Is David Norris Toast?

Boulevardier

Of course there is a difference between pederastry and paedophilia. The latter involves children, the former involves post-pubescent youths, usually at or past the age of consent. It is a time-honoured gay practice, which paedophilia is not.

Opposition to pederastry is now likely to be used as a way of rolling back the acceptance gay people have won in recent years.

I very much hope Norris stands. If he loses, a dignified defeat would be better than the disgrace of not running at all.

Fuinseog

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.

I would presume that a 20 year old man would know something of the ways of the world but the Greek way of doing things was to act as mentor and 'lover' to a younger boy. You matured at an earlier age then.
ergo a sexually confused 14 year old should apparently be introduced to (gay) sex by an older man.

It worked fine for the Greeks but our society, even with the threat of being labelled homophobic and 'not ready for a gay president', still consider that sick.

Fuinseog

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?

of course I am a republican. I have a Gaeilc name. you must be a foreigner cos you have a weird looking name.

any more intelligent deductions?

Fuinseog

UDAWINNER wrote: »

A lot of tripe will turn up because he is openly gay. Sad, its 2011.

so what you are saying is that Ireland is homophobic? Someone tell that to RTE who seems to employ a lot of them.

A lot of gays would be less than supportive of child abuse even if it means financially supporting the child which O Searcaigh did to justify his evil deeds.

Zubeneschamali

door wrote: »

Personally I feel this fundamental smeer campaign should actually help him win.

Very possible. The homophobes were never going to vote for him anyway.

Zubeneschamali

Fuinseog wrote: »

A lot of gays would be less than supportive of child abuse even if it means financially supporting the child which O Searcaigh did to justify his evil deeds.

Keep it up. This kind of vileness may well get Norris elected as decent people rally to his defense.

Paulie Walnuts

Steve Superking wrote: »

Norris, despite the house, the sparkling academic career and the accent, is more OF the Irish people than any of our elected apparatchniks ever even WANT to be.....

I don't agree with that at all. Some of the stuff he has come with (misrepresented or not) is so far removed from what the average Irish Joe Soap talks about and presumably thinks about (remember this country is still largely conservative).

The comments re: Classic Paedophilia, rejoining the commonwealth, his defense of the sex tourist poet Cathal O Searcaigh. I don't imagine these would be topics of conversation in any local bar, sewing circle or water cooler in the country. Nor would Joycean literature for that matter.

It's a bad sign that he is scurrying around trying to clarify comments he has made (doesn't matter when he made them, he's a politician he should know this). I worry if he became President that this would be a common occurrence.

Fuinseog

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What a load of claptrap! Norris is the political elite and voting him in won't change anything because the president is constrained by the government. Yes sexuality should have nothing to do with it, but he does have the baggage of being a gay rights activist.

btw his acedemic career wasn't glittering. Yes he was a foundation Scholar but I don't think he rose above the position of lecturer. To be expected as he had to devote time to his public service in the Seanad.

Innocence:rolleyes: The innocent don't last long in politics, certainly you can't have a career a long as he has without losing it. The facade is amazing though.

Fair play though, I didn't think you'd log in with the alt account again.

Norris has his own agenda and is not afraid to be intolerant of others. He was highly critical when the Vatican elected a Kraut as Pope and even more so when it was revealed that he had an , albeit insignificant role, as 15 a year old in The Third Reich

K-9

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

I don't agree with that at all. Some of the stuff he has come with (misrepresented or not) is so far removed from what the average Irish Joe Soap talks about and presumably thinks about (remember this country is still largely conservative).

The comments re: Classic Paedophilia, rejoining the commonwealth, his defense of the sex tourist poet Cathal O Searcaigh. I don't imagine these would be topics of conversation in any local bar, sewing circle or water cooler in the country. Nor would Joycean literature for that matter.

It's a bad sign that he is scurrying around trying to clarify comments he has made (doesn't matter when he made them, he's a politician he should know this). I worry if he became President that this would be a common occurrence.

They don't seem to be a common occurrence, otherwise people wouldn't have to dig so far back.

Fuinseog

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

I don't agree with that at all. Some of the stuff he has come with (misrepresented or not) is so far removed from what the average Irish Joe Soap talks about and presumably thinks about (remember this country is still largely conservative).

The comments re: Classic Paedophilia, rejoining the commonwealth, his defense of the sex tourist poet Cathal O Searcaigh. I don't imagine these would be topics of conversation in any local bar, sewing circle or water cooler in the country. Nor would Joycean literature for that matter.

It's a bad sign that he is scurrying around trying to clarify comments he has made (doesn't matter when he made them, he's a politician he should know this). I worry if he became President that this would be a common occurrence.

being airy fairy, if will pardon the pun, is one thing. Defending sexual predators like O Searcaigh is another. yet a lot of folks are afraid to say anything for fear of being labelled homophobic. Do you really want this guy to represent the country at home and abroad?

Fuinseog

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Keep it up. This kind of vileness may well get Norris elected as decent people rally to his defense.

yeah, paedos and their apologists unite, behind the banner of Norris.

meglome

What's with the Sinn Fein supporters putting the boot in? Are Sinn Fein running a candidate? I'm a bit suspicious.

Remember Roger Casement

As for Norris he's a controversial guy at times but I get the feeling he cares so I'm not buying he's a paedophile or supporting it. Too many people dislike him for being intellectual/Gay/Protestant but I think the majority will see that for what it is.

Paulie Walnuts

K-9 wrote: »

They don't seem to be a common occurrence, otherwise people wouldn't have to dig so far back.

But they don't have to dig very far back though. This business with Cathal O'Searcaigh only happened a couple of years ago. This Magill article is only the beginning of all the mud slinging. Norris must have known this when he decided to run for President, if he didn't then he is naive. Politics is one of the dirtiest games around.

Although I guess he hasn't had much practice in politicking seeing as how he only has experience of the talking shop that is the Seanad and has never been elected by the Irish people, by the elitist members of the Trinity electorate yes, but not in a general election.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

I don't agree with that at all. Some of the stuff he has come with (misrepresented or not) is so far removed from what the average Irish Joe Soap talks about and presumably thinks about (remember this country is still largely conservative).

That's a good thing IMHO. The conservative Irish society is waning and I would liek to see it continuing that way.

The comments re: Classic Paedophilia, rejoining the commonwealth, his defense of the sex tourist poet Cathal O Searcaigh. I don't imagine these would be topics of conversation in any local bar, sewing circle or water cooler in the country. Nor would Joycean literature for that matter.

He didn't defend O Searcaigh. He attacked the witch hunt and trial by media nonsense that surrounded him.

Paulie Walnuts

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

He didn't defend O Searcaigh. He attacked the witch hunt and trial by media nonsense that surrounded him.

Media nonsense? Was there anything in that documentary that was not true. Did the makers of the documentary spin the footage in such as way as to paint O'Searcaigh as a sex tourist? Or was he really a sex tourist and the doc showed this up? In any case it is testament to Norris' inability to convey his points clearly and unambiguously in the press. The guy may be eloquent but he seems to have a communication problem.

Norris suggested 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???

CdeC

I think that people need to look at the facts and make up their own mind, he is not advocating paedophilia or anything like it.

In my own views, I am a gay man. I abhorr child abuse in all forms. I have 10 young nieces and nephews who I love dearly.

When I was a child about 8 years old I realised I was gay, the prospect of an older man teaching me about life and sex seems now like an appealing prospect. I received no "talk" or guidance and spent many many unhappy years trying to figure out what was "wrong" with me.
In a more dramatic view I might say that I was abused by Irish society for forcing me to conform to a heterosexual ideal that was not my natural orientation the same could be said to forcing a young heterosexual child to have same sex attraction and respond in that sense.

Of course if I had had guidance from adults,parents and media this would have fulfilled my needs for role models and perhaps saved me a lot of painful mistakes.
For young gay teens and children it is important that this information and networks are available to them. It does not mean that you are taken into a basement by some sweaty pervert to be abused it simply means that you have access to proper resources that would hopefully allow gay teens to develop a healthy and mature attitude to sex and realtionships.

In ancient Greece they practiced pedastry, but in fact they also did not really accept adult gay relationships. We cannot really compare our two societies in this sense, but for a Senator Norris reflecting back as a gay child in the 50's and 60's he might have liked to have that guidance.

As far as voting for senator Norris goes, he certainly has a great human rights record and I am a fan but not decided on who I would vote for until I see all the candidates and what they represent.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

Media nonsense? Was there anything in that documentary that was true. Did the makers of the documentary spin the footage in such as way as to paint O'Searcaigh as a sex tourist?

Norris suggested 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 didn't see the documentary. By media nonsense I meant the newspapers and other media writing him off as guilty without an investigation. I believe the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is particularly important when related to alleged sexual crimes, as an accusation is often as damaging as a conviction.

Paulie Walnuts

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I didn't see the documentary. By media nonsense I meant the newspapers and other media writing him off as guilty without an investigation. I believe the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is particularly important when related to alleged sexual crimes, as an accusation is often as damaging as a conviction.

And by the same token Norris' comments are obviously being misrepresented but perception is reality. It's a sad state of affairs but this is the world we live in.

Taltos

I was convinced by another thread here recently to vote for David and this latest news flash has done nothing to change my mind.

In fact I am now seeing these amazing revelations as the tools they are - attempts to swing the fickle public (me and you) to follow a more moderate / middle the road candidate. Looking at where this "news" (9 yrs old) was leaked from I think we can hazard which camp is looking to oust the forerunner.

Do I agree with his comments from 9 years ago? Nope - but I don't really know the context of the interview nor do I care now - it was 9 years ago at this stage. If he had been promoting paedophelia then surely the voters would not have repeatedly voted him into the Senate... Still think he is the right person for the job. - Still got my vote. If it looks like a smokescreen and smells like one...

Ash.J.Williams

What if he doesn't get the nomination? Would it be a case that a minority have blocked the majorities choice, before they even get to vote? That would be interesting.

Fuinseog

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I didn't see the documentary. By media nonsense I meant the newspapers and other media writing him off as guilty without an investigation. I believe the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is particularly important when related to alleged sexual crimes, as an accusation is often as damaging as a conviction.

Norris himself had no problem labeling the Pope a Nazi and was quite hysterical about it.

There are two types of gays out there. Those who are professional and do not broadcast their sexuality on a daily basis, which normal people find more acceptable.
Then there are in your face gays like Norris who have a agenda, which clouds their professionalism.

tailgunner

Fuinseog wrote: »

Norris himself had no problem labeling the Pope a Nazi and was quite hysterical about it.

There are two types of gays out there. Those who are professional and do not broadcast their sexuality on a daily basis, which normal people find more acceptable.
Then there are in your face gays like Norris who have a agenda, which clouds their professionalism.

'Professional' gays? 'Normal people'?

Really?

K-9

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

But they don't have to dig very far back though. This business with Cathal O'Searcaigh only happened a couple of years ago. This Magill article is only the beginning of all the mud slinging. Norris must have known this when he decided to run for President, if he didn't then he is naive. Politics is one of the dirtiest games around.

Although I guess he hasn't had much practice in politicking seeing as how he only has experience of the talking shop that is the Seanad and has never been elected by the Irish people, by the elitist members of the Trinity electorate yes, but not in a general election.

I don't think he had an inkling of a Presidential election back then and the comments are taken out of context. I think the O'Searcaigh comments were very naive, but I think he knew the guy and didn't believe the allegations.

Then you have the Commonwealth stuff thrown at him. You've right wing Christian fundamentalist types and extreme Republicans trying to get the boot in. They maybe small in numbers but they are full of their self importance and make loads of noise, as seen in Lisbon 1.

20Cent

Fuinseog wrote: »

Norris himself had no problem labeling the Pope a Nazi and was quite hysterical about it.

There are two types of gays out there. Those who are professional and do not broadcast their sexuality on a daily basis, which normal people find more acceptable.
Then there are in your face gays like Norris who have a agenda, which clouds their professionalism.

The pope was a Nazi.
What gay agenda?

meglome

Fuinseog wrote: »

There are two types of gays out there. Those who are professional and do not broadcast their sexuality on a daily basis, which normal people find more acceptable.
Then there are in your face gays like Norris who have a agenda, which clouds their professionalism.

You're doing wonders for his campaign. Keep it up.

P. Breathnach

CdeC wrote: »

... When I was a child about 8 years old I realised I was gay, the prospect of an older man teaching me about life and sex seems now like an appealing prospect....

Fair enough, provided that the teaching takes the form of a considered conversation. Anything else would be a no-no. I think Norris's words implied something more than conversation.

I won't go to the extreme of saying that Norris was saying that it was desirable that young men be initiated into homosexual practices by older men; I accept that he was playing with ideas.

Equally, I accept that Helen Lucy Burke was entitled to say that she found some of his views on sexual matters deeply troubling.

Fuinseog

tailgunner wrote: »

'Professional' gays? 'Normal people'?

Really?

I did not say professional gays, though it is a lifestyle choice.

Would Norris be a gay president representative of the gay community or a president reprensentative of all, who happens to be gay? Many believe the former would be the case.

Though it may not be PC to say it gay sex is as natural as sex between a man and a sheep. There are heterosexuals out there who are into bondage and all manner of things but they do not proclaim what they do is normal, but that is straying from the topic.

old hippy

Fuinseog wrote: »

I did not say professional gays, though it is a lifestyle choice.

Would Norris be a gay president representative of the gay community or a president reprensentative of all, who happens to be gay? Many believe the former would be the case.

Though it may not be PC to say it gay sex is as natural as sex between a man and a sheep. There are heterosexuals out there who are into bondage and all manner of things but they do not proclaim what they do is normal, but that is straying from the topic.

Absolute garbage. Sex between consenting adults is completely natural. Regardless of gender. Try not to bring animals etc into it - complete bogus argument.

By gay sex, what do you mean specifically? Anal? Because heterosexuals indulge in anal as well.

spikeprint

Fuinseog wrote: »

Norris himself had no problem labeling the Pope a Nazi and was quite hysterical about it.

There are two types of gays out there. Those who are professional and do not broadcast their sexuality on a daily basis, which normal people find more acceptable.
Then there are in your face gays like Norris who have a agenda, which clouds their professionalism.

There are only two types of gays? I'm guessing you prefer the in the closet gays, so you don't have to see them.

The pope was a Nazi, and he is the fuhrer of the catholic church, a wily band of men that used to get away with all kind of shenanigans.

later12

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Especially when dealing with a man for whom "consent" to sexual activity was denied for most of his life. I can see why he might put "consent" on a pedestal, but that is as much the fault of the Irish people who denied him the ability to consent to sex as it is his.

I suppose the interesting thing, when you raise that, is how one might draw an intersection between the experience of DN in his youth and many of those who were sexually abused in their youths.
In the same way that the boy whose Christian Brother put his hand in the boy's pocket may, through life, have felt humiliated by the imposition of authority in that way, so too did 'authority' possibly impose its own shackles on the Christian Brother's sexuality. And so too, as you point out, did authority shackle David Norris and his youth, he being denied the same personal freedoms to express his sexuality which, hopefully, we all enjoy today.

In that context I concur that it could be quite natural for somebody who has been the prisoner of condemnation in the eyes of authority to put personal consent on a pedestal, and to reject or scorn the imposition of sexual (or indeed personal) curtailments.

This is in keeping with much of what DN was directly quoted as saying, particularly where he said he agreed with ''people being allowed to make any choices they like, within very wide limits''. However, you are about to add a clause that David Norris probably wishes that he had inserted...

Consent is not the bee all and end all, children by definition can and do make mistakes and I have no problem with us trying to protect them from the consequences of those. Consent can and must be tested in a court of law when it comes to rape so I have no problem with us biasing the scales on this when dealing with minors. But if the laws are there to protect the child, then the impact of the crime on the child ought to be considered.

2. The irresponsible link. I agree that from what we have seen of the original interview seems to make such irresponsible links. But I would maintain that that is capable of two possible interpretations. The first is support for paedophilia, the second is support for prioritizing the mitigation of any impact on a child. You take the former view whilst I take the latter view.

Just to clarify, the notion that David Norris lends any support to paedophilia is plainly wrong. But yes, I think that in linking the age of consent with the Christian brother and with pederasty and Greek mentoring, David Norris can be interpreted as saying a mixture of both of the above - that pederasty would be more acceptable if it mitigates the shame that those who were sexually abused can feel. That is an incomplete analysis of the situation which taken alone, & must be qualified in rather strong terms.

I can see that the notion of ancient Greek pederasty would strike any heterosexual male as abusive, yet can you not acknowledge how it might strike a homosexual male of Mr Norris's vintage as being infinitely better that the world that he grew up in (on an academic level)?

I am reluctant to, and perhaps that is because David Norris and people like myself were practically raised in different worlds (thanks, in no small part, to David Norris).
In suggesting the above, David Norris is putting himself back in the shoes of an adolescent boy with the psychological maturity of a pensioner. Such a situation is purely theoretical and can have no practical meaning - except when David Norris links it to his currently held views on the law and the age of consent in modern society. It is just a poorly chosen example, in my opinion.

I can only imagine how lonely it must have been to have been gay in the Ireland of the mid-twentieth century. And of course it is natural that an adolescent who was so would idealise the situation in his books about ancient Greece. I do not think anybody would criticise a gay adolescent in a society struggling to come to terms with homosexuality for feeling that way. It must have been a very lonely life.

So the distinction between this and e.g. Enda Kenny or Michael Noonan announcing tomorrow that he had a huge crush on his fifth year Irish teacher is not so obvious to me.

Presumably, were Enda Kenny reflecting on an infatuation with a Bean an Ti when he were a fourteen year old, he would say ''I thought there was something to be said for it at the time''. However, if as a man of his years he reflected ''I think there is something to be said for it'', as though reflecting a currently held view, I think just as many eyebrows would be raised - probably more, in fact.

I have to say, much as I view him as a Trinners ninny most of the time, I love that he believes us all capable of debating this. I love that the man, despite the better part of a lifetime of discrimination, still believes in democracy. I love that the teacher in him still wants us to discuss this.

Having set the basic ground rules of "No child abuse" (as he has) I think it would help us as a nation to actually debate this stuff.

On that, I think, we can all agree.

Apologies for lengthy post!