Is David Norris Toast?

FreudianSlippers

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yes I do, I posted the story on this thread a couple of days ago. Here you go again:


http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0903/deathrow.html?view=print%3Fview%3Dprint

Yeah, I'm with you on that... it's a total bullshít thing to do - he's not writing to ask that all other people on death row be commuted; it's all about the anti-abortionist.
What about other murderers? Where are Mitchell's letters for them? :rolleyes:

As an aside, the second half of that article is totally nonsensical and is like something they tacked on to ensure it wasn't a one line article. Good job RTÉ!

hotmail.com wrote: »

During McAleese's term...But anyway.

Oh yeah, 3. I forgot we were just talking about McAleese there.

Look, clearly we disagree on this subject and it's moot now in relation to the thread, but IMO to claim that the position is largely ceremonial is probably correct but to state that it's only about planting trees and whatever else you said is just B.S.

Chucky the tree

jhegarty wrote: »

Not the same because:

1) It's Irish and EU policy to be against the death penalty

2) This wasn't for a friend of his , it was for a stranger

So has Mitchell written asking for clemency for every death row inmate in the world? Why did he pick this one? Wouldn't have anything to go with both of them having strong religious views..

Bullseye1

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yes I do, I posted the story on this thread a couple of days ago. Here you go again:


http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0903/deathrow.html?view=print%3Fview%3Dprint

Cheers. I started a thread as it might be worth separating from this discussion.

nesf

northkildare wrote: »

the meetings are no different to david norris, if you dont agree how they do things your treated badly.

when a young man emails the centre looking for help they read out his email and say how they have invited him to come to the next one,

i remember one guy shouting did he send a pic and everyone laughed.

i have a problem with this and its pretty common

Perma-banned for trolling.

hotmail.com

jhegarty wrote: »

Not the same because:

1) It's Irish and EU policy to be against the death penalty

2) This wasn't for a friend of his , it was for a stranger

Are you not disturbed by his interjection on this particular death row person...an anti-abortionist?

I didn't know of Mitchell being a huge anti-death penalty advocate, but when an anti-abortionist is on death row, he sends a letter asking for clemency.

Bizarre.

anymore

Hamlet:
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite
jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a
thousand times....

syklops

Judgement Day wrote: »

Anybody hear Helen Lucy Burke on Liveline today? Her allegations about David Norris which stem from an interview by her contained in Magill some nine years ago raise serious issues about his views on moral/legal issues. The Liveline programme is available here: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/ and is dynamite. Lucy Burke has a tape of the original interview and if this is as explicit as she claims he is finished - possibly in the Senate too. I am not anti-gay and would probably have voted for him as President - before today. I was worried that Ireland wasn't ready for a 'gay' President but this is more serious if it stands up.

He is now. Disappointed to be honest.

Messi2

hotmail.com wrote: »

Are you not disturbed by his interjection on this particular death row person...an anti-abortionist?

I didn't know of Mitchell being a huge anti-death penalty advocate, but when an anti-abortionist is on death row, he sends a letter asking for clemency.

Bizarre.

WHY pick on Gay Mitchell now just because Norris has been caught out doing something awful and unacceptable?

Ireland is against the death penalty. It makes sense a Minster would write against it.

hotmail.com

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yeah, I'm with you on that... it's a total bullshít thing to do - he's not writing to ask that all other people on death row be commuted; it's all about the anti-abortionist.
What about other murderers? Where are Mitchell's letters for them? :rolleyes:

As an aside, the second half of that article is totally nonsensical and is like something they tacked on to ensure it wasn't a one line article. Good job RTÉ!




Oh yeah, 3. I forgot we were just talking about McAleese there.

Look, clearly we disagree on this subject and it's moot now in relation to the thread, but IMO to claim that the position is largely ceremonial is probably correct but to state that it's only about planting trees and whatever else you said is just B.S.

You said 8, now I finally got you to admit it was 3. Thank you!

Planting trees was just a metaphor. Not far off it mind you. Many of my friends have mentioned this lately about the president and how much is wasted on a presidency at all. But this is for another thread. Sorry for going off topic.

hotmail.com

Messi2 wrote: »

WHY pick on Gay Mitchell now just because Norris has been caught out doing something awful and unacceptable?

Ireland is against the death penalty. It makes sense a Minster would write against it.

He wasn't a minister when he wrote the letter.


The principle of writing letters to ask for clemency is what we're talking about.

Is there any point debating with you....Probably not.

Messi2

hotmail.com wrote: »

He wasn't a minister when he wrote the letter.


The principle of writing letters to ask for clemency is what we're talking about.

Is there any point debating with you....Probably not.

And you actually think it's the same writing for the rape of a young boy and for being against the death penalty (something which most of the country is), I mean, really?

As you said, is there any point debating with you, probably not.

FreudianSlippers

hotmail.com wrote: »

You said 8, now I finally got you to admit it was 3. Thank you!

Planting trees was just a metaphor. Not far off it mind you. Many of my friends have mentioned this lately about the president and how much is wasted on a presidency at all. But this is for another thread. Sorry for going off topic.

Look, I said that she invoked the Art 26 power 8 times. I NEVER one said she referred 8 to the Supreme Court.

Also, I wholeheartedly disagree that just because the power is not used frequently (by this president) means it is a non-issue. Perhaps a better president would have referred many more bills to the SC?

Let's be crystal clear on this:

I said that she invoked the power 8 times; that is correct.
You've shifted the goalposts now by saying it doesn't matter because not all 8 were referred to the Supreme Court, not comprehending that the Council of State is made up of able people who are capable of coming to a decision on Constitutionality as well... it's a damn good reason why we need an educated, legally-minded person in the Park as opposed to, say, that half-wit Dana.

littlemac1980

Messi2 wrote: »

WHY pick on Gay Mitchell now just because Norris has been caught out doing something awful and unacceptable?

Ireland is against the death penalty. It makes sense a Minster would write against it.

And we're anti abortion also.

Anyway seeking clemency for Murder is in no-way comparable to seeking the same for having sex with children.

Murder is a terrible, but unfortunately, unavoidable consequence of being human. People can get passionate about their belief's (which is a good thing) and sometimes human frailties can give way to the psychological pressure inherent in us, which in certain circumstances can cause one man to kill another.

There is no justification for having sex with a child, not even animals do that.

Seeking clemency for a person convicted of raping a child is just downright stupid.

Though I understand Norris was emotionally driven, and regrets his mistake, such a course of action clearly indicates he is not suited to a role of public importance and exposure, such as the presidency. What remains to be seen now is how tenable his Seanad position remains.

FreudianSlippers

Messi2 wrote: »

And you actually think it's the same writing for the rape of a young boy and for being against the death penalty (something which most of the country is), I mean, really?

As you said, is there any point debating with you, probably not.

You're missing the points here:

1) the boy was like 2 months away from the legal age of consent at the time... it's not like he was raping babies.
2) the boy fully consented to the sexual encounters
3) Gay Mitchell wrote one letter to defend an anti-abortionist murderer, where were his other letters for the hundred or so people on death row in Florida in the 90s? In fact, where was his letter for Roy Allen Stewart?

Happyman42

hotmail.com wrote: »

Are you not disturbed by his interjection on this particular death row person...an anti-abortionist?

I didn't know of Mitchell being a huge anti-death penalty advocate, but when an anti-abortionist is on death row, he sends a letter asking for clemency.

Bizarre.

I don't know what your problem is here.
Mitchell has secured his nomination....now it's up to you and the electorate to decide whether you wish to vote for him.
Norris decided to seek a nomination, knowing what the the system was. He failed to secure a nomination because he didn't pass the scrutiny tests.
That is the system he elected to take part in.

FreudianSlippers

littlemac1980 wrote: »

And we're anti abortion also.

Anyway seeking clemency for Murder is in no-way comparable to seeking the same for having sex with children.

Murder is a terrible, but unfortunately, unavoidable consequence of being human. People can get passionate about their belief's (which is a good thing) and sometimes human frailties can give way to the psychological pressure inherent in us, which in certain circumstances can cause one man to kill another.

There is no justification for having sex with a child, not even animals do that.

Seeking clemency for a person convicted of raping a child is just downright stupid.

Though I understand Norris was emotionally driven, and regrets his mistake, such a course of action clearly indicates he is not suited to a role of public importance and exposure, such as the presidency. What remains to be seen now is how tenable his Seanad position remains.

I would hope animals aren't having sex with children :eek:


As someone who was once a 15 year old boy, I can clearly say that I was fully aware of who I was having sex with.

finisklin

He was the life and soul of the aras party.....looks like Gay Mitchell will have to fill his shoes.

Sir Oxman

Messi2 wrote: »

WHY pick on Gay Mitchell now just because Norris has been caught out doing something awful and unacceptable?

Ireland is against the death penalty. It makes sense a Minster would write against it.

It's not a question of picking on Mitchell. This has come up because of the Norris letters.
The question I and others are asking is why this particular anti-abortionist murderer Paul Hill caught anti-abortionist Mr Mitchell's attention and spurred him onto writing a letter pleading clemency.

Here's what Paul Hill did:
"On July 29, 1994, Hill approached a Pensacola, Florida abortion clinic with which he was familiar. When he spotted clinic doctor John Britton and his bodyguard, James Barrett, outside, he shot them both at close range with a shotgun. Both Dr. Britton and James Barrett died. Hill also wounded Barrett's wife, June. Following the shots, Hill laid his shotgun on the ground and waited to be arrested."

"In a statement before his execution, Hill said that he felt no remorse for his actions, and that he expected "a great reward in Heaven". Hill left behind a manuscript manifesto[5] which his backers promised him they would publish. That manifesto and his address to the jury that convicted him echoed the words of John Brown,[6] who had attempted to incite a violent insurrection to end slavery in the United States. Hill was not apologetic for the killings, and in his last words he encouraged others who believe abortion is an illegitimate use of lethal force to "do what you have to do to stop it"


Look familiar? Remind you of anyone lately?

littlemac1980

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would hope animals aren't having sex with children :eek:


As someone who was once a 15 year old boy, I can clearly say that I was fully aware of who I was having sex with.

haha, you know what I meant :rolleyes:

So can I, no one!

The point is valid consent is not the consent of a person under the age limit.

You can argue black and blue about what the boy understood or not, he wasn't convicted. The age limit is there to stop Older Men 'praying' on little boys/girls etc. It has nothing to do with the kids choice.

InigoMontoya

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would hope animals aren't having sex with children :eek:


As someone who was once a 15 year old boy, I can clearly say that I was fully aware of who I was having sex with.

The age of consent has to be set somewhere. There may well be people younger than that age who are (potentially) capable of choosing and dealing with a sexual relationship, but there are also e many who are not, but could be pressured into becoming involved in one. The age of consent is there to protect the latter and should not be invalidated by the existence of the former.

Sparticle

littlemac1980 wrote: »

And we're anti abortion also.

Anyway seeking clemency for Murder is in no-way comparable to seeking the same for having sex with children.

Murder is a terrible, but unfortunately, unavoidable consequence of being human. People can get passionate about their belief's (which is a good thing) and sometimes human frailties can give way to the psychological pressure inherent in us, which in certain circumstances can cause one man to kill another.

There is no justification for having sex with a child, not even animals do that.

Seeking clemency for a person convicted of raping a child is just downright stupid.

:eek:

Murder is way waaaaay worse than having sex with a 15 year old. Are you crazy?

+ Your comment about animals is untrue. Animals have no qualms about having sex with members of their species capable of reproduction regardless of psychological maturity.

Sir Oxman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're missing the points here:

1) the boy was like 2 months away from the legal age of consent at the time... it's not like he was raping babies.
2) the boy fully consented to the sexual encounters
3) Gay Mitchell wrote one letter to defend an anti-abortionist murderer, where were his other letters for the hundred or so people on death row in Florida in the 90s? In fact, where was his letter for Roy Allen Stewart?

http://www.gaylawnet.com/laws/il.htm

Homeosexual AOC in 1992 was 18.

goat2

fitz wrote: »

I'm not saying he was right to plead for clemency, but you should really look at the letters. It's pretty clear he didn't use a State letterhead for the clemency plea, and a lot of the indignation about this seems to revolve around that issue.

i have worked in offices in the past, and always the cover letter only carried the logo, the address and date, the rest of the pages would be plain

littlemac1980

Sparticle wrote: »

:eek:

Murder is way waaaaay worse than having sex with a 15 year old. Are you crazy?

I disagree. Would you say Murder is worse than having sex with a three year old child?

If you had a three year old child, or niece, or nephew, or brother or sister, or ten year old, or fifteen year old, and they were raped by a drunken 50 year old man. What would you do to that man? Would you murder him?

Q.E.D.

goat2

Messi2 wrote: »

WHY pick on Gay Mitchell now just because Norris has been caught out doing something awful and unacceptable?

Ireland is against the death penalty. It makes sense a Minster would write against it.

i will not be voting any candidate this time round, i dont see any suitable candidate to fill mary macleese,s shoes, not a hope, we need to put back this election, and put up a decent bunch,

kerash

littlemac1980 wrote: »

And we're anti abortion also.

Anyway seeking clemency for Murder is in no-way comparable to seeking the same for having sex with children.

Murder is a terrible, but unfortunately, unavoidable consequence of being human. People can get passionate about their belief's (which is a good thing) and sometimes human frailties can give way to the psychological pressure inherent in us, which in certain circumstances can cause one man to kill another.

There is no justification for having sex with a child, not even animals do that.

Seeking clemency for a person convicted of raping a child is just downright stupid.

Though I understand Norris was emotionally driven, and regrets his mistake, such a course of action clearly indicates he is not suited to a role of public importance and exposure, such as the presidency. What remains to be seen now is how tenable his Seanad position remains.

Murder is an unavoidable consequence of being human? are you actually serious. I have managed to avoid murdering anyone so far, as have all of the people I know.

Sparticle

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I disagree. Would you say Murder is worse than having sex with a three year old child?

If you had a three year old child, or niece, or nephew, or brother or sister, or ten year old, or fifteen year old, and they were raped by a drunken 50 year old man. What would you do to that man? Would you murder him?

Q.E.D.

Ezra raped a 3 year old????

There is a big difference between rape and statutory rape.

1. He was 15
2. It was consensual

If you think that's worse than murder you have some seriously screwed up morals.

littlemac1980

kerash wrote: »

Murder is an unavoidable consequence of being human? are you actually serious. I have managed to avoid murdering anyone so far, as have all of the people I know.

As have I, yay us!

So long as:

1. Men have emotions.
2. Men are mortal.
3. Men can buy and hold a gun.

Murder will exist. Sad but True.

Happyman42

Sparticle wrote: »

Ezra raped a 3 year old????

There is a big difference between rape and statutory rape.

1. He was 15
2. It was consensual

If you think that's worse than murder you have some seriously screwed up morals.

Ezra broke the law.
Ezra pleaded guilty.
Norris accepts he was wrong to write the letters.

Hermy

So only men murder and only as long as they can buy guns.