Gay Mitchell and Presidency

I think they are separate issues and I don't agree that this issue should be used to force Gay Mitchell out of the presidential race - I don't think he would make a good president either.

The way I read it is that David Norris pleaded for clemency for a lover in relation to a statutory rape case using his position as a parliamentarian as leverage without identifying his relationship.

Gay Mitchell was requesting a death penalty be commuted into life imprisonment on behalf of a constituent.
 
To be honest, I think his defence of the politican who said homosexuality was a sin is a bigger reason to kick him out rather than some letter that Bush probably didn't even read. My problem is that Mitchell is obviously willing to use official office to further personal beliefs. He could have written the letter as an individual but as far as I know, he used his status as FG spokeman on foreign affairs to send the letter. Would he do the same as President? Also, has some dubious views like Norris although on the opposite end of the spectrum!
 
T McGibney said:
Liberals abhor the death penalty, but not for anti-abortionists. Go figure...
Click to expand...

How do you know? Did Mitchell write a letter every time a person was about to be put to death or was it just for people who killed innocent people just because they worked at an abortion clinic?
 
T McGibney said:
Liberals abhor the death penalty, but not for anti-abortionists. Go figure...
Click to expand...

Conservatives abhor abortion but not the death penalty...go figure.

This however gets us nowhere.

The question (when it's not being deflected with rhetoric) is whether it is appropriate in the circumstances of a guilty verdict in a fair trial that a representative of the state writes in order to have a change in the punishment that was issued.
 
Latrade said:
The question (when it's not being deflected with rhetoric) is whether it is appropriate in the circumstances of a guilty verdict in a fair trial that a representative of the state writes in order to have a change in the punishment that was issued.
Click to expand...

How would we react if the Pope or a Bishop in Rome wrote a letter defending a Priest convicted of child abuse? (Afraid to ask if he has!)

We have no business interfering. If there are human rights concerns, there are other channels where this can be raised.
 

I don't disagree and I stated I felt what Norris did was stupid and irresponsible and is not the actions of a Head of State.

Even if it were a complete injustice, there are avenues of diplomacy to go through that should not be circumvented by individual politicians.
 
Latrade said:
Even if it were a complete injustice, there are avenues of diplomacy to go through that should not be circumvented by individual politicians.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Guildford Four, who would still be in jail were it not for the campaigning of then-MP Chris Mullin, amongst others. "LOONY MP BACKS IRA PUB BOMB MONSTERS' screamed The Sun...
 
I haven't been keeping up to date with this campaign, but I thought that the reason Mitchell went for the FG nomination was to stop Pat Cox ?

Or that the FG nominee be from 'his' wing of the party.

Either way, or whatever his movitation was, he is not someone I would vote for. Remember his Olympics for Dubblin campaign when Lord Mayor ?

Wept !
 
T McGibney said:
Tell that to the Guildford Four, who would still be in jail were it not for the campaigning of then-MP Chris Mullin, amongst others. "LOONY MP BACKS IRA PUB BOMB MONSTERS' screamed The Sun...
Click to expand...

The Guilford Four always declared their innocence and there was a very public campaign to get the evidence looked at which politicians here and in the UK supported publically. Their position was clear for everyone to see. I don't remember Norris and Mitchell running to press with their letters of support in favour of someone convicted of double murder and someone convicted of statutory rape. Neither of whom denied their crimes.
 
TarfHead said:
Either way, or whatever his movitation was, he is not someone I would vote for. Remember his Olympics for Dubblin campaign when Lord Mayor ?

Wept !
Click to expand...

I know. And we thought Bertie was mad for his Bertie Bowl idea!
 
Sunny said:
I don't remember Norris and Mitchell running to press with their letters of support in favour of someone convicted of double murder and someone convicted of statutory rape. Neither of whom denied their crimes.
Click to expand...

Mitchell's appeal on behalf of Florida murderer Paul Hill was sufficiently public to make RTE News at the time.
 
T McGibney said:
Mitchell's appeal on behalf of Florida murderer Paul Hill was sufficiently public to make RTE News at the time.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I wasn't in the Country at the time so others will have to answer why the reaction wasn't greater then. I never even heard of it until the Norris thing blew up.
 
Apparently he sent other letters for people on death row. I would like to see the details of them because I have my doubts.
 
MrMan said:
Might be to do with one being innocent and the other guilty.
Click to expand...

Well strictly speaking only innocent when they're born and baptised, but yeah I can see how pro life has caveats.

But as I stated it's a moot point. If, as quite rightly pointed out, condemning Norris had nothing to do with his sexuality but it was the fact that he wrote the letter, why can't the same people condem Mitchel?

The basis of writing the letter is the same. The difference is the politics, sexuality and crimes involved (as both are practicing Christians).

So please ,why not just say Mitchell was wrong as quickly as it was stated Norris was wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register