# David Norris and academic discussions.



## WaterWater (1 Jun 2011)

I am not sure what an academic discussion is. On the Pat Kenny radio show David Norris used this phrase over and over when defending his interview with Helen Lucy Burke. Can anyone have an academic discussion or is it the reserved arena for those people who might have gone to university?
Also if you refer to yourself and your own personal views during the academic discussion is it still an academic discussion or is it a personal opinion?
Is there some privilege attached to an academic discussion similar to Dáil privilege?


----------



## Sunny (1 Jun 2011)

Basically if you think you are an intellectual and you want to say something offensive or controversial you call it an academic conversation. Used by people like David Norris, Kevin Myers, John Walters and other deluded souls who think their opinions are somehow superior to normal peoples. And if people find them offensive, it is because we are too dumb to understand


----------



## Yorrick (1 Jun 2011)

Norris is in big trouble now. This is an issue that will not go away and the more he explains the bigger the hole he digs.


----------



## truthseeker (1 Jun 2011)

An academic discussion is a discussion that is theoretical and not expected to produce a practical result - bouncing ideas about.

Although I feel that Sunnys explanation is closer to the truth


----------



## shnaek (1 Jun 2011)

Sunny said:


> Used by people like David Norris, Kevin Myers, John Walters and other deluded souls who think their opinions are somehow superior to normal peoples.


I don't know if I would call any of them deluded. Whether I agree with them or not, I'd rather attack the ball than the person.


----------



## cork (1 Jun 2011)

A President is not a person to bounce ideas.

If Norris had problems with the article - why did he not complain at the time


----------



## WaterWater (1 Jun 2011)

cork said:


> If Norris had problems with the article - why did he not complain at the time


 
A tape exists.


----------



## Betsy Og (1 Jun 2011)

In fairness to the guy I think he was talking about classical Greek culture where, it appears, men had ...errr...relations with younger men as a normal part of society. Thats what he meant be an academic discussion - if he were cast back a few thousand years to ancient Greece what might he have thought of the whole set up. If he called it a theoretical discussion would people let go of the chip???

Its not like Norris was advocating those ancient Greek attitudes becoming the norm in Ireland. The age of consent is whatever it is and I think at the time Norris only wanted equality in the law as between gay and straight people. I dont even know if he succeeded on the age of consent issue, but the major point is he is not a paedophilia advocate. I dont think its even fair to be casting this notion that gay = paedophile, or that gay people are less abhorred by paedophilia than anyone else.

The journalist ressurecting it seems a bit scatty - she had the tape, she didnt, she couldnt play it on her machine, oh its a different tape altogether ...FFS.


----------



## WaterWater (1 Jun 2011)

Betsy Og said:


> In fairness to the guy I think he was talking about classical Greek culture where, it appears, men had ...errr...relations with younger men as a normal part of society. Thats what he meant be an academic discussion -


 
No. He personalised it by saying that he would have liked if an older man had been around for him.  I think it moved outside the academic discussion area when he said this or perhaps his "historical discussion" about ancient Greek culture that he was having.

I think if you drop the word academic and just call it a discussion, which the rest of us do, or even an interview that he was having or perhaps it was an academic interview?


----------



## Betsy Og (1 Jun 2011)

Even if he did personalise it, so what? He didnt say if he was (hypothetically...lets not forget) under the age of consent when he would have welcomed that "introduction to adult life" or whatever way he phrased it. Once over the age of consent there are no rules about age gaps (whether same sex or not).

I really think people are seeing something that isnt there.


----------



## Sunny (1 Jun 2011)

Betsy Og said:


> Even if he did personalise it, so what? He didnt say if he was (hypothetically...lets not forget) under the age of consent when he would have welcomed that "introduction to adult life" or whatever way he phrased it. Once over the age of consent there are no rules about age gaps (whether same sex or not).
> 
> I really think people are seeing something that isnt there.


 
I don't the vast majority of people think anything negative about David Norris after these comments. Unfortunately it is a story for the media and therefore he will have to waste time explaining it and will probably struggle to get nominated. The bit about the older man taking a younger man under his wing to introduce him to sexual realities is a bit odd but hardly enough to brand him a paedophile.

I wouldn't vote him for him as president but I was never going to even before this storm in a tea cup. (None of the candidates actually appeal to me)


----------



## Shawady (1 Jun 2011)

It's like the Lyndon Johnson tactic.
Put the smear out there and lets see him deny it.


----------



## micmclo (1 Jun 2011)

Bit of non story to me anyway

The real questions that should be asked is why he rushed to defend Cathal Ó Searcaigh.
And wanted the documentary film delayed until politicians could check it. Sounds like censorship to me.


----------



## Firefly (1 Jun 2011)

micmclo said:


> Bit of non story to me anyway



+1 for me too. I like Kevin Norris but not for president...think we need someone a bit more refined for that. John Bruton would be my pick.


----------



## Purple (1 Jun 2011)

I agree with Sunny; this is a non-story but I wouldn’t like to see him President anyway.



micmclo said:


> Bit of non story to me anyway
> 
> The real questions that should be asked is why he rushed to defend Cathal Ó Searcaigh.
> And wanted the documentary film delayed until politicians could check it. Sounds like censorship to me.


I agree with that as well.
I am a social liberal but I find Norris very intolerant of social conservatives, so intolerant that it borders on being bigoted.


----------



## horusd (1 Jun 2011)

Firefly said:


> +1 for me too. I like* Kevin Norri*s but not for president...think we need someone a bit more refined for that. John Bruton would be my pick.


 

Whose Kevin Norris? 


I don't give any credit to the story at all. But you really have to wonder about the timing of it's re-release and the motivation. I heard Norris on Kenny yesterday, and he came across as very credible, and quite upset. I felt quite sorry for him. 

Also saw the woman interviewed last night now saying she doesn't now know if she has the tape etc after saying that she did. Now ye'd think she would have checked all of that before dive-bombing Norris's election chances. 

I studied English and I remember laughing with friends about how sex of every description managed to creep into lectures, no matter what the lecture was ostensibly about. So Norris is right to say that academic discussions can be easily misinterpreted, and would look odd to say outside of a college context. At worst the man was foolish. I hope it does him no harm.


----------



## micmclo (1 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> Whose Kevin Norris?



A mix of Kevin Myres and David Norris


----------



## Firefly (1 Jun 2011)

micmclo said:


> A mix of Kevin Myres and David Norris



The perfect Pinko!!


----------



## The_Banker (30 Jul 2011)

David Norris is finished. I would have voted for him if he was able to run but I wouldnt now.

He wrote a letter to the Isreali judge after his friend was convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy. Not only is his presidential campaign finished, his political career is over. Luckily for him he was elected as a senator recently but if the senate is abolished (if the present government gets it way) then he wont be able to go back to being a TV celebrity either.

Foolish man. How did he think this would not come out? 

Next there will be the witch hunt to find out which other Presidential candidate leaked the story.


----------



## Leper (31 Jul 2011)

It appears some more information is about to be leaked today/tomorrow regarding David Norris.  Hence the resignations from some of his campaign people.

The presidential campaign has turned "dirty."  This was always going to happen once there was going to be an election.  Remember Brian Lenihan's campaign came to a halt on the Late Late Show.  If I can remember the unsuccessful campaign to elect Kevin O'Higgins was not clean either. Think back to the Healy-Rae incident (I know this had nothing to do with the presidential campaign), but it was not about telephone calls to a premium number.  It was all about getting him off gravy train committees. 

The David Norris bad-mouthing is about something that happened in 1992. Where else would this sort of thing happen?


----------



## Guest105 (31 Jul 2011)

Revealed: full details of Norris mercy plea

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/revealed-full-details-of-norris-mercy-plea-2836065.html

He is finished.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2011)

I don't see a problem with the letter he wrote.


----------



## Sunny (31 Jul 2011)

I have no interest in reading the story but did he write a letter defending someone who had sex with a 15 year old boy? I wouldn't defend a family member never mind an ex if they were accused of statutory rape. This combined with the previous comments does show dubious views on the subject of sex and underage minors.


----------



## micmclo (31 Jul 2011)

Purple said:


> I don't see a problem with the letter he wrote.



He used a covering letter with Oireachtas letterhead and stated he was on the foreign affairs bureau.
And a lot of name dropping going on, talking about his years as a senator and future plans to run for President.

The letter seems he is talking on behalf of the Irish state.

If he used unmarked paper without the government Harp and left off his positions and just defended his friend it would be entirely different

Bobby Molloy resigned as a Minister for less then this. He is finished in the race though I doubt he'll resign from the Senate. Politicans in Ireland rarely resign over anything, some neck on them


----------



## Knuttell (31 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> I have no interest in reading the story but did he write a letter defending someone who had sex with a 15 year old boy? I wouldn't defend a family member never mind an ex if they were accused of statutory rape. This combined with the previous comments does show dubious views on the subject of sex and underage minors.



Previous to these revelations I had an intention of voting for him,not anymore.
His Judgement is flawed on a dramatic scale,he seems to have some sort of blind spot for matters relating to a very sensitive and very black and white issue...
He is unelectable.


----------



## Purple (1 Aug 2011)

micmclo said:


> He used a covering letter with Oireachtas letterhead and stated he was on the foreign affairs bureau.
> And a lot of name dropping going on, talking about his years as a senator and future plans to run for President.
> 
> The letter seems he is talking on behalf of the Irish state.
> ...



OK, fair points.


----------



## horusd (1 Aug 2011)

I think Norris is sunk. He really should just withdraw with some dignity. Having said that, I'm amazed at how dirty this campaign has been and it seems like there has been a concerted effort to scupper Norris. 

Who'd have thought people would care enough about the Presidency to engage in such dirty doins?


----------



## Mpsox (1 Aug 2011)

I do wonder what the reaction would have been had a bishop or priest writen a letter asking for clemancy for a child abuser in their parish?. Let's not forget that that is what statutory rape is, since by definition, a child cannot give consent.

I would have been open to voting for Norris until all of this came out. I've no doubt that there is a campaign to stop him running but so what?  What this does is raise a huge question mark about the judgement, intelligence and common sense of Norris, or his lack of one or more of these.


----------



## micmclo (1 Aug 2011)

horusd said:


> Having said that, I'm amazed at how dirty this campaign has been



These are always dirty.
Mary Robinson, Brian Lenihan and next time around Dana all faced attacks


----------



## onq (1 Aug 2011)

Mpsox said:


> I do wonder what the reaction would have been had a bishop or priest writen a letter asking for clemancy for a child abuser in their parish?. Let's not forget that that is what statutory rape is, since by definition, a child cannot give consent.
> 
> I would have been open to voting for Norris until all of this came out. I've no doubt that there is a campaign to stop him running but so what?  What this does is raise a huge question mark about the judgement, intelligence and common sense of Norris, or his lack of one or more of these.



We're talking about a fifteen year old, a male who was one year short of the age of consent, not an eight year old.
Matters are not as clear cut as some would like to make them and terms like child abuser seem inaccurate in context.
More importantly lobbying seeking clemency in sentencing for known criminals is not forbidden by law and worse than Ezra Nawi have been succoured by politicians.

*Firstly*, Norris' appeal to the Israeli was not written on Seanad Headed Paper, was not sent directly to the court, nor was it an attempt to interfere with the verdict.

He wrote a fax cover noted on headed paper, and a letter of reference on headed paper.
The wordy appeal was on plain paper and he sets his stall out very plainly.
It was clearly a personal appeal, not made on behalf of, or with the backing of, the Government.
It was sent to his partner's defense laywers in case it would be useful to assist in submissions to the court.

*Secondly*, in relation to the substantive issue, Norris' made a case for clemency based on Irish law and then-recent decisions.
Was it reasonable to seek for clemency based on Irish or Israeli law?

===============

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Israel

*Israel*

_According to the Israeli Penal Code of 1977 the age of consent in Israel is *16*  for any form of sexual relations. A special case arises when a person  between ages 14–16 had sexual relations with an older partner; in this  case the older partner would be exempt of criminal liability if three  conditions are met: The age difference between the partners was less  than three years, the younger partner gave consent and the act was done  out of "regular friendly relations" and without the abuse of power.[27]_

===============

Norris' partner was ruled out of this on the age ground since I understand he was in his early forties when the incident occurred and the young male was a year below the age of consent.
Re the other two grounds the other two I am not informed enough to comment.

However ti is clear that in certain circumstances, which are outlined above in Israeli law, consent may be given from the 14 years of age upwards.
It appears Norrris had reasonable grounds to make a case for clemency, based on Israeli law, his partner being his mother's sole means of support and his fear that he would commit suicide while in prison.

===============

Those are the only two issues a democracy should consider, but the sentiment expressed on the journal and elsewhere over the weekend defames Norris himself as being a pedophile and a supporter of pedophiles.
I'm astonished at the number of right-wing religious homophobes this presidency has drawn out, so much so that it cannot be due to the statistical average of the population of Ireland.
I suspect that all of that is a smokescreen and deals are being done to take out the previously most popular and the most naive presidential candidate we had.

As for Norris previous alleged 'gaff' of wanting to have met an older male when he was younger, this has been translated by the religious right as supporting pederasty.
I found this troublesome since many a young heterosexual male might wish the same thing of an older woman, yet attract no comment.

Perhaps Norris' frankness ruptured a conservative vein containing both an ageist and a homophobic substratum.
Its embarrassing having live through the sixties, seventies and eighties to see 1950's mores return.

ONQ.


----------



## daithi (1 Aug 2011)

In the light of TDs now withdrawing their support, I think its time David Norris faced reality and withdrew from the election race. In the light of the most recent revelations, I think that his past would detract from the office of the Presidency.

Daithi


----------



## Sunny (1 Aug 2011)

His ex partner was a lot more three years older than the 15 year old boy. He was found guilty of the offence. I can't believe that people actually think it is ok to defend anyone accused of statutory rape. We jump on our high horses about the catholic church and their protection of children but some people think it is ok for a grown man to be in a 'relationship' with a 15 year old and that they deserve some sort of leniency. Amazing.


----------



## Sunny (1 Aug 2011)

Oh and spare me the right wing, anti-gay conspiracy rubbish. This is all self inflicted.


----------



## onq (1 Aug 2011)

micmclo said:


> He used a covering letter with Oireachtas letterhead and stated he was on the foreign affairs bureau.
> And a lot of name dropping going on, talking about his years as a senator and future plans to run for President.
> 
> The letter seems he is talking on behalf of the Irish state.
> ...



That is a gross misrepresentation of [broken link removed].

There is a covering letter. On headed paper.
There is a letter giving references. On headed paper.
There is a long submission citing Irish law and offering opinion and bona fides. Not on headed paper.
It is quite clearly a personal letter and not a letter written by or on behalf of or representating the Irish Government in any way.

Norris set out his stall fairly and squarely.
There was little or no "name dropping" (what a begrudging comment)
At no point did Norris represent himself as representing the Irish State in the letter.

If anyone can show that Norris
- has not achieved the degrees
- has not highlighted the human rights abuses or 
- has not chanpioned the causes of Russian Jews or anything else he claimed he did 

Then let them do so.

But it is these claims more than any other thing that make this letter out to be personal letter from Norris.
Because our government cannot claim the same achievements re any of these issues.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (1 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> Oh and spare me the right wing, anti-gay conspiracy rubbish. This is all self inflicted.



It clearly is not self-inflicted.
All this happened well outside the statute of limitations and he committed no crime.
This is simply dirt, pure and simple.
Thrown by attention seeking bloggers with both Israeli sympathies and Labour Party connections to undermine a candidate.

ONQ.


----------



## micmclo (1 Aug 2011)

If Norris was a TD and out fighting cut throat elections over the years we'd know all this already.

He's never had a hard election in his life, strolling into the "rotten borough" of TCD which only a limited number of citizens can vote for.

He clearly has a lot of stories in his past and this one and the tapes are not even big issues.

It was his defence of Cathal Ó Searcaigh and his attempt to get a government committee to review the RTÉ documentary before it could be aired that was the real story and this wasn't even brought up in recent months. The media never used it.
If a bishop wanted to block a documentary before RTÉ aired it, this site would melt under the cries of censorship

But sure lets call anyone who questions him a homophobe with an agenda....


----------



## onq (1 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> His ex partner was a lot more three years older than the 15 year old boy.


(nods)

That can be inferred from what I posted.


> He was found guilty of the offence. I can't believe that people actually think it is ok to defend anyone accused of statutory rape.


His defence counsel defended him. Norris sought clemency after he was convicted. Politicians intervene like this regularly without attracting comment.


> We jump on our high horses about the catholic church and their protection of children but some people think it is ok for a grown man to be in a 'relationship' with a 15 year old and that they deserve some sort of leniency. Amazing.


The seeking after leniency arises from looking at the person in the round, at his achievements, his dependent mother and Norris' fear that he would take his own life while in prison.

No-one said they thought it was "okay" for a much older man to engage in sexual relationship with a 15 year old young man, but it seems unwise to consider a fifteen year old teenager "a child".

At the very least its condescending, and in biological terms its factually inaccurate.

As for the other facts of the matter, Israeli law strongly states by omission that its okay for a 16 year old male or female to be in a relationship with a grown man or woman of any age.

ONQ


----------



## Sunny (1 Aug 2011)

So you would let your 15 year old child enter into a relationship with someone more than twice their age? The age on consent might be 16 but that's not the problem. The problem is a grown man thinking it is acceptable to have a so called relationship with anyone around that age. It is wrong and exploitative. It's not two teenage kids deciding to have sex. The fact that Norris (and other people) struggle to recognise this is disturbing.


----------



## onq (1 Aug 2011)

micmclo said:


> If Norris was a TD and out fighting cut throat elections over the years we'd know all this already.
> 
> He's never had a hard election in his life, strolling into the "rotten borough" of TCD...


More begrudgery or mere begrudgery?


> ...which only a limited number of citizens can vote for.


Like Mary Robinson ? Yeah I can see where some corners of Irish society might be worried we'd get a firebrand president.


> He clearly has a lot of stories in his past and this one and the tapes are not even big issues.


Lots and lots of stories, many about making unpopular submissions on human rights issues I believe.


> It was his defence of Cathal Ó Searcaigh and his attempt to get a government committee to review the RTÉ documentary before it could be aired that was the real story and this wasn't even brought up in recent months. The media never used it.


No, perish the thought they might show David Norris urging caution to the government of the day in case they impeded a later court action by creating conditions where Cathal Ó Searcaigh might not get a fair trial. That might make David Norris out to be a man of integrity.


> If a bishop wanted to block a documentary before RTÉ aired it, this site would melt under the cries of censorship


But he didn't seek to block it permanently. He wanted it to be reviewed by the competent authority.


> But sure lets call anyone who questions him a homophobe with an agenda....


Let's not.
Instead lets just look at the facts - arguably something a _"a homophobe with an agenda"_ would never do.

First, an overview setting out the dramatis personae on all sides (including Eoghan Harris as a supporter of Nirris later position as I understand the piece, not one who'd spring to mind when support for alleged pederasts is mentioned)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairytale_of_Kathmandu

_Senator David Norris  defended Ó Searcaigh in Seanad Éireann: "An attempt has been made to  create such a firestorm of hostile publicity that justice may never  retrospectively be done."[19]_

Second, the 'full monte' so to speak -

[broken link removed]

Of which the relevant excerpts appear to be as follows -

_"I refer to the film, "Fairytale of Kathmandu", which purports to  document the exploitation of young men in Nepal by the Donegal poet  Cathal Ó Searcaigh. Having seen this work, I have grave concerns about  the motives and methods employed. It is proposed to transmit the film on  RTE tonight. As public money has been spent on the film, we are  entitled to know the truth wherever it leads. Therefore, I call for its  exhibition to be postponed until a full investigation by those qualified  in the analysis of film has established the truth or falsehood of the  techniques used in its production and the conclusions reached in it. The  correct forum for such an investigation is the Joint Committee on  Communications, Energy and Natural Resources."_

_"While it has been denied, it is clear that systematic creative editing  has taken place. For example, the most disturbing image in the film is a  sequence showing Mr. Ó Searcaigh lovingly straightening the tie of what  appears to be a 14 or 15 year old schoolboy with a satchel on his back.  While Narang is indeed boyish looking, he is a 20 year old physics  student in a third level college. His words need to be heard. He was  over the age of 18 when the film was made. In an interview voluntarily  given, he alleges he was told he had been abandoned by Cathal Ó  Searcaigh. He was naturally angry. He claims to have been pressurised  into giving the answers the film-makers wanted. He has since said: "They  make me say things, they twist their questions and make me say Cathal  was not a good man". Is Narang's voice to be smothered?"_

_"I call for this film to be referred to the Joint Committee on  Communications, Energy and Natural Resources so that the truth can be  established with the assistance of experts."_

Only an incredibly stupid right wing religious homophobe would declare there was anything wrong in preventing such a defamation taking place on television in Ireland.
To allow such a defamation to occur could have prevented any court case taking place in this jurisdiction as it would have unfairly biased the jury.

If people genuinely want to bring pederasts to trial, they need to understand the pitfalls of the airwaves.
The very exposition they seek may taint a latter meaningful legal action, however well founded in fact.

Norris, in preventing the screening of what sounds like a biased documentary, actually paved the way for a legal action should it go forward.
People repeating others' comments should do their research and understand the legal implications of what they are alleging.

ONQ.

PS From the same day as the above comments, the Seanad Order of Business

[broken link removed]

_15. ‘‘In the light of the European Parliament Report on Extraordinary Rendition which
calls on the Irish Government to establish a Committee of Inquiry into the role played
by Shannon Airport in this illegal process, that Seanad E´ ireann immediately
recommence moves initiated in 2006 to establish a Special Committee to look into
this matter and that in the light of further disclosures about ‘CIA Rendition Flights’
to torture destinations and the involvement in these practises as victims of women
and children, condemns such activities in the most unequivocal manner; and calls for
the establishment of an International War Crimes Tribunal to determine the guilt or
innocence of the most senior US and British personnel.’’
—Senators David Norris, Ivana Bacik, Joe O’Toole.
[13 September, 2007]_

His consistent and insistent line on human rights is the main reason why I have supported and will continue to support David Norris for president.


----------



## onq (1 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> So you would let your 15 year old child enter into a relationship with someone more than twice their age?


Are you the same person who brought my son into this on another forum?

Is that all you've got to say - making it personal?

This could get embarrassing for you.

Read the AAM posting policy



> The age on consent might be 16 but that's not the problem.


Oh but it is a problem for right wing religious fundamentalist homophobes as well as judges, it puts the young man within a year of the age of consent.

Plus Israeli law itself makes allowance for sexual relationships with 14 year olds, never mind 15- year olds - something the religious right just cannot get their heads around.


> The problem is a grown man thinking it is acceptable to have a so called relationship with anyone around that age. It is wrong and exploitative. It's not two teenage kids deciding to have sex.


I agree. Norris never condoned the acts of his partner. He apparently deeply loved him and seems to have put up with a lot from him


> The fact that Norris (and other people) struggle to recognise this is disturbing.


Norris is well versed in the law.

He doesn't struggle to recognize anything.
He didn't interfere in the due process, he sought mercy.

Mercy being something right wing religious homophobes would know little about.
"Mercy" isn't their "thing" - they go in more for "guilt", "condemnation" and "suffering in hellfire".

ONQ.


----------



## onq (1 Aug 2011)

cashier said:


> Revealed: full details of Norris mercy plea
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/national-news/revealed-full-details-of-norris-mercy-plea-2836065.html
> 
> He is finished.



Did you read the letter and understand it?

The full text is [broken link removed].

I see nothing wrong with it.

ONQ.


----------



## Calico (1 Aug 2011)

I just find it more than a tad disingenuous. Apart from the fact that the reference was on headed paper, which is a complete no-no, as far as I can see at no point in the letter it does DN say that he was the defendant's partner for so many years. For such a lengthy, detailed and technical rebuttal of the both the verdict and a custodial sentence this strikes me as very deliberate and something that should have been disclosed. As for the arguments themselves, while I may or may not agree, I don't have too much of a problem with them. However, he should made his relationship to Ezra clear at the outset and also been clear that, although a Senator, he was writing in a personal capacity only. Also, some of his personal achievements that he mentions, while laudable in and of themselves, are not relevant. Still, there does seem to a bit of a smear campaign against him but then he hasn't exactly done himself any favours either. Given the nature of the Presidential role I would find it hard to vote for him, even though I think it would be a good thing to have a gay President.


----------



## Knuttell (1 Aug 2011)

Calico said:


> Given the nature of the Presidential role I would find it hard to vote for him, even though I think it would be a good thing to have a gay President.



Not entirely bothered whether he was gay or straight or whatever,he was the only one of all the candidates that I considered in any way to be Presidential material,I always thought of him as a class act...and then this.

None of the rest of the Candidates are worthy of the Office....maybe just get rid of it entirely


----------



## horusd (2 Aug 2011)

Knuttell said:


> Not entirely bothered whether he was gay or straight or whatever,he was the only one of all the candidates that I considered in any way to be Presidential material,I always thought of him as a class act...and then this.
> 
> None of the rest of the Candidates are worthy of the Office....maybe just get rid of it entirely


 
 I liked the idea of a gay president, and I think he would have made a good one generally. He made a serious mistake, a mistake that others have made in far more serious cases of child rape (as much as you can say that), but he is too damaged to stand. 

The suggestions of involvement of the Israeli embassy and others need to be fully investigated. Don't know if this is a potentially criminal offence but it is very odd. If there is evidence of Israeli involvement on top of the stolen passport fiasco, the ambassador and his staff should be promptly sent home and Israel's embassy closed.


----------



## DB74 (2 Aug 2011)

I didn't see much outrage when former TD Tony Killeen lobbied on behalf of convicted child abuser Joseph Nugent and convicted murderer Chris Cooney.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/killeen-made-appeals-to-help-nine-prisoners-121313.html


----------



## Bronte (2 Aug 2011)

micmclo said:


> Bobby Molloy resigned as a Minister for less then this.


 
The two cases are not comparable at all. Molloy was an Irish Minister and sought to influence a judge in a most heinous case. It would be interesting to know how many ministers have lobbied for prisioners, probably most of them if we go back a few years.  

Norris sought clemency for an ex partner, his ex partner had committed a serious crime, but in that case my understanding is that it was consensual, and while I don't agree with it, (a relationship of such disparity given the boy's age) we wouldn't be having this discussion if the boy had been one year older. 

Norris should have come out at the beginning of this campaign and outlined this story then. He was very naive in not doing so. This mistake of his does not make him any less a good man, nor does it undermine all the good works he has done in his lifetime, in a country that is very intolerant of who and what he is and what he stands for and believes in. 

Because of all he has done I for one think he would make a fine president but the reality is he will not likely get the nomination, which is bad for democracy, never mind get elected.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2011)

I’m glad that Norris is now less likely to be president. I consider him to be unsuitable for the job. He’s very egotistical, very opinionated and very intolerant. 
This would be a lethal combination in a office that is non-political and, in many ways symbolic. The president should not try to be bigger than the office and should never push a political agenda. Other than their symbolic role their primary duty is to uphold the constitution. This is where I think Norris would have the biggest problem; he would seek to influence changes to the constitution in order to further his social and political agenda. While in general I agree with his liberal views it is not the function of the president to have such an agenda. 
His sexual orientation is irrelevant. We have a serving Minister who is gay and we have a serving TD who is openly gay. They have never made an issue of it and their political opponants have never done so. That’s the way it should be. Norris is the only person who makes an issue of it.


----------



## Shawady (2 Aug 2011)

His campaign team were pretty swift to resign.
It makes you wonder if there's more stuff to come out.


----------



## Latrade (2 Aug 2011)

There is no "black and white" in this. So on that basis I wholeheartedly agree with ONQ, Sunny and Purple even though they all hold seemingly different opinions.

Whatever the details of the letter and whatever the circumstances, it is inappropriate, it was foolish and these are not great traits of a potential President. Irrespective of what TDs or Ministers did in their own formal communications for various offenders and irrespective of whether or not they got away with it, I find it abhorrent that they would cede to such pressure and actually put pen to paper and seek to interfere in such a manner. On that basis, even though Norris' letter was tame in comparison to some, I don't like that attempt to use a political position to influence any justice system.

However, I'm strongly against any suggestion that just because someone may doubt Norris' credentials to be a President that they are immediately homophobic. I disagree with someone's views and opinions because of their views and opinions. Who they sleep with has nothing to do with any decision I make. However, I see this view less from Norris himself and more from some of his more hardcore supporters and certain sections of the media. 

But, I do have a concern regarding how this information is coming about and a specific negative PR campaign against Norris. It is targeted and it is disgraceful just how malicious it is. Especially so if the strong rumours of a Labour Party influence (as per blogger who broke Norris story is suggesting they got information from MD Higgins camp).

Last, whether or not I would vote for Norris that a system exists whereby political parties can work together to block a candidate is as undemocratic as we can get. Up until this weekend Norris was a popular choice, however he was unlikely to be able to stand anyway due to party politics. Whatever he has done and whatever the significance, he should still be allowed to stand in my opinion.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> We have a serving Minister who is gay



Careful now, one serving Minister has in the past denied previously widespread rumours that he is gay. If your comment refers to that particular Minister, you should withdraw it.



Purple said:


> ...and we have a  serving TD who is openly gay.



Two newly-elected TD's spoke on RTE on election night about their being gay.


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

Bronte said:


> Norris sought clemency for an ex partner, his ex partner had committed a serious crime, but in that case my understanding is that it was consensual, and while I don't agree with it, (a relationship of such disparity given the boy's age) we wouldn't be having this discussion if the boy had been one year
> .



I completely disagree and I find this very dusturbing. I am 35 and would have nothing to do with anyone my age who entered into a sexual relationship with a teenager. David Norris's partner was 45 when he had a relationship withs 15 year old. The age of consent makes it a crime but even if he was 16, 17 or 18 does not change the fact that it is morally reprehensible. David Norris seems to think a 15 year old can have a loving sexual relationship. They are not. They are experimenting and discovering their sexuality. They should be allowed to that with people their own age and at their own speed. There shouldn't be a 45 year old helping them along. 

I agree with Purple about Norris in general.


----------



## casiopea (2 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> I completely disagree and I find this very dusturbing. I am 35 and would have nothing to do with anyone my age who entered into a sexual relationship with a teenager. David Norris's partner was 45 when he had a relationship withs 15 year old. The age of consent makes it a crime but even if he was 16, 17 or 18 does not change the fact that it is morally reprehensible. David Norris seems to think a 15 year old can have a loving sexual relationship. They are not. They are experimenting and discovering their sexuality. They should be allowed to that with people their own age and at their own speed. There shouldn't be a 45 year old helping them along.
> 
> I agree with Purple about Norris in general.



well written Sunny. Completely agree.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Careful now, one serving Minister has in the past denied previously widespread rumours that he is gay. If your comment refers to that particular Minister, you should withdraw it.



Fair enough, I withdraw my comment.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> I completely disagree and I find this very dusturbing. I am 35 and would have nothing to do with anyone my age who entered into a sexual relationship with a teenager. David Norris's partner was 45 when he had a relationship withs 15 year old. The age of consent makes it a crime but even if he was 16, 17 or 18 does not change the fact that it is morally reprehensible. David Norris seems to think a 15 year old can have a loving sexual relationship. They are not. They are experimenting and discovering their sexuality. They should be allowed to that with people their own age and at their own speed. There shouldn't be a 45 year old helping them along.
> 
> I agree with Purple about Norris in general.



_"David Norris seems to think a 15 year old can have a loving sexual  relationship."_

As far as I can determine Norris did not express a view about whether a fifteen year old can have a loving sexual relationship.

------------------------

The views expressed above however appear mutually contradictory.
_"David Norris seems to think a 15 year old can have a loving sexual  relationship. They are not. They are experimenting and discovering their  sexuality."_

The views that fifteen year olds cannot enter into a loving sexual relationship seems to be based on religious mantra and limited life experience.
Walking around with eyes closed might inure people to the significant numbers of teenage pregnancies that occur every year in Ireland and Britain, but they are an undeniable facet of Irish life.

These are by definition the results of heterosexual relationships, but they prove sexual and loving relationships exist at a young age and it may reasonably be inferred that homosexual teen age sexual relationships exist too.

The fruits of such relationships may be seen as an inconvenience by the state and morally irresponsible by others, but to try to devolve the participants to children when they are manifestly capable of an adult reproductive act seems a serious case of denial.

While it is an unusual fifteen year old who is ready for anything like commitment at such an early age, and young men in particular seem poorly adjusted towards responsibility at that age, this doesn't change the fact the people involved are no longer children and seem to care deeply for one another.

And to suggest that teenagers in love are merely playful automatons incapable of deep feelings for each other and the fruit of their loins reflects either a flawed understanding of the human condition or severely limited life experience, or both. Someone even wrote a play about it.

So please don't deny that teenagers can have deep feelings for each other  whether the relationship is sexual or not. Yes there can be "users" at any  age, both male and female. But there are also a lot of deeply committed teenagers some of whom enter sexual relationships at an early age.

The couples in my experience were not all "at it like rabbits" despite the prurient attitudes expressed about them by older generations. 

---------------------

Another view was expressed

_"They should be allowed to that with people their own age and at their  own speed."

_Here we are _entirely in agreement_.
Plus, I don't believe they should be criminalized as per current Irish statute.
Another view was expressed

_"__There shouldn't be a 45 year old helping them along."_

Here again we are _entirely in agreement_.

I don't believe older persons [from around 20-25+, to pick an age] should be involved, never mind a man in his forties.

----------------------

In relation to Norris' appeal for clemency - I think to judge a person solely on his flaws does him a great disservice merely because there was a sexual crime committed.

There seems to be more to Ezra Nawi than that and you always have to form a view of the individual, having all due regard to the seriousness of the crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Nawi

Therefore it would seem Norris had grounds for seeking clemency based on the mans better qualities which justified his other remarks in his appeal to the Israeli Court.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Bronte said:


> The two cases are not comparable at all. Molloy was an Irish Minister and sought to influence a judge in a most heinous case. It would be interesting to know how many ministers have lobbied for prisioners, probably most of them if we go back a few years.
> 
> Norris sought clemency for an ex partner, his ex partner had committed a serious crime, but in that case my understanding is that it was consensual, and while I don't agree with it, (a relationship of such disparity given the boy's age) we wouldn't be having this discussion if the boy had been one year older.
> 
> ...




I totally agree with your comment Bronte.

However as I have posted elsewhere, the following may have affected his judgement -


he assumed people knew about it
he had never hidden what he'd done
lobbying by elected representatives is engaged in without comment regularly
it was a relatively private matter of support for a loved one and politicians private lives are usually off-limits
there was a humanitarian factor to Nawi, something which - unless supported - could have affected him negatively Israeli Court.
the matter was well outside the statute of limitations (6 years) and even outside the time for certification under seal (12 years) - A long time ago.
I think perhaps all these factors taken together show why this matter was not seen by him for the threat to Norris' presidential campaign it has since become.

I think in a year's time, if we end up with a lacklustre president, some of the people posting in high dudgeon may review what they have written here today and wonder 

"Did I really get so upset over a Norris writing a letter supporting his partner?"

I think in time people will see this smear campaign for what it is.

A presidential power grab, seeking to undermine the right of the people to vote for someone who is the candidate of their choice as shown by current polls today

 - still 47% in The Journal despite all the anti-Norris comments on their blogs and no-one else comes close.

ONQ.


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

We were all 15. We all went through teenage sexual encounters. We all fell in love and we all had our hearts broken. That's the joy and pain if growing up. What i didnt have was an adult taking advantage of me. Speaking for myself, I was in no way mature enough at 15 to enter into an adult relationship and that has nothing to do with religion or society norms. 

We will just have to disagree about this because I will never think it is acceptable to defend a 45 year old man who has entered into a sexual relationship with a teenager. I don't care about the other good he had done. I don't care if the 15 year old declares his love for the guy. It is disgusting and exploitative and is only a small step away from child abuse. And I won't have changed my mind in a years time.


----------



## Latrade (2 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> We were all 15. We all went through teenage sexual encounters. We all fell in love and we all had our hearts broken. That's the joy and pain if growing up. What i didnt have was an adult taking advantage of me. Speaking for myself, I was in no way mature enough at 15 to enter into an adult relationship and that has nothing to do with religion or society norms.
> 
> We will just have to disagree about this because I will never think it is acceptable to defend a 45 year old man who has entered into a sexual relationship with a teenager. I don't care about the other good he had done. I don't care if the 15 year old declares his love for the guy. It is disgusting and exploitative and is only a small step away from child abuse. And I won't have changed my mind in a years time.


 
Sunny, I accept your point. However, what then is the point of ages of consent? What difference does it make if the individual involved was 16 and at the "appropriate" age. Only using myself as an example, can I say there was any difference in my maturity at 15 or 16? no. But I could probably go on in my own immaturity up to at least 19. 

Just when is someone "old" or mature enough to make a judgement on either love or lust? Fine telling us when they aren't, but when are they? And if the age gap is 30 years then, is that still morally wrong?


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> There is no "black and white" in this. So on that basis I wholeheartedly agree with ONQ, Sunny and Purple even though they all hold seemingly different opinions.
> 
> Whatever the details of the letter and whatever the circumstances, it is inappropriate, it was foolish and these are not great traits of a potential President. Irrespective of what TDs or Ministers did in their own formal communications for various offenders and irrespective of whether or not they got away with it, I find it abhorrent that they would cede to such pressure and actually put pen to paper and seek to interfere in such a manner. On that basis, even though Norris' letter was tame in comparison to some, I don't like that attempt to use a political position to influence any justice system.
> 
> ...



For the record I don't believe that the people involved in the anti-Norris campaign - and there is definitely such a campaign afoot - are homophobes per se.

Some of them have reviled Norris himself as a pedophile, which he clearly is not, while others have mouthed such patent nonsense that it is impossible to refute because it has no basis in fact.

Such people get what they deserve - a reduction to being part of a generic group of supposed homophobes.

In fact I believe they are ardent supporters of other candidates who have negligible chances of success.

I consider their target to be not just Norris, but by laying a trail to the Labour party's door, they seem to be hoping to narrow the field by taking out another popular candidate, Michael D. Higgins.

I think the political hurdles for eligibility are a reflection of  the monied subset who have the wherewithal to put down the deposit for Dáil membership.

Given the state the country is in, they have every reason to be worried about a popular candidate who STILL commands 47% of the vote.

ONQ.


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> Sunny, I accept your point. However, what then is the point of ages of consent? What difference does it make if the individual involved was 16 and at the "appropriate" age. Only using myself as an example, can I say there was any difference in my maturity at 15 or 16? no. But I could probably go on in my own immaturity up to at least 19.
> 
> Just when is someone "old" or mature enough to make a judgement on either love or lust? Fine telling us when they aren't, but when are they? And if the age gap is 30 years then, is that still morally wrong?



I fully agree it is difficult once people get into their 20's and then i am willing to maybe give the benefit of the doubt (mid 20's probably) but I would have thought everyone here would agree that someone in their 30's or older should not be in a relationship with a teenager. Talking about relationships with way older people here. Not relationships in general. I could go out with a 18 year old school girl if I was so inclined and not break the law but as a 35 year old, it is completely wrong. I would be completely taking advantage of her.


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

By the way, that Norris lost the support of Fingus Finlay shows that the seriousness of this issue is being lost in the political mud slinging. He and the staff had nothing to gain politically from resigning and dropping support. They obviously have huge problems with the underlying issue. His inappropriate support for someone convicted of statutory rape.


----------



## Shawady (2 Aug 2011)

It's all academic now (pardon the pun).
He is going to withdraw from the race this afternoon.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

Shawady said:


> It's all academic now (pardon the pun).
> He is going to withdraw from the race this afternoon.
> 
> [broken link removed]


 
At least he went with dignity and admit that he was wrong.


----------



## horusd (2 Aug 2011)

He did the right thing today. And he didn't bandy around the mistake he made. That must count for something. Sad for him tho, he's a decent man.


----------



## horusd (2 Aug 2011)

As a matter of interest, does anyone know why the Presidental race is nearly always so dirty? I get *that* it is, but not *why* it is? It's mostly a ceremonial position, I wouldn't have thought it warranted what appears to be a lot of cloak and dagger stuff, as well as sifting through the candidates smalls and unmentionables


----------



## micmclo (2 Aug 2011)

This one hasn't started yet

If it's as dirty and nasty as Robinson, Currie and Lenihan I'll be getting my popcorn ready

As for why? Well TD's run every few years so if they have skeletons we'd know them already. A lot of the candidates here never ran before or else had soft easy elections like Trinity College. So we are only finding all this now.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2011)

horusd said:


> Sad for him tho, he's a decent man.





Sunny said:


> At least he went with dignity and admit that he was wrong.



+1 on both counts. Regardless of one's political opinions and Presidential voting intentions, its a sad day.  Anyone who takes pleasure in Norris' difficulties this week is an idiot imho.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

horusd said:


> He did the right thing today. And he didn't bandy around the mistake he made. That must count for something. Sad for him tho, he's a decent man.



In terms of previously acceptable behaviour in TD's, lobbying for clemency was not unacceptable IMO and I think Norris had no need to apologize.
I think he was frightened by the dirty viciousness of the mainstream parties who orchestrated this to prevent the electorate having their say in selecting a president.

I believe that because of this - and as another poster mentioned, its only beginning - I think anyone from the mainstream parties that goes forward is attainted as a candidate.
I hope an independent wins, to underline the percentage won by independents in the last general election and to further educate the main parties that ethics in office is a two edged sword.

Now that Norris has set the bar so high by admitting he did wrong, any candidate who lobbied in a similar fashion must also go.

ONQ.


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> In terms of previously acceptable behaviour in TD's, lobbying for clemency was not unacceptable IMO and I think Norris had no need to apologize.
> I think he was frightened by the dirty viciousness of the mainstream parties who orchestrated this to prevent the electorate having their say in selecting a president.
> 
> I believe that because of this - and as another poster mentioned, its only beginning - I think anyone from the mainstream parties that goes forward is attainted as a candidate.
> ...



Of course any TD or politician that makes representations on behalf of murderers, rapists, child abusers or any other person accused of a serious criminal offence should be judged by the same standards. It is a disgusting element of politics that these people think they can interfere. 

I am still absolutely amazed that the debate seemed to be about the letter and the political mud slinging rather than on the fact that he defended a 45 year old man having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old boy. Next time people want to discuss child protection and attitudes towards it in this Country, they would do well to consider this case and the reaction towards it. How someone can think Norris had no reason to apologise is beyond me. Just because other TD's may have done it is no defence. If I took a few thousand instead of millions like Haughey, it doesn't make me any less corrupt. Anyway he is out of the race and good luck to him in the future.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> Of course any TD or politician that makes representations on behalf of murderers, rapists, child abusers or any other person accused of a serious criminal offence should be judged by the same standards. It is a disgusting element of politics that these people think they can interfere.
> 
> I am still absolutely amazed that the debate seemed to be about the letter and the political mud slinging rather than on the fact that he defended a 45 year old man having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old boy. Next time people want to discuss child protection and attitudes towards it in this Country, they would do well to consider this case and the reaction towards it. How someone can think Norris had no reason to apologise is beyond me. Just because other TD's may have done it is no defence. If I took a few thousand instead of millions like Haughey, it doesn't make me any less corrupt. Anyway he is out of the race and good luck to him in the future.



+1 to all of that.


----------



## daithi (2 Aug 2011)

*David Norris..*

If David Norris had, from the outset made public his correspondence with the Israeli judiciary,together with his reasons for making the amnesty plea,maybe he would still be in the race for the presidency. The fact that he didn't showed him to be very naive,and raised questions about his lack of jugdement.

The manner in which all this came to life,however is very unedifying,and speaks volumes about the way which political life is conducted in this country.

daithi


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

Well according to his staff, there are loads more letters that he wrote looking for clemency to people inside and outside israel. Only the minimum have been made public. Sounds like he started a campaign on the topic. I have no idea who or why these came into the public domain but it belongs there. It's the cost of public life. This is not a smear campaign. It's facts.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> ...[Norris] defended a 45 year old man having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old boy.



Norris at no time defended his partners actions. The case was tried and he was convicted. Please post proof of your assertion if you have it.

Norris sought clemency in sentencing by referring to his partner's otherwise good character. 

Its a mark of the humanity of the man and the love he bore for his partner that he did so despite having been hurt by Nawi by this offence.

I think its time people start applying the "correct" part of "politically correct" and post comments that are based on fact, not smear tactics.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> Well according to his staff, there are loads more letters that he wrote looking for clemency to people inside and outside israel. Only the minimum have been made public. Sounds like he started a campaign on the topic. I have no idea who or why these came into the public domain but it belongs there. It's the cost of public life. This is not a smear campaign. It's facts.



So long as the commentators stick to the facts and don't post smears only loosely related to the facts I have no problem with that.

I would be very interested to see the letters and very interested to learn how you learnt of them.

Is there a link to them somewhere?

ONQ.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

daithi said:


> If David Norris had, from the outset made public his correspondence with the Israeli judiciary,together with his reasons for making the amnesty plea,maybe he would still be in the race for the presidency.



Did nobody commenting today actually read the documents?

Norris on the evidence to date had NO correspondence with the Israeli Judiciary.

Norris wrote an appeal for leniency on plain paper and sent it to Nawi's defense lawyer to use in any submissions to the court seeking clemency.

It would have been improper for his to directly address the Court or for the Court to respond.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

T McGibney said:


> +1 on both counts. Regardless of one's political opinions and Presidential voting intentions, its a sad day.  Anyone who takes pleasure in Norris' difficulties this week is an idiot imho.



Absolutely agree.

The manner of Norris' going and the standard it sets for everyone in public life places huge responsibility on those selecting candidates for this high office - or any other elected position - in the future.

Lobbying for reduced sentences on compassionate grounds for convicted criminals is now outlawed.

Hopefully none of the other Presidential Candidates have done so.

ONQ.


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> So long as the commentators stick to the facts and don't post smears only loosely related to the facts I have no problem with that.
> 
> I would be very interested to see the letters and very interested to learn how you learnt of them.
> 
> ...



I haven't seen the letters but here is the link saying they exist. 

[broken link removed]


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> Norris at no time defended his partners actions. The case was tried and he was convicted. Please post proof of your assertion if you have it.
> 
> Norris sought clemency in sentencing by referring to his partner's otherwise good character.
> 
> ...



We will never agree but writing a character reference for a person found guilty of statutory rape is defending the person. I never claimed that Norris defended the offence (though I think he has dubious views). Like I say, I would never defend a 45 year old relative, never mind friend if they were found guilty of that offence. That might make me a crap human being but so be it.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> I haven't seen the letters but here is the link saying they exist.
> 
> [broken link removed]




Thanks for that.

I had read it earlier, but I had misinterpreted your first post to mean these were letters on behalf of *others* as opposed to his partner.

For a minute there I wondered if we were going to see a flood of please for clemency for a host of people.

ONQ.


----------



## MrMan (2 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> Norris at no time defended his partners actions. The case was tried and he was convicted. Please post proof of your assertion if you have it.
> 
> Norris sought clemency in sentencing by referring to his partner's otherwise good character.
> 
> ...


I have read all of your posts now on this subject and I feel that you are defending the man you thought Norris was rather than the man he has turned out to be. You say his letter was a mark of the mans 'humanity' but like him you never speak of the 15 year olds role in this crime. When an underage person is taken into a sexual relationship with an adult it is often referred to as grooming yet on this thread people are amazingly saying that he was almost 'of age' and debating the finer points of how the letter was written and on what paper.
Sticking with the facts, Norris looked for clemency for Nawi on the crime of statutory rape - enough said really.


----------



## The_Banker (2 Aug 2011)

Norris' campaign team pulled the plug very quickly. That says it all. 

onq, can I ask a question? Are you close to the Norris campaign team? Your defence is pretty stout in the face of (what I believe to be) unbelievable stupidity by Norris (at best). 

I am far from a right wing homophobic zealot (anyone who reads my posts will know my anti catholic church views) and I would have voted for Norris before this but I could never vote for a man who would write a letter in support of a 45 year old man who had a 15 year old lover, be it hetrosexual or homosexual. 

He did the correct thing in resigning and I hope (for his sake nothing else comes out) and maybe he was set up but you just cannot defend his actions. 

Kathleen Lynch wrote a similar letter for a double rapist in Cork (this is in the public domain). She was expected to top the poll in Cork NC but didn't. Most politicians do this but it is 100% wrong.


----------



## DB74 (2 Aug 2011)

Here's a link to the letters

[broken link removed]

In page 3 of the letter address to the Israeli High Court judges, David Norris states

"Fourthly I travelled to Israel specifically for the hearing of the last case in May of this year and was present in court when the case was heard and the judgement read. I therefore personally witnessed some troubling anomalies in the majority verdict, such as the constant insistence by the presiding judge that there was absolutely no difference between this case and a similar case involving heterosexual relations. This is certainly factually incorrect.I would be more than happy to give the court the benefit of my expert knowledge on this and other matters if it were found possible for me to give evidence in the matter."

What does this mean?

Is David Norris insinuating that statutory rape of a 15 year-old girl by a 45 year-old man is different to the statutory rape of a 15 year-old boy by a 45 year-old man and that somehow homosexual statutory rape is a lesser crime than heterosexual statutory rape?

Because that's how it reads to me.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

The_Banker said:


> Norris' campaign team pulled the plug very quickly. That says it all.
> 
> onq, can I ask a question? Are you close to the Norris campaign team? Your defence is pretty stout in the face of (what I believe to be) unbelievable stupidity by Norris (at best).
> 
> ...



Yes, you can ask.

I am nowhere near the Norris Campaign team.
I wouldn't share oxygen with those lame incompetents.

If I had been on his campaign team he wouldn't have resigned.
That's not mere rhetoric - I wouldn't have taken the job without that control.
Politics is ten per cent rhetoric and ninety per cent hanging on until the votes are in.

------------------------------

Only one or two people who were against Norris were homophobes, the rest  were just main party shills acting like transvestites on a night out.
They overdid it and defamed him, since even on the worst legal  interpretation Nawi isn't a pedophile and Norris didn't excuse or  condone his crime.
They shills deserved a slapping and they got one over on the Journal.  One of them looked like he'd followed me over here and was dealt with,  that's all. I don't think you're a homophobe.

------------------------------

As for your other comments, supporting perfect people is easy Banker, any fool can do it and feel good about themselves.

Supporting flawed or self-destructive people is a heartscald and underneath his smile you can see that Norris has suffered through Nawi's promiscuity, not just in this instance, but in other instances.
People deeply in love will do all they can for the one they love, even when they know it will put their reputation and integrity on the line.

I respect Norris for his passionate commitment to another flawed human being and I will defend his right to support him.
I pity people who have never loved another person that much, for they're just a passengers in this life.

Norris isn't a passenger.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

DB74 said:


> Here's a link to the letters
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> ...



Haven't a clue on this one.

However there was an interesting post on the Journal by a gay guy who stated that in the absence of societal support structures for adolescent gays, he was aware that many turned to older men for love and support. He wasn't condoning it but he said it was commonplace in the gay community.

Perhaps that's what Norris was referring to.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> We will never agree but writing a character reference for a person found guilty of statutory rape is defending the person. I never claimed that Norris defended the offence (though I think he has dubious views). Like I say, I would never defend a 45 year old relative, never mind friend if they were found guilty of that offence. That might make me a crap human being but so be it.




I don't think it makes you a crap human being at all Sunny.
I too would find it very hard to do what Norris has done.

I also accept there are hairs being split here.
But supporting him by referring to his many good qualities is not defending him for committing a crime, however you spin it.



ONQ.


----------



## Complainer (2 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> Lobbying for reduced sentences on compassionate grounds for convicted criminals is now outlawed.



Reduced sentences on compassionate grounds shouldn't be restricted to those who have friends in high places that will lobby for them.


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

I am not spinning anything and I am bowing out of this disturbing discussion.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

MrMan said:


> I have read all of your posts now on this subject and I feel that you are defending the man you thought Norris was rather than the man he has turned out to be. You say his letter was a mark of the mans 'humanity' but like him you never speak of the 15 year olds role in this crime. When an underage person is taken into a sexual relationship with an adult it is often referred to as grooming yet on this thread people are amazingly saying that he was almost 'of age' and debating the finer points of how the letter was written and on what paper.
> Sticking with the facts, Norris looked for clemency for Nawi on the crime of statutory rape - enough said really.



I am quite clear on Norris the man.
He was in love with a promiscuous partner who went a bridge too far.

---------------------------

You are quire correct when you point out that I have said nothing about Nawi's young lover.
I don't speak about the fifteen year olds role in this crime because I don't want to impugn his reputation - I don't know what role he had.

If you're asking me to speculate, then let me say that I strongly suspect that he was drawn initially to Nawi because of his relative fame for his humanitarian actions in support of the Palestinian people.
Like many young gay men, he may have sought the company of an older gay man - while foreign to heterosexuals this seems common enough shared experience with gays.
According to a recent post on the Journal, this is common in the gay community in the absence of support structures for young gay men, regardless of how the wider heterosexual community view it.

I also call Nawis' lover a 'young gay man" advisedly.

Israeli law permits consent to be given by males as young as 14 providing their partners satisfy three conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Israel

*"Israel*

_"According to the Israeli Penal Code of 1977 the age of consent in Israel is *16*[27]  for any form of sexual relations. A special case arises when a person  between ages 14–16 had sexual relations with an older partner; in this  case the older partner would be exempt of criminal liability if three  conditions are met: The age difference between the partners was less  than three years, the younger partner gave consent and the act was done  out of "regular friendly relations" and without the abuse of power."_

This does not excuse Nawi's actions, in fact it marks him out as being far too old, but it means that under Israeli law you cannot portray a fifteen year old as a child who cannot - under any circumstances - give consent, as others have tried to do.

The Nawi affair is a bit beyond my experience, so I cannot comment any further.

---------------------------

In relation to "grooming",  you seem to be transposing terms more associated with child abuse in the place of Nawi's crime of sex with a minor AKA statutory rape.
It is widely reported that pedophiles first "groom" children for sex through making them accustomed to their touch, voice etc. to prepare for sexual contact.

However while a child is defined as being pre-pubescent, a male of fifteen is not pre-pubescent and may in fact have largely completed his pubertal development.
This not to suggest he has attained emotional maturity - afifteen year old could certainly come "under the influence" of an older male.

But in fact, according to the Journal post I referred to above, he may actively be seeking this kind of relationship.
This suggests an active role for Nawi's young lover and thus this does not seem to fit my understanding of "grooming" per se.

While I know several members of the gay community as friends, I myself am heterosexual and this debate has reached my limit in a sector of society in which I am not an initiate.


ONQ.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Duplicate post deleted.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2011)

ONQ, I am glad he's out of the race because of the points I wrote about earlier. The fact that a candidate is homosexual would probably make me more likely to vote for them, but not Norris. I just don't like him. He's very opinionated and intolerant of people who don't share his views. I don't consider his as the right person for the job.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Purple, I have to hand it to you.

You are the first person I have seen making a post that is actually relevant to the discussion of whether or not Norris is suitable for the role of President.

I cannot disagree with your points because I have seen some evidence of what you say and the way the "campaign team" collapsed suggested that all was not well in Camp David as some have dubbed it.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Complainer said:


> Reduced sentences on compassionate grounds shouldn't be restricted to those who have friends in high places that will lobby for them.



Complainer I was being ironic.

In that the strident anti-Norris campaigners had spiked the ground for anyone seeking to get support for leniency on compassionate grounds.

This will tend to lead to more straight-laced as opposed to genuinely ethical politics, which I think is a repressive, retrograde step.

I agree, in other words.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (2 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> I am not spinning anything and I am bowing out of this disturbing discussion.



Just when we were starting to get along.


----------



## Sunny (2 Aug 2011)

That is probably the most disturbing post I have ever read on AAM or maybe I am not intellectual enough to get ONQs finesse. Either way, that's me out of this


----------



## onq (3 Aug 2011)

I think a show of spoiled votes would be an appropriate response to the  way the mainstream parties smeared David Norris into oblivion.
Put down Norris name and mark your “X” beside it.
It won’t shame the shameless, but it will put them on notice.


----------



## Tintagel (3 Aug 2011)

Will we have as much coverage about the remaining hetrosexual canditates sexuality over the coming weeks?


----------



## horusd (3 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> ... He's very opinionated and intolerant of people who don't share his views. I don't consider his as the right person for the job.


 
I have to agree with Purple here. He can be quite trenchant and dismissive. This is probably a consequence of having to fight his corner often as a sole voice. He probably doesn't have the qualities needed to be President. 

But I like him nonetheless. He is a "character". Witty, compassionate, passionate and colourful. People warm to him easily and, I think forgive him easily because they recognise his inate niceness.  It's the mark of the man that he was brought down by love, and a flawed loyalty. It's also a mark of him that he recognised this flaw and owned up fully. 

This was no grubby deal that caught him out, no politicking or self-serving motives lay behind it. He won't walk away richer and he didn't make us squirm as we watched him try to blather his way out of it. All of which are so typical of Irish politics. Even in his going he enriched politics. "keep trying, fail better", quite a legacy.His defeat had all the passion of a Greek tragedy. How appropriate is that? 

Compare this to the grubby and seedy way this story broke. Someone or some group rooted around in the rubbish bin of history to find the "dirt" on Norris and do him in. They succeeded. What were their motives? We don't know, but I doubt they were honourable. I doubt they gave a damn about  the boy involved, all that mattered was destroying Norris. I would really like to see these people face the scrutiny Norris has faced, I would like to know who was involved and why. We rightly wonder about Norris's motives in writing the letters. We should wonder just as much about the shady people who exposed them.


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

horusd said:


> Compare this to the grubby and seedy way this story broke. Someone or some group rooted around in the rubbish bin of history to find the "dirt" on Norris and do him in. They succeeded. What were their motives? We don't know, but I doubt they were honourable. I doubt they gave a damn about  the boy involved, all that mattered was destroying Norris. I would really like to see these people face the scrutiny Norris has faced, I would like to know who was involved and why. We rightly wonder about Norris's motives in writing the letters. We should wonder just as much about the shady people who exposed them.



I don't think you would have to look much further than Mossad for the source.


----------



## Shawady (3 Aug 2011)

The strange thing about the whole episode is along with the previous interview he seems to reinforce the impression that gay men are "into young boys" or that he at least sees nothing wrong with this.
This is ironic as he has a reputation for doing much on equality rights for gay people.


----------



## Complainer (3 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> I think a show of spoiled votes would be an appropriate response to the  way the mainstream parties smeared David Norris into oblivion.
> Put down Norris name and mark your “X” beside it.
> It won’t shame the shameless, but it will put them on notice.


You might as well write 'Dustin The Turkey' on it. It is a meaningless action. The only people who will notice will be the non-political vote counters and maybe a few low-level tallymen.


horusd said:


> Compare this to the grubby and seedy way this story broke. Someone or some group rooted around in the rubbish bin of history to find the "dirt" on Norris and do him in. They succeeded. What were their motives? We don't know, but I doubt they were honourable. I doubt they gave a damn about  the boy involved, all that mattered was destroying Norris. I would really like to see these people face the scrutiny Norris has faced, I would like to know who was involved and why. We rightly wonder about Norris's motives in writing the letters. We should wonder just as much about the shady people who exposed them.


The difference is that whoever exposed him is not standing for the role of President. It is not unreasonable, and is indeed quite healthy, that the track record of those standing for public office is trawled over with a fine toothcomb. It is far better that this issue came to light now, than later, when President Norris is due to visit Isreal, for example.


----------



## MrMan (3 Aug 2011)

So far we have posters say that 'It's the mark of the man that he was brought down by love, and a flawed  loyalty. It's also a mark of him that he recognised this flaw and owned  up fully' as if to say that there is some admiration for what he did here, surely not? Others have used the fact that he feared that Nawi may take his life if he were to be imprisoned, well then don't do the crime, and isn't that a fear for every person going to prison. 
We also have 'the dirty tricks campaign', do posters feel that it is better to be ignorant of a candidates background?


----------



## Staples (3 Aug 2011)

When he wrote his letter on Oireachtas headed paper, he dragged the State itself into his plea for clemency. This is unforgiveable.

He should be chucked out of the Seanad itself for this, never mind his Presidential bid. That's quite apart from how one might regard him personally.

Membership of the Oireachtas is a privilege that requires a high level of responsibility. God knows often other members have abused this privilege to their own ends.


----------



## horusd (3 Aug 2011)

If they chucked out all the people who wrote clemency letters there'd need to be another GE.  Sen. John Crown will introduce a bill  to ban all representations to the courts from the Oireachtas.

Complainer I agree it's better this came out now. All I'm sayin is that the people who raised it and dug for it should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as to their motives And who can say that they weren't connected to someone else's presidental bid? We don't know that for sure. That's why we need to know what they were up to.


----------



## horusd (3 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> I don't think you would have to look much further than Mossad for the source.


 
Now I know yer kiddin!


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

horusd said:


> Now I know yer kiddin!



No, who else would have had access to it? The letter wasn't in Ireland so it wasn't anyone at this end who got their hands on it. Norris is no friend of the Israeli government (or state) so they would hate to see him as President.


----------



## horusd (3 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> No, who else would have had access to it? The letter wasn't in Ireland so it wasn't anyone at this end who got their hands on it. Norris is no friend of the Israeli government (or state) so they would hate to see him as President.


 
I genuinely hadn't thought the Israeli's might do this. I assumed these letters were a matter of public(court) records, and someone had looked em up, perhaps with a bit of a nod in the right direction. If Mossad or whoever actively interfered in Irish politics it's a far more serious issue. Probably unprovable tho.


----------



## MrMan (3 Aug 2011)

The issue isn't who found the dirt, it's the content of the letter and what it stands for (which by the way isn't humanity or love).


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

MrMan said:


> The issue isn't who found the dirt, it's the content of the letter and what it stands for (which by the way isn't humanity or love).



I agree with you there.


----------



## Latrade (4 Aug 2011)

MrMan said:


> The issue isn't who found the dirt, it's the content of the letter and what it stands for (which by the way isn't humanity or love).


 
There is an issue on who found the dirt if it is a different state influencing Presidential nominations. However, I agree the letter and the act of writing to any other state asking for leniency or communting of any sentence where there is no dispute over the individual's guilt is wrong. Just like Gay Mitchell's letter.


----------



## horusd (4 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> *There is an issue on who found the dirt if it is a different state influencing Presidential nominations*. However, I agree the letter and the act of writing to any other state asking for leniency or communting of any sentence where there is no dispute over the individual's guilt is wrong. Just like Gay Mitchell's letter.


 
+1 

Unless we know the motives behind the people who fished this out, we cannot definitively say. But it seems obvious that it was done with the intention of damaging or destroying Norris' campaign. The motives behind this matter. It won't change the facts or the wrongness of what Norris did, but we can and should scrutinize the people and their intentions behind the revelations and make a judgement on that.

An Irish Times interview with Mr Connolly the blogger who broke the story says;

"Mr Connolly told _The Irish Times_ yesterday that his source was a regular correspondent with his blog – *which advances strongly pro-Israeli views.* *He said the source came from a trade union background and had once campaigned for Michael D Higgins but was not associated with the Labour Party*"

Source: [broken link removed]


Mr Connolly's says about himself that;

"I want to make a contribution, though it may be a small one, to *defending liberty and truth.* I will be offensive in doing so. *For you see, I have two major loves: free markets and Zionism.* Yep, I’m the kind of guy most folks today are indoctrinated to hate. I believe environmentalists are scamming us, as is the human rights industry and of course the socialists, as always. *Oh, and Palestinians are not a bunch of perfect victims...."*

Source:http://thesystemworks.wordpress.com/about/

Given that the heads up (according to Connolly) for the Norris story came from someone who had campagined for Michael D. Higgins, and were published by someone who " loves Zionism", *and *the papers involved related to an Israeli court case, we are entitled to scrutinize these issues. This is not to make a definitive claim as to motives. But it is sufficient to warrant further examination and questions. The upshot of what Connolly and this "trade union" guy did was to scupper the next likely president's chances of election. I want to know how this came about, was Israel involved, who was the trade union guy and who gave him knowledge of, and access to, the letters? These are eminently fair questions.


----------



## MrMan (4 Aug 2011)

It's just starting to feel like a propaganda machine moving the story away from Norris and eventually leading to him being the victim; then we can start the petition to get him to run for the Aras again.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Aug 2011)

Some people obviously believe that every pro-Israeli blogger and commentator must be a stooge of Mossad. It seems that McCarthyitte paranoia lives on...


----------



## T McGibney (4 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> However, I agree the letter and the act of writing to any other state asking for leniency or commuting of any sentence where there is no dispute over the individual's guilt is wrong. Just like Gay Mitchell's letter.



So you would support the suppression of Amnesty International and anti-death penalty campaigns?


----------



## horusd (4 Aug 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Some people obviously believe that every pro-Israeli blogger and commentator must be a stooge of Mossad. It seems that McCarthyitte paranoia lives on...


 
And who are these people? And who is paranoid? Certainly not me. I have asked legitimate questions. Israel has some "form " in interfering in other countries, not least here in the passport debacle. 

Connolly's" rantings" as he calls it, don't generally interest me one jot. He strikes me as a classical attention-seeking contrarian. To call him an Israeli apologist would grant him a gavitas above his station. His blog is pretty run of the mill really. He probably does Israel more harm than good. But I am curious as to exactly how he laid his mits on the Norris letters. Connolly states he is committed to liberty and truth, so telling us wouldn't be against his high principles would it? Unless of course, this commitment to truth and liberty is qualified in some way?


----------



## Latrade (4 Aug 2011)

T McGibney said:


> So you would support the suppression of Amnesty International and anti-death penalty campaigns?



There are about 3000 people on death row in the USA. But Mitchell chose one. One person who not only admitted to the murders but showed no remorse and openly tried to justify the cold-blooded killings at every stage. An abhorrent, sick individual. But it's ok to ask for leniency in his punishment?

I was told this wasn't about Norris' sexuality. I was told this was about an individual officially representing the state asking another state to be lenient in the case of a fair trial and not proceed with the punishment determined in a court. But obviously I'm wrong and that when multiple murders are carried out without remorse in the name of a pro-life campaign (uh?) that this is not anywhere near as abhorrent and career ending as the circumstances if statutory rape.


----------



## Latrade (4 Aug 2011)

MrMan said:


> It's just starting to feel like a propaganda machine moving the story away from Norris and eventually leading to him being the victim; then we can start the petition to get him to run for the Aras again.



Not from me it doesn't as I wholeheartedly disagree with what Norris did. I just want consistency in our judgements on who is fit to run for the office. 

As to the timing and release of the letter, I'm not saying that lets Norris if the hook for what he did, I'm interested in who decided to push this. The two suggested sources are the state of Israel and the Labour Party. There are serious questions behind whichever one is behind it.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> There are about 3000 people on death row in the USA. But Mitchell chose one. One person who not only admitted to the murders but showed no remorse and openly tried to justify the cold-blooded killings at every stage. An abhorrent, sick individual. But it's ok to ask for leniency in his punishment?



I never raised the case referred to by Mitchell.  I did however query the following statement...



Latrade said:


> the act of writing to any other state asking for leniency  or communting of any sentence where there is no dispute over the  individual's guilt is wrong.



... which made me wonder what you thought of Amnesty International and the anti-death penalty campaigns who specialise in letter writing campaigns.


----------



## Latrade (4 Aug 2011)

T McGibney said:


> ... which made me wonder what you thought of Amnesty International and the anti-death penalty campaigns who specialise in letter writing campaigns.



I don't have a problem with NGOs having campaigns. I do have an issue when it is official representatives of the state.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Aug 2011)

So elected representatives should avoid engaging with NGO's and charity lobbyists? 

On that basis, Michael D will be facing a long charge-sheet as his record of activism and advocacy on behalf of the powerless and oppressed is substantial.


----------



## Latrade (4 Aug 2011)

T McGibney said:


> So elected representatives should avoid engaging with NGO's and charity lobbyists?
> 
> On that basis, Michael D will be facing a long charge-sheet as his record of activism and advocacy on behalf of the powerless and oppressed is substantial.



Yeah you got me there. My point on elected representatives writing to other states asking them to change their justice policy following a fair trial means that no politician should ever engage in any human rights work or engage with any human rights NGO. 

Or it could just mean what I said that I object to the letter writing in cases of a fair trial and nothing else.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Aug 2011)

I am not going to trawl through this to sort out the defamatory from the OTT from the Ok posts, so I have mass deleted the last 50 posts. 

Brendan


----------

