David Norris and academic discussions.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
micmclo said:
Bobby Molloy resigned as a Minister for less then this.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
His campaign team were pretty swift to resign.
It makes you wonder if there's more stuff to come out.
 
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.
 
Purple said:
We have a serving Minister who is gay
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I withdraw my comment.
 

"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.
 


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.
 
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?
 

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register