Is David Norris Toast?

2wsxcde3

later10 wrote: »

This doesn't really make any sense. If you don't believe the tape is accurate, why are you discrediting Norris in the first place?

I don't think it is inevitable that a tape won't turn up. I hope it does turn up to bring some further clarity to this issue.

What difference does the tape make? - Norris hasn't denied he made the comments.

later12

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

What difference does the tape make? - Norris hasn't denied he made the comments.

Yes, but then why are you suggesting it was "obvious" she was never going to produce the tape? You seem to be suggesting that Helen Lucy Burke and David Norris are both misleading people, but I'm curious as to how you have so finely tuned the truth-o-meter.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Norris comments were unacceptable, pretty much regardless of context. Just curious.

zuroph

later10 wrote: »

Yes, but then why are you suggesting it was "obvious" she was never going to produce the tape? You seem to be suggesting that Helen Lucy Burke and David Norris are both misleading people, but I'm curious as to how you have so finely tuned the truth-o-meter.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Norris comments were unacceptable, pretty much regardless of context. Just curious.

you cant judge something regardless of context, that's ridiculous

later10

later10 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I think the Norris comments were unacceptable, pretty much regardless of context.

Fair enough,you're entitled to that view as cantankerous as I think it is.
At least now I know why you pretty much side stepped anyones mentioning of context in this thread.
Context in a conversation is a pretty important tenet of meaning.

2wsxcde3

zuroph wrote: »

you cant judge something regardless of context, that's ridiculous

The comments were quiet detailed in fairness which makes the "taken out of context" blag a bit harder to do.
It's not like he made a throw away comment in a joke and we're all pouncing on him now.
He went through in detail what he was talking about.

I wouldn't question norris' genuineness on the stance of pedophilia in that sense. I think he' stupid but that's about it. I think he'd probably agree with me on that sentiment.

Dub.

later10 wrote: »

Drivetime covering this with Patsy McGarry and Teresa Reidy right now. Going into historical crises as well, specifically the famous Jim Duffy interview and the Robinson campaign too... interesting stuff.

Still no tape as yet, though.

It was pretty clear all along that she would never produce a tape.

later12

zuroph wrote: »

you cant judge something regardless of context, that's ridiculous

I am saying that i do not see any context in which the comments would have been acceptable.

In what context would it be acceptable to say "there's a lot of nonsense about paedophilia"?

In what context would it ever be appropriate to suggest that "there is something to say for [classic pederasty, as practised by the Greeks where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life]"?

later12

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough,you're entitled to that view as cantankerous as I think it is.
At least now I know why you pretty much side stepped anyones mentioning of context in this thread.

Not at all. You, on the other hand refuse to answer whether it is ever acceptable for an individual to speak of paedophilia and pederasty as David Norris has been quoted as speaking.

Do you think it is ever acceptable to suggest that "there is a lot of nonsense about paedophilia"? Really?

zuroph

later10 wrote: »

I am saying that i do not see any context in which the comments would have been acceptable.

In what context would it be acceptable to say "there's a lot of nonsense about paedophilia"?

There is, including a vast amount of people not actually understanding what it actually means. A 20 year old fancying a 16 year old isnt a paedophile, but some people actually believe it is.

In what context would it ever be appropriate to suggest that "there is something to say for [classic pederasty, as practised by the Greeks where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life]"?

when, as i've already said, the "something" means an aspect of, and he is talking about the emotional support having an older mentor would have offered him.

really, we're going around in circles here.

Dub.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

The comments were quiet detailed in fairness which makes the "taken out of context" blag a bit harder to do.
It's not like he made a throw away comment in a joke and we're all pouncing on him now.
.

What he said, and what she said he said are poles apart though.

She was quite adamant yesterday that he was evil, that he agreed with pedophilia,and a father`s right to rape his own son ( though not his daughter).

I`m pretty sure Norris would dispute he said any of these things and they were all in this woman's sick mind.

Paulie Walnuts

In fairness Norris was taken out of context but considering the guy has been in the public arena for decades, shouldn't he be a bit more media savvy? I mean you can't just blab away to a journo and hope that they print what you "really meant to say". If he does make it to the Aras, will he do interviews to publicize his views and another interview the next day to say what he really meant???

Also people are questioning the timing of the reemergence of this interview. What difference does it make that the comments were made in 2002?

Anything the guy has ever said is going to be analysed in the presidential campaign and the guy has come out with his fair share of doozys. Not least his defence of Cathal O Searcaigh after the Fairytale of Kathmandu documentary and the suggestion that the Irish public should have been prevented from seeing the documentary until it was first vetted by politicians. He proposed in Seanad Eireann that this film "be referred to the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources".....this amounts to press censorship by Comrade Norris does it not???

mikemac

Looking at the thread title and to step back a minute

This entire issue will be forgotten when we approach the election and another journalist asks him about Cathal O'Searcaigh

That's an even more relevant issue and could sink his campaign quicker then an article in 2002

edit: beaten to it by Paulie Walnuts, I hadn't seen that post ^^^^^

later12

zuroph wrote: »

when, as i've already said, the "something" means an aspect of, and he is talking about the emotional support having an older mentor would have offered him.

Eh no, it doesn't. Insert "an aspect of" in place of "something and see if it makes any sense. Then insert "some benefit - real, perceived or imagined" and see if that makes sense. I think you'll find it is the latter. Your suggestion doesn't even make sense.

i.e.

but in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks, for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man to adult life, there can be [an aspect of] said for it. Now, again, this is not something that appeals to me.

vs

but in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks, for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man to adult life, there can be [some benefit - real, perceived or imagined]said for it. Now, again, this is not something that appeals to me.


Classic pederasty is unacceptable entirely, quite frankly. I don't see much difference between classic pederasty and paedophilia apart from the issue of penetration. A youth being in the early stages of puberty may actually find it more difficult to cope with survival than one who cannot recall the event - in any case, what Norris said was unacceptable.

beeftotheheels

later10 wrote: »

In what context would it be acceptable to say "there's a lot of nonsense about paedophilia"?

I agree with that quote if it is intended to start a debate. Paedophilia is a topic we cannot discuss rationally. You can see why this is, it is a topic which raises huge levels of emotion, on account of the huge amount of damage that it has caused, but we cannot even talk about it. In order to define it we need to talk about it, in order to deal with it we need to talk about it. In order to look at our age of consent laws we need to talk about it. In order to define things like child pornography we need to talk about it. Wanting to talk about something is not a bad thing, wanting to talk about it, to analyse it, to consider whether our current rules actually are protecting children as much as they should does not mean that you support it.

later10 wrote: »

In what context would it ever be appropriate to suggest that "there is something to say for [classic pederasty, as practised by the Greeks where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life]"?

In precisely the context he gave, contrasting it with the life of being the only gay boy in Ireland, alone, isolated, with feelings he was not only being told were unnatural but illegal.

One of the things missing in the debate - because as I noted we don't debate paedophilia - is that a lot of the harm from any abuse comes from having your will overridden, and the shame associated with it. While child abuse may have been pretty damn near endemic here in the catholic educational establishments, it did not require consent, and it did invoke shame. While we don't know the details of classical Greek pederasty as we have no living witnesses, there is nothing to suggest that it violated either the will of the individuals, or that it caused them shame. It was the societal norm albeit one we cannot understand today.

If you had to contrast it with the enforced marriage of child brides to much older men as was practiced throughout Europe until pretty recently, and continues to be practiced throughout the world, I would doubt that it was as damaging

By taking a 21st century Irish view of it we cannot see how it could not have been hugely harmful, but we don't know that, and cannot talk about it because it is taboo. I'm not suggesting that I think it would be beneficial, but I am not sure it is directly comparable to the Christian brothers, or child brides.

But I shouldn't be typing this because we cannot talk about it - it is taboo.

oppenheimer1

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

In fairness Norris was taken out of context but considering the guy has been in the public arena for decades, shouldn't he be a bit more media savvy? I mean you can't just blab away to a journo and hope that they print what you "really meant to say". If he does make it to the Aras, will he do interviews to publicize his views and another interview the next day to say what he really meant???

Also people are questioning the timing of the reemergence of this interview. What difference does it make that the comments were made in 2002?

Anything the guy has ever said is going to be analysed in the presidential campaign and the guy has come out with his fair share of doozys. Not least his defence of Cathal O Searcaigh after the Fairytale of Kathmandu documentary and the suggestion that the Irish public should have been prevented from seeing the documentary until it was first vetted by politicians. He proposed in Seanad Eireann that this film "be referred to the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources".....this amounts to press censorship by Comrade Norris does it not???

I'm sure hes all for free speech... but only when it agrees with his own world view.

As for the Thailand remark, it shows up peoples own prejudices if they think its slanderous to say someone was on holiday there. I was going to go on holidays there but if it means others are automatically going to think that people only go there to engage in gay sex with minors, I think I'll go somewhere less controversial.

Judgement Day

Holidays to Thailand by single males have been nudge, nudge, wink, wink amongst many people for years but I wouldn't let that put you off.

jakdelad

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm sure hes all for free speech... but only when it agrees with his own world view.

As for the Thailand remark, it shows up peoples own prejudices if they think its slanderous to say someone was on holiday there. I was going to go on holidays there but if it means others are automatically going to think that people only go there to engage in gay sex with minors, I think I'll go somewhere less controversial.

try the kerry ladyboys? very entertaining

later12

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I agree with that quote if it is intended to start a debate. Paedophilia is a topic we cannot discuss rationally. You can see why this is, it is a topic which raises huge levels of emotion

Fair enough, I've recently trawled through the humanities thread on the subject and yes, I'll take your point on that. It is hugely emotive. I am not quite convinced that Norris's claim was so objective, mostly because in the next lines (which are not editorialised) Norris goes on to talk about children exclusively.

One of the things missing in the debate - because as I noted we don't debate paedophilia - is that a lot of the harm from any abuse comes from having your will overridden, and the shame associated with it. While child abuse may have been pretty damn near endemic here in the catholic educational establishments, it did not require consent, and it did invoke shame. While we don't know the details of classical Greek pederasty as we have no living witnesses, there is nothing to suggest that it violated either the will of the individuals, or that it caused them shame.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Pederasty was a core function of Athenian kalos k'agathos - literally the great and the good. It was a Greek institution which was perceived as strengthening society, not weakening it, and was endorsed by Plato. Much in Athenian history is hotly debated among classical scholars, as far as I am aware, yet nobody ever seems to doubt that pederasty was anything but a feature of the ruling classes, who doubtlessly would not endorse pederasty were it considered harmful to society as we would today.

Yet in the same way that the Greeks favoured traditional sexist roles, in the same way that they adored martyrdom, we need not necessarily view their opinions as enlightened.

I guess i am just wondering where you are going with this. While pederasty was undoubtedly encouraged as an aspect of mentoring young boys, it may indeed have been the case that these boys later went through life without ever losing a night's sleep over the matter. Perhaps it would be the same today if we did not make a big deal about adults having sexual relations with children.

But today, we seek to preserve and develop childhood free from the sexual gratification of adults. Yes, we are outraged when such interference occurs, seeing it as an attack on innocence. And yes, perhaps this causes the child's remembered perception of the event to be aggravated, or to grow into something unspeakably nefarious. That may be an unfortunate by-product, I am not sure what the reasonable alternative might be.

If you had to contrast it with the enforced marriage of child brides to much older men as was practiced throughout Europe until pretty recently, and continues to be practiced throughout the world, I would doubt that it was as damaging

Why? Again there would typically have been a sense of social mobility, much in the same way as there was in the case of classical pederasty. In many places this would have been a societal norm, seen as something desirable in building and strengthening classes or communities.

Zubeneschamali

later10 wrote: »

In what context would it be acceptable to say "there's a lot of nonsense about paedophilia"?

For example: there's a lot of nonsense about paedophilia here in this thread.

Fuinseog

Sharrow wrote: »

The Magill artical from 2002 was answered and refuted in an interview and artical shortly after it was published.

http://joejacksonjournalist.com/2010/09/06/david-norris-the-joe-jackson-interview/



It is dragging up stuff which was sorted out 9 years ago to try and undermine the campaign and lessen support. Will it work, I think is the question, honestly I hop not and it seems that there are those who are looking to find away to state that Senator Norris is too controversial while not appearing to be homophobic.

It would appear from this article that he favours mature men having sex with juvenilles, which was essentially the greek model he favours.

Fuinseog

Sharrow wrote: »

There are people to whom this will be not old news.
Be they people who weren't eligible to vote 9 years ago, or who didn't pay
any notice to current affairs but who will be hearing about it for the first time and it may cause them to think, no smoke with out fire and to not give a preference to Sen. Norris.

hear hear. This is the first I hear of this and I tend to follow current affairs.

Fuinseog

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

"In terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think there can be something to be said for it."

What was he on when he said that? What exactly is "classical paedophillia"?

"In Athens the practice of pederasty was more freely constructed than the more formal Cretan and Spartan types.[9] Men courted boys at the gymnasia or the palaestrae, at symposia, at the baths and on the streets of the city.[citation needed] Fathers wanting to protect their sons from unwanted advances provided them with a slave guard, titled "pedagogos," to escort the boy in his travels.[citation needed]
The courtship often was fiery, involving street fights with other suitors, sleeping on the threshold of the beloved as a show of sincerity, and composing and reciting love poems.[10] In encountering the boy, the suitor would attempt to seduce him by reaching up with one hand to turn his face to look him straight in the eye, and with the other reach down to stimulate him sexually, a variant of the standard pleading form in which one would grasp the knees of the person with one hand and turn his face with the other.[11] This ritual has been named by historians the "up and down gesture" and is routinely encountered in depictions on vases.
The erotic and sexual aspect of the relationship, usually consisting of embracing, fondling and intercrural sex, ended when the youth reached adulthood, and evolved into a lifelong friendship (philia).[12]"

WTF is to be "said for that"?

The "standin up fer da gay rites" guy they got on was quite annoying.

David Norris was quite foolish to be talking about that, there is something a bit dodgy there. It's a taint on his character and will indeed cost him many votes.

this is sick, but essentially what Norris wants to promote

BlaasForRafa

Its interesting that most of the people slagging off Norris in this thread are from ....well lets just say they're from the republican persuasion.

Coincidence?

Madd Finn

mikemac wrote: »

I'm surprised she went on radio today without being certain about the location of the tape.

I'm not. I've seen Helen Lucy Burke in action before.

Judgement Day

Just saw HLB on the RTE 9pm news and thought that she looked a bit doddery. That said, important issues have been raised and clear answers are still needed. Anybody know if the former editor of Magill, John Waters, has made any comment yet?

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its interesting that most of the people slagging off Norris in this thread are from ....well lets just say they're from the republican persuasion.

Coincidence?

I'd suggest thats crap.

Madd Finn

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its quite clear he is advocating paedophillia. ......

While he says "younger" its not clear what exact age he was referring to.

Are you not contradicting yourself completely here?

A 20 year old man teaming up with a 50 year old man may be a disparity in ages, but it's not paedophilia.

Two neighbours of mine got a civil partnership today. The younger man is in his early 40s. His partner is in his late 70s. They have been together for 20 years. So they met when one was in his early 20s and the other nearly 50.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with their relationship. They are a poster image for ordinary decent gay partnership.

I interpret Norris' comments as being in support of relationships like this one, not in support of an elderly predator preying on vulnerable and confused children.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest thats crap.

There's a few hard line Republican posters who'll never vote for him and if he answers one question, they look for the next question.

It isn't only hard line Republicans with an agenda on this though.

Wolfe Tone

Madd Finn wrote: »

Are you not contradicting yourself completely here?

A 20 year old man teaming up with a 50 year old man may be a disparity in ages, but it's not paedophilia.

Two neighbours of mine got a civil partnership today. The younger man is in his early 40s. His partner is in his late 70s. They have been together for 20 years. So they met when one was in his early 20s and the other nearly 50.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with their relationship. They are a poster image for ordinary decent gay partnership.

I interpret Norris' comments as being in support of relationships like this one, not in support of an elderly predator preying on vulnerable and confused children.

Read up on what classical pederasty is. It is predatory.

Steve Superking

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

For example: there's a lot of nonsense about paedophilia here in this thread.

A couple of points.....

Senator Norris is quoted in the HLB interview as stating, "there is a lot of nonsense about paedophilia...."

But he then goes on to cite reported attacks on (a) a Child Specialist MD, (a paediatrician, who was obliged to flee her home due to the protestations of an uninformed and frankly violent mob, and (b) a Chriopodist, (a pedicurist or podiatrist perhaps) who lost his life in an arson attack upon his home by a similar mob....

Might incidents such as these have been the "nonsense" to which the Senator was referring?

On the subject of the adult/child relations in ancient Greece, it seems to me quite clear that Mr. Norris was indulging in an academic 'flight of fancy' if you will, exploring an ancient and accepted tradition of the classical world through the prism of both modern morals and his own adolescent experience. Many of us have done something similar at dinner parties or in the pub. Mr. Norris was speaking to a journalist who he probably assumed was familiar with the concept of a free-form exploratory discussion.

(Incidentally, at NO POINT during the I/V did the Senator suggest that there might be a physical, hands on, sexual element in such a relationship.)

(As an aside, although childless myself, I have been asked questions of a sexual nature by nephews and my niece who feel embarrassed to ask their parents such questions. After answering as best I can, I would then advise my sister and her husband of the subject of their children's curiousity. Thus the parents are aware of their children's concerns, but don't inform the kids that their uncle has passed on their questions. But parents need to know. Quite human and natural, I feel.)

"There is a whole spectrum... From the teacher or Christian Brother who puts his hand into a child's pocket (to) the person who attacks children of either sex (and) brutalises them..."

Here it seems to me quite obvious that the Senator is talking about the various shades of grey in a BLACK spectrum. He's not condoning the first action in any way, merely making the point that there are degrees of abuse even within the horrific idea of child sexual abuse.

Is there a difference between a frustrated but perfectly normal young mother who in a fit of pique reaches out and slaps a naughty toddler upon the bottom, and a genuinely disturbed individual who systematically tortures a similar innocent over a period of months to the point of death?

On the question of the legal age of sexual consent the Senator states that, "The law in this sphere should take into account consent rather than age..."

As has been stated by other posters, I'm assuming that what he meant by this was that two consenting late-teenagers should not be subject to prosecution if both are having consensual sex, even if one of the parties was below the legal age. At the time of the interview, a publicised court case of this type led to a young man being charged with rape. Ridiculous.

On the subject of the Senator's comments about incest.... Well, there aren't any.... The interviewer uses no direct quotes from Mr. Norris, merely offering her opinion on the views she believes him to have expressed on the subject.

(Why didn't she include these verbatim quotes?)

But she doesn't, although she does offer her take on what he said. In a court of law, that's called hearsay.... And it is inadmissible as evidence.

In conclusion, there are forces at work within the political machine that don't trust Senator Norris. Always an independent and a free thinker, Norris represents a threat to the powers that be, (those same powers, incidentally, that have brought this country to its knees) and cannot be groomed, gagged or bribed. He is that most unusual political animal, an honest politician.

Honesty is frequently absent guest at the political party. They can't trust honesty. You never know where it will lead.

Ask yourselves, who benefits by this vitriolic and well timed attack upon Norris?

Because it isn't you or me........

Thank you for reading.

xx SF