Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cllr Michael Crowe - Is he homophobic or just a conniving FF politician?

Options
  • 12-07-2011 12:36am
    #1
    Mollie Breathna
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭


    Watch this
    http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0711/media-3000355.html#
    and you decide if he's merely a slimy FF politician or is he actually homophobic.
    (Not excusing his FF and FG colleagues on Galway City Council who voted to not even allow David Norris speak to them in September but Mary Davis may. Also maybe worth bearing in mind his refusal to attend the Gay Pride - Bród- Parade when he was Mayor.)


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Wompa1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    Mollie Breathna wrote: »
    Watch this
    http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0711/media-3000355.html#
    and you decide if he's merely a slimy FF politician or is he actually homophobic.
    (Not excusing his FF and FG colleagues on Galway City Council who voted to not even allow David Norris speak to them in September but Mary Davis may. Also maybe worth bearing in mind his refusal to attend the Gay Pride - Bród- Parade when he was Mayor.)

    Maybe he is..couldn't tell from the interview. The remarks about his comments were in regard to that interview 10 years ago in which Norris was raving on about men having sex with young boys. Crowe is entitled to his opinion and based on what he said I wouldn't say he's homophobic. I'm not sure why he refused to go to the gay pride parade but can't say he's homophobic for that, maybe he was busy? or maybe he doesn't agree with the concept of the parade like many in After Hours a few weeks ago for reasons other than homophobia?...


  • Options
    #3
    celty
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭celty


    I actually don't think it's fair to pick on Mike Crowe in this case. The Council themselves, on the casting vote of Mayor Hildegarde Naughton, voted not to allow David Norris to address them. Ridiculous really, it's not as though they were deciding not to allow him to put his name forward ... they did not even want to hear a submission from him.

    Given that polls show that Norris is still the front-runner, I think this is unfair. But I don't think the above interview shows that Crowe is homophobic, which is a different claim altogether.


  • Options
    #4
    SamuelFox
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭SamuelFox


    I lived in Galway for a few years and I had Michael Crowe down as a typical FF lowlife scumbag – particularly a few years ago (after I left) when he called for Buckfast to be banned as it was driving students crazy. On the Last Word radio show he was asked if he was a publican and he denied it – which lacked integrity as he grew up in his family run pub, now managed by his brother a few doors up the street from his auctioneering business. He’s a typical small-town politician, focused entirely on getting re-elected and serving the narrow issues that affect or interest him personally. In very many ways he is the Galway version of Senator Norris.

    However, in this case I support him entirely. Norris’s comment on pederasty and incest made a lot of people, me included, very uncomfortable. His efforts to whitewash it since just go to show the accuracy of the reporting of the comments. These opinions make him unfit to be President, or even a candidate for President, and I admire Galway City Council for their stance.


  • Options
    #5
    whoopdedoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 503 ✭✭✭whoopdedoo


    he's a scumbag mé féiner who's out of the big political loop and hopefully gone from local politics soon too

    had to laugh when he was booed out of some photo ops hahaha


  • Options
    #6
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Good for him, not to be bound by PC cultural elites who would seek to ostracise anyone who would characterise homosexual behaviour in anything but glowing terms.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SamuelFox
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭SamuelFox


    Manach wrote: »
    Good for him, not to be bound by PC cultural elites who would seek to ostracise anyone who would characterise homosexual behaviour in anything but glowing terms.

    That’s not what he said at all – he never mentioned his sexuality, he mentioned his comments.


  • Options
    #8
    celty
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭celty


    People like Ronan Mullen, the Independent (extreme Catholic) Senator, make me a lot more sick than Mike Crowe.

    Senator Mullen has consistently made out homosexuals to be deviants in his rotten, hate-filled columns. What about all the priests who have abused young children?

    As the brother of a gay man who emigrated from this rotten land, I'm well aware of how rotten it is to grow up gay in this country.

    But, like Mike Crowe, I still think that David Norris' comments were out of order and he has never really disassociated himself from them.

    There is a huge difference between two adults engaging in consensual activity and trying to justify any form of paedophelia.

    But I still think Galway City Council were wrong not to allow Senator Norris to address them.


  • Options
    #9
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Whatever the feeling towards Norris or the FG political machinations to keep him off the ballot paper, it was totally wrong for the FG mayor to use her casting vote to stop the man even speaking to the council.

    She has since rowed back on that idiotic decision and he will get his chance to address the council in September.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/davis-secure-as-norris-suffers-aras-race-snub-2818582.html


  • Options
    #10
    SamuelFox
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭SamuelFox


    gambiaman wrote: »
    Whatever the feeling towards Norris or the FG political machinations to keep him off the ballot paper, it was totally wrong for the FG mayor to use her casting vote to stop the man even speaking to the council.

    She has since rowed back on that idiotic decision and he will get his chance to address the council in September.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/davis-secure-as-norris-suffers-aras-race-snub-2818582.html

    I have to disagree - firstly, if FF and FG control Galway City Council, and neither are going to support him, then why should he speak? There is enough going on for the Corporation to deal with without wasting time on a pointless speech from Norris that has no chance of resulting in a nomination.

    This is just another episode in Norris' attempt to be a martyr. If he fails to get the nomination he will be deprived his rightful entitlement to be President by small minded people and he can dine on witty comments about it until he dies. If he gets the nomination its another example of the brave new Ireland being forged by David Norris, until he fails to get elected and he can dine on witty comments about it until he dies.

    The reality is that the electoral system we have includes a gatekeeper mechanism to protect the dignity of the office by preventing clowns running. It doesn't always work - Sean Gallagher is an example of that. But we elect local politicians to do certain functions and this is one of them. We can't complain when they decided to exercise their judgement in a way some of us disagree with.

    Similarly, at Oireachtas level the people who know Norris best have decided not to support him - for example, the independent Senators that have served longest with Norris - Shane Ross (also a TCD man) and Fergal Quinn have both declined to nominate him. There is a lesson in that.

    In terms of the Mayor of Galway, its an embarrassing climbdown - I don't believe for a minute that she intended to break the FG whip at her first meeting by casting her vote with Labour to allow him speak, and if she was it says a lot about her capability as a Chair that she was unsure what she was voting on in a debate that she herself chaired and presumably called for the vote.

    Finally, I doubt he will get a chance to address them in Sept - unless the composition of the Council changes in that time the vote will remain the same and Mayor Naughton will have to either stand by her principles or do what is politically expedient, and given her actions to ensure election as Mayor, I know what I'll be betting on.


  • Options
    #11
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    SamuelFox wrote: »
    I have to disagree - firstly, if FF and FG control Galway City Council, and neither are going to support him, then why should he speak? There is enough going on for the Corporation to deal with without wasting time on a pointless speech from Norris that has no chance of resulting in a nomination.

    This is just another episode in Norris' attempt to be a martyr. If he fails to get the nomination he will be deprived his rightful entitlement to be President by small minded people and he can dine on witty comments about it until he dies. If he gets the nomination its another example of the brave new Ireland being forged by David Norris, until he fails to get elected and he can dine on witty comments about it until he dies.

    The reality is that the electoral system we have includes a gatekeeper mechanism to protect the dignity of the office by preventing clowns running. It doesn't always work - Sean Gallagher is an example of that. But we elect local politicians to do certain functions and this is one of them. We can't complain when they decided to exercise their judgement in a way some of us disagree with.

    Similarly, at Oireachtas level the people who know Norris best have decided not to support him - for example, the independent Senators that have served longest with Norris - Shane Ross (also a TCD man) and Fergal Quinn have both declined to nominate him. There is a lesson in that.

    In terms of the Mayor of Galway, its an embarrassing climbdown - I don't believe for a minute that she intended to break the FG whip at her first meeting by casting her vote with Labour to allow him speak, and if she was it says a lot about her capability as a Chair that she was unsure what she was voting on in a debate that she herself chaired and presumably called for the vote.

    Finally, I doubt he will get a chance to address them in Sept - unless the composition of the Council changes in that time the vote will remain the same and Mayor Naughton will have to either stand by her principles or do what is politically expedient, and given her actions to ensure election as Mayor, I know what I'll be betting on.


    Leaving aside any antipathy you may have for Norris, it was patently wrong for a mayor to use a casting vote to deny a prosepctive presidential candidate to simply address the council even moreso when granting that permission to Dermot Mulqueen, another independent. I won't even comment on his prospects of running even thouigh your 'clown' remark might very well apply to him!
    There are 8 councilllors in Galway city that are making a martyr of Mr Norris and only them.



    7 voted to allow him address (LAB + INDs) , 7 voted against (3FG/3FF/1IND) - for the mayor to use her position for party political ends is not good for anyone.
    What is to be gained from stopping someone speaking?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,766 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    both


  • Options
    #13
    drawderm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭drawderm


    expectationlost wrote: »
    both

    Yes I think it is obvious that he is a homophobe, you can see it written in his little weasel face everytime he mentions David Norris's name..

    Fine Gael are not democrats, if they were they would stop trying to block David Norris and the let the people decide. The whole system stinks and is elitist!

    Paddy power has David Norris as the favourite as 1.63 to 1, Next is Michael D Higgans and Gay Mitchell at 2 to 1.

    The Journal has an online poll which puts him at 60%

    http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-who-would-get-your-vote-to-be-the-next-president-of-ireland-174212-Jul2011/

    Democracy in Ireland, its just doesn't exist!! I just hope Sinn Fein nominate him and give Fine Gael and Mr homophobic michael crowe a bloody nose lol


  • Options
    #14
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,062 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    He didn't specify exactly what he disagreed with in Norris' interview, like many anti-Norris people. He just felt 'uncomfortable' about it i.e. code for 'I always hated Norris, too camp and gay for my liking'.

    Just to clarify, Norris said nothing controversial in his original interview, nothing.

    But this councillor is clearly gunning for a particular vote in Galway and has got a few headlines that will keep the homophobic Galway voter happy.


  • Options
    #15
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Crowe is a typical opportunist small time politican, he knows the demographics of the people who vote for him and his stance will be popular with some of them.


  • Options
    #16
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    He didn't specify exactly what he disagreed with in Norris' interview, like many anti-Norris people. He just felt 'uncomfortable' about it i.e. code for 'I always hated Norris, too camp and gay for my liking'.

    Just to clarify, Norris said nothing controversial in his original interview, nothing.

    But this councillor is clearly gunning for a particular vote in Galway and has got a few headlines that will keep the homophobic Galway voter happy.

    :eek:


  • Options
    #17
    SamuelFox
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭SamuelFox


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    He didn't specify exactly what he disagreed with in Norris' interview, like many anti-Norris people. He just felt 'uncomfortable' about it i.e. code for 'I always hated Norris, too camp and gay for my liking'.
    Just to clarify, Norris said nothing controversial in his original interview, nothing.
    But this councillor is clearly gunning for a particular vote in Galway and has got a few headlines that will keep the homophobic Galway voter happy.
    I think that attitude is what makes Norris so one-dimensional in so many peoples eyes. I dislike him as a politician, but I’m certainly not homophobic. Attributing any opposition to his campaign to a homophobia acts a chilling effect in the debate, and I find it very distasteful. If I don’t support Mary Davis or Brian Crowley, am I guilty of disability discrimination? If I don’t support Gay Mitchell is it class snobbery?

    The reality of the situation is that Norris put himself forward as a candidate and should expect to face a robust political process, and his supporters whining about this just further highlights the ego-driven, pompous sense of entitlement that is fuelling his campaign.

    And just to clarify, his comments were beyond controversial, they were disgusting.


  • Options
    #18
    Fergus_Nash
    Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Fergus_Nash


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    He didn't specify exactly what he disagreed with in Norris' interview, like many anti-Norris people. He just felt 'uncomfortable' about it i.e. code for 'I always hated Norris, too camp and gay for my liking'.

    Just to clarify, Norris said nothing controversial in his original interview, nothing.

    But this councillor is clearly gunning for a particular vote in Galway and has got a few headlines that will keep the homophobic Galway voter happy.

    Maybe you might clarify your statements there too. Have a look at the at the original article before doing so. The end of page two and page three will provide you with the evidence.

    http://mccamley.org/blog/tag/%22david%20norris%22%20magill%20%22child%20abuse%22%20%22in%20a%20hole%20stop%20digging%22

    I await your reply eagerly:D


  • Options
    #19
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,062 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    SamuelFox wrote: »
    I think that attitude is what makes Norris so one-dimensional in so many peoples eyes. I dislike him as a politician, but I’m certainly not homophobic. Attributing any opposition to his campaign to a homophobia acts a chilling effect in the debate, and I find it very distasteful. If I don’t support Mary Davis or Brian Crowley, am I guilty of disability discrimination? If I don’t support Gay Mitchell is it class snobbery?

    The reality of the situation is that Norris put himself forward as a candidate and should expect to face a robust political process, and his supporters whining about this just further highlights the ego-driven, pompous sense of entitlement that is fuelling his campaign.

    And just to clarify, his comments were beyond controversial, they were disgusting.

    In this case there may be a homophobic motive behind the councillor's decision because of his history. Do you not agree?

    What exactly was disgusting about his comments??


  • Options
    #20
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,062 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Fergus_Nash wrote: »
    Maybe you might clarify your statements there too. Have a look at the at the original article before doing so. The end of page two and page three will provide you with the evidence.

    http://mccamley.org/blog/tag/%22david%20norris%22%20magill%20%22child%20abuse%22%20%22in%20a%20hole%20stop%20digging%22

    I await your reply eagerly:D


    What is that link?

    I have read the article, I've known about it for years, unlike most people who are suddenly "shocked" about it.

    Please point to exactly what you find so wrong about what he said and I'll debate it with you. I await your reply.


  • Options
    #21
    Fergus_Nash
    Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Fergus_Nash


    Ok so. Seeing as how you are unwilling (scared maybe?) to give us your arguments, I shall.

    Mr. Norris' comments on paedophilia are not controversial. He was talking about Ancient Greece.

    The conversation then proceeds back to the present day and Mr. Norris says "The law...should take into account consent rather than age." Now this is controversial. Are we to believe that Mr. Norris accepts that if a ten year old girl consents to sex with a forty year old man, then it should be lawful? Or is he just talking about two 16 year olds? Mr. Norris has yet to clarify these comments and it is only then that this matter can be put to bed. Without clarification, the former situation is very controversial.

    The following sentence in the piece is a little more than controversial - it borders on the disgusting. Mr. Norris is asked about incest, hesitates and says that "in the case of girls a case could be made for a ban, as a possible resulting pregnancy might be genetically undesirable." Again clarity is needed but this would suggest that Mr. Norris does not totally disagree with incest. I do believe that to be controversial.

    In response to your question about the link - it is either a blog or Catholic forum site. It clearly gives directions to the Magill inteview.

    I await your refute with relish.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,062 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Fergus_Nash wrote: »
    Ok so. Seeing as how you are unwilling (scared maybe?) to give us your arguments, I shall.

    Mr. Norris' comments on paedophilia are not controversial. He was talking about Ancient Greece.

    The conversation then proceeds back to the present day and Mr. Norris says "The law...should take into account consent rather than age." Now this is controversial. Are we to believe that Mr. Norris accepts that if a ten year old girl consents to sex with a forty year old man, then it should be lawful? Or is he just talking about two 16 year olds? Mr. Norris has yet to clarify these comments and it is only then that this matter can be put to bed. Without clarification, the former situation is very controversial.

    The following sentence in the piece is a little more than controversial - it borders on the disgusting. Mr. Norris is asked about incest, hesitates and says that "in the case of girls a case could be made for a ban, as a possible resulting pregnancy might be genetically undesirable." Again clarity is needed but this would suggest that Mr. Norris does not totally disagree with incest. I do believe that to be controversial.

    In response to your question about the link - it is either a blog or Catholic forum site. It clearly gives directions to the Magill inteview.

    I await your refute with relish.

    Catholic forum site - says it all.

    What's your problem with incest?

    He believes that consent should be the issue when it comes to sex not age. It's a valid point is it not? It's something you don't agree with (clearly) but is it not just a different view that someone has? The 10 year old child example is just hysteria, of course that's not what he meant for feck sake.


  • Options
    #23
    Fergus_Nash
    Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Fergus_Nash


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    Catholic forum site - says it all.

    What's your problem with incest?

    He believes that consent should be the issue when it comes to sex not age. It's a valid point is it not? It's something you don't agree with (clearly) but is it not just a different view that someone has? The 10 year old child example is just hysteria, of course that's not what he meant for feck sake.

    Now just in case you are thinking that my opinions are based on the thoughts of a Catholic forum, you are wrong. It is merely the first place where I could find the whole article on Google. It gives the original article in its entirety.

    Now in relation to consent I totally agree in the case of two sixteen year olds (I think there was a Romeo and Juliet case) that consent should be taken into account more so than age. But I still get back to my point that Mr. Norris has to clarify his statements. He has continually left himself open to accusations that he might have been talking about a ten year old. During the whole course of the media coverage he has failed to out rightly tell us, the people of Ireland, what age group he was talking about. In fact, let me quote from the article once more - "...or endorse my [Helen Lucy Burke] protest that a child was not capable of informed consent" (my bold and italics). So in fact, maybe he was talking about a ten year old for feck sake.

    I will not bother answering the incest question but maybe you might tell me what is right about it.


  • Options
    #24
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,062 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Fergus_Nash wrote: »
    Now just in case you are thinking that my opinions are based on the thoughts of a Catholic forum, you are wrong. It is merely the first place where I could find the whole article on Google. It gives the original article in its entirety.

    Now in relation to consent I totally agree in the case of two sixteen year olds (I think there was a Romeo and Juliet case) that consent should be taken into account more so than age. But I still get back to my point that Mr. Norris has to clarify his statements. He has continually left himself open to accusations that he might have been talking about a ten year old. During the whole course of the media coverage he has failed to out rightly tell us, the people of Ireland, what age group he was talking about. In fact, let me quote from the article once more - "...or endorse my [Helen Lucy Burke] protest that a child was not capable of informed consent" (my bold and italics). So in fact, maybe he was talking about a ten year old for feck sake.

    I will not bother answering the incest question but maybe you might tell me what is right about it.


    If a brother and sister want to have a relationship, is that not their own business??

    Norris did clarify his comments by saying over and over again that he condemns peodophila. That's all the clarification you need. Some countries have an age of consent at 13 by the way.


  • Options
    #25
    Fergus_Nash
    Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Fergus_Nash


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    If a brother and sister want to have a relationship, is that not their own business??

    Norris did clarify his comments by saying over and over again that he condemns peodophila. That's all the clarification you need. Some countries have an age of consent at 13 by the way.

    Well you are after making me think about incest. If no children are produced, and the couple stay together, there is nothing wrong with it other than it's illegal. And I'll let judges or other people who are more intelligent than me decide when to change it.

    Absolutely Mr. Norris said in the interview that he couldn't see how anybody would be attracted to children but then why didn't he agree with Ms. Burke that there should be minimum age because children aren't capable of informed consent. To me that's a contradiction.

    Nevertheless this is all trivial by now.


  • Options
    #26
    Canvasser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 290 ✭✭Canvasser


    Crowe is absolutely right not to pander to the gay lobby. Gays are trying to intimidate politicians into letting them do whatever they want. They are as bad as the IRA. Crowe is the only councillor in Galway with any sense.


  • Options
    #27
    markesmith
    Registered Users Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭markesmith


    Canvasser wrote: »
    Crowe is absolutely right not to pander to the gay lobby. Gays are trying to intimidate politicians into letting them do whatever they want. They are as bad as the IRA. Crowe is the only councillor in Galway with any sense.

    Having looked at a few of your posts, I'm convinced you're a double agent for the left. You're giving the right wing an extremely bad name with your stereotypical hating.

    From the Galway forum - Linky:
    Canvasser wrote: »
    My kind? That's an extremely bigoted comment. All I'm asking for is some evidence. Could the OP even post a picture of his train ticket or tell us what time train this was so we could check if Healy Eames was even on it.

    lol


  • Options
    #28
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    MOD NOTE:

    Aack! Zombie thread!

    Closed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement