Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence and Online Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on .
- MLA
- Mr Doug Beattie MC
- Party at the time
- Ulster 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 5341469
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to wholeheartedly support the motion. I commend its proposer for handling and dealing with the abuse that has been directed at her with dignity, stoicism and, as we can see in the motion, a long-term vision for better. I also commend the testimony of Diane Forsythe. As men, we do not fully grasp what women have to go through at times. The issue that the motion addresses is not a distant, abstract concern about technology but a clear threat, causing profound harm to women and girls in our community. It is happening right now. In many ways, we are already way behind the curve on this and are getting further and further behind as technology improves. The core promise of AI is progress and problem-solving. The Ulster Unionist Party included a section on artificial intelligence in our Westminster manifesto, outlining how it can be used positively and ethically but realising its inherent dangers. However, as the motion states with grave accuracy, predatory individuals are weaponising artificial intelligence. They use those powerful tools not for innovation but for exploitation, humiliation and to perpetrate a particularly insidious form of online violence. We are talking about:
"the creation and dissemination of non-consensual intimate images".
We are talking about deepfakes, where a woman's face is seamlessly grafted onto pornography without her knowledge, consent or hope of control. It is not a prank; it is:
"a serious and escalating form of abuse".
It is digital assault that shatters autonomy, damages mental health, ruins reputation and forces the victims — the survivors — into a devastating fight to reclaim an identity that has been stolen and violated in the most intimate way. The psychological and emotional toll is catastrophic. It is a violation that follows a woman from the bedroom to the boardroom, from her social life to her professional life, 24 hours a day. It is a tool of coercion, revenge pornography and sheer malice.
Therefore, we rightly welcome the Government's commitment to criminalise this abhorrent activity. We note the Department of Justice consultation to address the issue, but the consultation cannot be where this ends. Momentum must become law. Protections must be realised and not just discussed. I think that that is genuinely what the Minister wants and where we will get to. That is why the final clause of the motion is so crucial.
We must ensure that women and girls in Northern Ireland are not left behind. We cannot allow a lag in our legislation to create a safe haven for this sort of abuse. Perpetrators exploit digital borders. Our legal protections must be seamless right across these islands. The Justice Minister must — I believe that she will — treat this crime with the utmost urgency. We need robust, specific criminal offences that match the severity of the harm. We need enforcement powers that give our police and prosecutors the tools to investigate and prosecute effectively in this digital age. Critically, we need victim-centred protections that prioritise support, removal of the imagery and the right to dignity and justice for the victims. The Assembly must send an unequivocal message that the digital violation of women and girls is a serious crime, that we all stand with victims and that we will act swiftly and decisively to ensure that our laws keep pace with technology. We must have a criminal justice response to this insidious crime. We must have deterrent-based sentencing. I believe that we can get there. However, time is running out as technology overtakes us.
587 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: 0.05 (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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.11 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.72 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.28 |
| 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.