cara and I, in the 2022 election, were both targeted in that way. We did not know each other. She was running in East Londonderry for the SDLP, while I was running in South Down for the DUP. On the face of it, we did not have too much in common, but what we had in common was that we were females in politics, and that was the focus of the attacks. The Minister was active in her response to that election, which was horrific for women in politics, and I commend her for that. Online violence is unacceptable for anyone and has been proven to be predominantly directed at women. A 2023 survey by the online security adviser Security Hero assessed all deepfake videos online, with 98% shown to be pornographic, of which 99% were of women. Its analysis also showed a 550% rise in deepfake pornographic videos since 2019. Those are horrific numbers. It is part of the wider problem that we have in society of violence against women and girls, with AI a new tool in those attacks. As chair of the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence, I want to ensure that our approach and our language today is victim-centred. The victims of any type of violence, including online violence against women and girls, should be at the forefront of our minds. As a woman in politics, I am, sadly, regularly a victim of this. I hate to be accused of playing the victim or to give perpetrators satisfaction by letting them know when they have got to me, so I do not often speak out. I am a victim, however, and I am using my voice here today. As I said, in 2022, at the end of a difficult and prolonged hate campaign against me in the run-up to the Assembly election, a fake pornographic video was created that implied that it was me and was put into mass circulation. My experience was difficult. I had three young children at home, and I had to ring my dad and my elderly grandads to tell them what was going on. It was humiliating even to have those conversations. Then, when I reported it to the police, my experience was that two young male police officers came to my home. They met me alone in my living room, where I played a copy of the video for them to record it on their body cams. Even that was humiliating. It was not me, but it was being portrayed to be me. In that room, that process was incredibly uncomfortable, and I fed that back to the police. Having to do that humiliates victims even further. There was nothing that those police officers could do. They could not trace the source of the video, yet it was circulated to thousands at pace. People were messaging me from far and wide, including from Canada and Switzerland. Deepfakes are a horrific, misogynistic tool to attack women, to degrade us and to try to drive us out of public life. In my role, there is not a week that goes by where I am not sent degrading, offensive and aggressive messages and comments online. If I post mundane information about a pothole or bin collections, the messages and attacks that I get are horrific. Many male colleagues do not believe it until they see it when they tag or share posts of mine. The experience of my colleague Carla Lockhart testifies to that often. It is therefore no surprise that women stay out of the public eye, but my concern is about the increased misogyny online.
Thank you. I thank the Member for his intervention and completely agree with him. I would not lie to anyone: this is what you are faced with as a woman when you enter this career. All we can do is support one another and call it out, and you can see that across the Chamber. As I said, the Minister is also vocal on the issue. A campaign through the centre of society is committed to in our Programme for Government in order to change attitudes and end violence against women and girls. Like others, I am a mother. I have teenage girls. I often say to them, "Please keep conversations open. Tell me anything that happens to you or your friends". I am a safe space, even if other people do not want to tell their parents. I tell them to please tell their teachers, that nobody will blame them and that we will do all that we can. We know about the technology that is out there, and we know that it is lies: do not ever think that people will think that that is you or that they will blame you. However, it is very worrying. Many of us are parents. This is the modern world. As Kate said, people were frightened of rock and roll, but this terrifies me. Recently, at conferences run by groups like Nexus, I have seen images of children and been shown what can be done with them on screen. It is absolutely horrifying. In the Assembly, we have an opportunity and must do all that we can. We are talking about real women in Northern Ireland: victims in our society at every level. It is me, us, our —.
Absolutely, I agree with the Member. That is reflected in my experience: you are re-traumatised through the process. As Cara said, the process and the whole justice system need to be reviewed. Groups on the ground, such as Nexus, Women's Aid and others, provide invaluable support. Often women go to them when they do not even go to the police. We must always remember the victims: keep them at the heart of things, provide them with support and do all that we can to support them, change attitudes and make a difference.
994 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 (0.77).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.64).
- 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 | 0.29 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.35 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.64 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.89 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.11 |
| 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.