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.