Is Norris getting smeared?

Galvasean

David Norris reckons he is on the receiving end of a smear campaign to derail his presidential bid.
http://www.thejournal.ie/norris-labels-resurfacing-of-magill-article-as-smear-on-election-campaign-146335-May2011/

What do you guys think?
Personally I can't see anything sinister whatsoever in his comments, The fact that they are resurfacing 9 years later (in an out of context form) suggests to me that he is being smeared by rival parties alright.

thejournal.ie also used a picture of him playing with kids as the accompanying picture to an article about it earlier. They have since changed it after people complained that it was distasteful.

magicbastarder

the thread title held so much more promise.

Dades

Yeah, he's getting a real taste of politics now.

I don't think any of us are getting elected as could we really stand over everything we've ever said on Boards in any context? :pac:

I think (hope) he'll survive this though.

D1stant

He is being smeared and it will work

Pity because I think he would be great, but his comments were fcukin idiotic

Galvasean

D1stant wrote: »

but his comments were fcukin idiotic

I sadly have to agree. He was very foolish/naive to have said what he did. surely he should have known that would be misconstrued and used against him

Undergod

His presidential campaign seems to be failing anyway, the public would vote for him but he's not getting the nominations to be a candidate.

CerebralCortex

I wasn't going to vote for him anyway! Apparently according to Wikipedia anyway his is a prominent member of the Church of Ireland. Any truth in this?

DrumSteve

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wasn't going to vote for him anyway! Apparently according to Wikipedia anyway his is a prominent member of the Church of Ireland. Any truth in this?

I know what forum this is... but would that really matter in his ability to represent our nation?

Zombrex

He expressed an opinion. Doesn't he know that isn't what we want from our President! :P

Cavehill Red

Of course he's getting smeared. The FF backwoodsmen are smarting from one electoral defeat this year and the prospect of a GAY PROTESTANT!!! as president is one they intend to prevent.
Hence their running an 'independent' FF candidate in that Dragon's Den mong, and hence all the sudden excavation of antique statements made by Norris a decade or more ago in an attempt to rubbish him anyway they can.
Sensible people will not be moved by such obvious slurs. The only question is whether they will be able to prevent Norris from reaching the ballot paper.

marcusgunn

You cannot "smear" someone by directly quoting them. He does not deny saying these things. He may have changed his opinion over the 9 years, or maybe just in the last few days in accordance with his advisors, but he's not being smeared.

His past is catching up with him, that's all

Bannasidhe

marcusgunn wrote: »

You cannot "smear" someone by directly quoting them. He does not deny saying these things. He may have changed his opinion over the 9 years, or maybe just in the last few days in accordance with his advisors, but he's not being smeared.

His past is catching up with him, that's all

“I hope all those who are maliciously spreading this inaccurate, misleading misquotation, out of context, I hope they are all deeply ashamed, because they should be ashamed, and I am ashamed of them,”

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.ie/breakingnews/ireland/norris-sex-comment-sabotaged-my-campaign-507191.html#ixzz1NwjEI6OI


Hmmm looks like a denial to me.

mikhail

marcusgunn wrote: »

You cannot "smear" someone by directly quoting them.

You can directly quote someone, but leave out some context and make them look pretty bad. For instance, were someone to click on the link below, they could confirm that you're not some sort of fraudulent sponger.

marcusgunn wrote: »

Planning to go on the dole before even finishing college...

CerebralCortex

DrumSteve wrote: »

I know what forum this is... but would that really matter in his ability to represent our nation?

Yes, I think so.

marcusgunn

mikhail wrote: »

You can directly quote someone, but leave out some context and make them look pretty bad. For instance, were someone to click on the link below, they could confirm that you're not some sort of fraudulent sponger.

But his comments haven't been taken out of context. Helen Lucy Burke was quite open in explaining the context of the conversation. His comments and opinions cannot be misconstrued.
What he said was wrong. Why are people so vehemently defending the indefensible?

Bannasidhe

marcusgunn wrote: »

But his comments haven't been taken out of context. Helen Lucy Burke was quite open in explaining the context of the conversation. His comments and opinions cannot be misconstrued.
What he said was wrong. Why are people so vehemently defending the indefensible?

Helen Lucy Burke is his accuser. It is her word against his until the tapes are produced. Why are you so quick to condemn him based on her word alone?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the reaction would surely be similar if a politician had claimed there was something to be said for showing younger female teens the ropes sexually, even though he himself wasn't neccesarily in favour of it. Norris suporters are just jumping on the "everyone hates gays" bandwagon because they like being outraged just as much as norris haters do.

marcusgunn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Helen Lucy Burke is his accuser. It is her word against his until the tapes are produced. Why are you so quick to condemn him based on her word alone?

From what I can see, see has nothing to gain from her accusations but condemnation from the norris obbsessed masses.

mikhail

marcusgunn wrote: »

From what I can see, see has nothing to gain from her accusations but condemnation from the norris obbsessed masses.

Unless she would value harm done to his presidential campaign, I agree. Of course, that's impossible, as it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

charlemont

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wasn't going to vote for him anyway! Apparently according to Wikipedia anyway his is a prominent member of the Church of Ireland. Any truth in this?

So.. Whats his religion got to do with it ?, Id rather vote for a prominent Prodestant than some practising Catholic connected to covering up peadophiles.

marionann

Galvasean wrote: »

David Norris reckons he is on the receiving end of a smear campaign to derail his presidential bid.
http://www.thejournal.ie/norris-labels-resurfacing-of-magill-article-as-smear-on-election-campaign-146335-May2011/

What do you guys think?
Personally I can't see anything sinister whatsoever in his comments, The fact that they are resurfacing 9 years later (in an out of context form) suggests to me that he is being smeared by rival parties alright.

thejournal.ie also used a picture of him playing with kids as the accompanying picture to an article about it earlier. They have since changed it after people complained that it was distasteful.

I think he is being smeared too. I also think that there is more than on person behind it.

mikemac

charlemont wrote: »

So.. Whats his religion got to do with it ?, Id rather vote for a prominent Prodestant than some practising Catholic connected to covering up peadophiles.

Look at the forum you are in

Sarky

I read what he said. It seemed fairly straightforward and easy to grasp. Having some kind of mentor has its advantages. Lord knows most of our parents didn't do a great job at teaching us the facts of life. I'm confused as to why it's even an issue. Is it because he said the word paedophilia/pederasty without immediately appending "is sick and wrong and all them paedos should be hanged"?

CerebralCortex

charlemont wrote: »

So.. Whats his religion got to do with it ?, Id rather vote for a prominent Prodestant than some practising Catholic connected to covering up peadophiles.

Seriously? Ever hear of a false dichotomy before?

Miguel_Sanchez

marcusgunn wrote: »

But his comments haven't been taken out of context. Helen Lucy Burke was quite open in explaining the context of the conversation. His comments and opinions cannot be misconstrued.
What he said was wrong. Why are people so vehemently defending the indefensible?

Did you listen to the Norris interview this morning?

His comments can very much be misconstrued. And Norris is alleging that besides the suppositions Burke packed the article with she has since lied about changes made to it, about his approval of the article and about whether or not Norris denied the allegations at the time the article was published.

I think Helen Lucy Burke needs to produce the tapes.

Bannasidhe

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Did you listen to the Norris interview this morning?

His comments can very much be misconstrued. And Norris is alleging that besides the suppositions Burke packed the article with she has since lied about changes made to it, about his approval of the article and about whether or not Norris denied the allegations at the time the article was published.

I think Helen Lucy Burke needs to produce the tapes.

Apparently she has...now she can't find the tape recorder :rolleyes:

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

now she can't find the tape recorder

And the tapes were damaged by water from a leak that sprang up in her attic years ago.

Anyhow, lets hear what the tapes have to say (eventually, possibly).

Burgo

Would you not think to check to make sure the tapes would be in working order before kicking up this fuss? She must have known it would blow back on her at some point.

mikhail

Burgo wrote: »

Would you not think to check to make sure the tapes would be in working order before kicking up this fuss? She must have known it would blow back on her at some point.

The consequences for her are what exactly? She's done him some damage, and as she can't back up her statement, I suspect she's libelled him. Not that Norris could pursue it without ending whatever chances he has in the election.

Dave!

What context could Norris have said the above in that would misrepresent him...? Unless it was something like "The following is not my opinion: [insert remarks here]", or it's completely fabricated (which he does not claim), then surely it's not too far from his thoughts?

robindch

Dave! wrote: »

What context could Norris have said the above in that would misrepresent him...?

The Greek tradition he is referring to -- hence the current slang word "Greek" referring to, um, bumly sex -- is one in which teenage boys would hang around with older men (perhaps < 50) and get inducted into the society of older males, learn the philosophical, ethical and political ropes, learn how to drink + eat in the societally approved manner, in return for which the older males could shag the younger guys. It appears to have been considered a legitimate and perhaps even honorable pastime for aristocratic + above males.

Don't have time to check the reference just now, but I think it was the start of Plato's Phaedrus (or was it the middle of The Symposium?) in which Socrates started going on about how boys were at their most beautiful just as their chins were beginning to grow the slightest piece of fluff? A piece of text I recall translating -- in the purest platonic sense, thanks heavens -- as a teenager in the company of a rather excellent catholic priest.

I suspect that Norris was probably referring to the learning and induction aspect of this relationship, and not to the shagging aspect. Not that Ms Burke would be likely to be all that familiar with either of them

Paparazzo

Never mind Helen Lucy Burke. RTE and Joe Duffy are a disgrace to let their show be a platform for this.

condra

I've always found Norris to be extremely intelligent, charming, interesting, funny, and a man of great integrity.

I find none of the comments offensive. I think he was being honest, and probably knew he was sticking his neck out a bit when he said it. He is entitled to his opinion and I respect him more for having the balls to talk about intimate, controversial matters.

There is also every chance he was being a bit cheeky and flippant, as he often is when talking about sexuality. When I read the quote and imagine him saying it, I can't help but chuckle.

As far as I know, this is what he is alleged to have said:

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. And in terms of the North African experience this is endemic.

“Now again, this is not something that appeals to me, although when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life – yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that.

hinault

marcusgunn wrote: »

But his comments haven't been taken out of context. Helen Lucy Burke was quite open in explaining the context of the conversation. His comments and opinions cannot be misconstrued.
What he said was wrong. Why are people so vehemently defending the indefensible?

Agreed.

Norris is the author of his own downfall.

hinault

robindch wrote: »

The Greek tradition he is referring to -- hence the current slang word "Greek" referring to, um, bumly sex -- is one in which teenage boys would hang around with older men (perhaps < 50) and get inducted into the society of older males, learn the philosophical, ethical and political ropes, learn how to drink + eat in the societally approved manner, in return for which the older males could shag the younger guys. It appears to have been considered a legitimate and perhaps even honorable pastime for aristocratic + above males.

Don't have time to check the reference just now, but I think it was the start of Plato's Phaedrus (or was it the middle of The Symposium?) in which Socrates started going on about how boys were at their most beautiful just as their chins were beginning to grow the slightest piece of fluff? A piece of text I recall translating -- in the purest platonic sense, thanks heavens -- as a teenager in the company of a rather excellent catholic priest.

I suspect that Norris was probably referring to the learning and induction aspect of this relationship, and not to the shagging aspect. Not that Ms Burke would be likely to be all that familiar with either of them

Greece the home of fiscally responsible people too :rolleyes:

professore

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the reaction would surely be similar if a politician had claimed there was something to be said for showing younger female teens the ropes sexually, even though he himself wasn't neccesarily in favour of it.

I think a more accurate analogy would be if a female politician said there was something to be said for being shown the ropes by an older man and she wouldn't have minded when she was 16. Not quite the same thing.

Beruthiel

Galvasean wrote: »

The fact that they are resurfacing 9 years later (in an out of context form) suggests to me that he is being smeared by rival parties alright.

Call me a cynic, but when something rears it's head (just at the right time) after being put to bed 9 years ago, then yes, it's a smear campaign.
He still gets my vote.

Yitzhak Rabin

I'm struggling to see what the actual context is for the statements??

To me, saying that its unfair because its quote-mined is a cop out. Some things are wrong, and there is no context that can be provided. If there is some context whereby a belief that young boys being sexually exploited by older men is alright, then he should come out and give the context, rather than saying he was quoted out of context.

Its the same cop out argument that christians give when the Bible is "quoted out of context". Sometimes there is no context that it can be justified in. He knows that, and thats why his response was him trying to distance himself from the remarks, rather than to explain them.

Ambersky

In 2002 there was an article in Magill magazine that said a lot of things among them

Senator David Norris, Magill Article 2002
Magill Magazine, January 2002, pp34-36

David Norris: The Free Radical.
Interview by Helen Lucy Burke.

...I found some of his views on sexual matters deeply disturbing - notably on sex with minors...

"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. And in terms of North African experience this is endemic.
Now again, this is not something that appeals to me, although when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life - yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that."...

"But I think there is complete and utter hysteria about this subject, and there is also confusion between ... paedophilia and pederasty..."[David Norris clarified this later, explaining that genital sexual penetration of juveniles of either sex would be inappropiate and harmful]...

"In my opinion, the teacher, or Christian Brother, who puts his hand into a boy's pocket during a history lesson, that is one end of the spectrum. but then there is another: there is the person who attacks children of either sex, rapes them, brutalises them, and then murders them. But the way things are presented here it's almost as if they were all exactly the same and I don't think they are. and I have to tell you this -- I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience."

The right of unfettered sexual activity guided by the principle of mutual consent would be Norris's perception of the way things should be, with a bar only on intimidation, bullying or bribery. He did not appear to endorse any minimum age or endure any protest that a child was not capable of informed consent. "The law in this sphere should take in to account consent rather than age". When I asked about incest, he hesitated, and concluded that in the case of girls a case could be made for a ban, as possible resulting pregnancy might be genetically undesirable.

http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/

The catholic church has been criticised extensively not only for the abuses of minors commited by individual priests but also for its lack of understanding of what was going on and its defensiveness in the face of criticism.

The Catholic church says in response to criticisms of child abuse and its defense of the perpitrators
• There is obviously a media campaign against it.
• The critics are anti church.
• It covers up the events believing the attention given to them would cause more harm than good.
• It forgives and defends the perpitrators.

All of the above are being said in excuse of what David Norris has said except people are being accused of being anti gay.
I am Lesbian and I would hope that the LGBT community has the maturity, unlike the catholic church, to renounce Davids romanticism and defense of those having sexual contact with minors.

This isn’t about homophobia.
It’s about a gay man putting forward views belittling the seriousness of sex with minors.

Granted the recent attention to the article probably was started as a political move to reduce Davids chances of the Presidency but I have some sympathy for that, as I don’t want a President who makes little of the seriousness of sexual contact with minors.

The issues in the Magill article are coming up again and maybe David will get a second chance to realise how serious it is.
Too little was made of it nine years ago in my opinion.
Maybe now with those nine years we as a society are more educated on these matters and are ready to criticise them.

It sounds to me like David is so out of touch that he has no idea of the reaction his views on sex with minors and incest could cause.
What he is saying is very like the Cathal Ó Searcaigh video.
Cathal was so relaxed allowing that video to be shot and was flabbergasted that people thought his having sex with young men he had been buying school books for was wrong. It was at the very least questionable as an abuse of power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairytale_of_Kathmandu

David Norris came to the defense of Cathal at that time which is consistent with the views he put forward in Magill.
I believe the statements attributed to David are part of his belief system and it is time they were brought out into the open examined and challenged.

aidan24326

This is all being taken out of context, and yes it is unquestionably a smear campaign.

He, perhaps foolishly, gave an honest opinion on a controversial subject. But at no point did he condone paedophilia.

I feel he's a victim of the Joe Duffy virus here, a victim of the baying mob. Norris is for the most part an intelligent man and a man of integrity, and that casts him as an outsider in a political culture ruled for the most part by self-serving gombeens. His homosexuality and anti-establishment views only serve to further alienate him from the status quo.

He may have been ill-advised to say what he said when he said it, in a country still shackled by institutionalised narrow-mindedness, but I still see nothing terribly untoward in what he did say. It's an attempt by the political machinery of the big parties (mainly FF I suspect) to discredit him. Nothing more nor less than that.

Dades

aidan24326 wrote: »

He may have been ill-advised to say what he said when he said it, in a country still shackled by institutionalised narrow-mindedness...

I think that's a little unfair to the Irish people.

Though his most definitely ill-advised comments preceded the Ryan and Murphy reports, since then the Irish people are less "shackled by institutionalised narrow-mindedness" and more traumatised by what has been brought to light in the past ten years.

Of course there's an element of hysteria and underhandedness about the affair, but I wouldn't be so quick to blame the attitude of the country.

fred252

robindch wrote: »

And the tapes were damaged by water from a leak that sprang up in her attic years ago.

Anyhow, lets hear what the tapes have to say (eventually, possibly).

she was on the news the other night saying that the tapes were not where she thought they were and that perhaps they had been damaged by water if they were still knocking about the attic somewhere. she's a joke.

whether you think she has nothing to gain from dragging this interview up or not is irrelevant. as it stands she is asserting something without evidence and as such it can be dismissed without evidence.

this isn't even worth discussing unless she comes up with the tapes.

population

hinault wrote: »

Greece the home of fiscally responsible people too :rolleyes:

You live in Ireland yeah???

population

Ambersky wrote: »

In 2002 there was an article in Magill magazine that said a lot of things among them



http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/

The catholic church has been criticised extensively not only for the abuses of minors commited by individual priests but also for its lack of understanding of what was going on and its defensiveness in the face of criticism.

The Catholic church says in response to criticisms of child abuse and its defense of the perpitrators
• There is obviously a media campaign against it.
• The critics are anti church.
• It covers up the events believing the attention given to them would cause more harm than good.
• It forgives and defends the perpitrators.

All of the above are being said in excuse of what David Norris has said except people are being accused of being anti gay.
I am Lesbian and I would hope that the LGBT community has the maturity, unlike the catholic church, to renounce Davids romanticism and defense of those having sexual contact with minors.

This isn’t about homophobia.
It’s about a gay man putting forward views belittling the seriousness of sex with minors.

Granted the recent attention to the article probably was started as a political move to reduce Davids chances of the Presidency but I have some sympathy for that, as I don’t want a President who makes little of the seriousness of sexual contact with minors.

The issues in the Magill article are coming up again and maybe David will get a second chance to realise how serious it is.
Too little was made of it nine years ago in my opinion.
Maybe now with those nine years we as a society are more educated on these matters and are ready to criticise them.

It sounds to me like David is so out of touch that he has no idea of the reaction his views on sex with minors and incest could cause.
What he is saying is very like the Cathal Ó Searcaigh video.
Cathal was so relaxed allowing that video to be shot and was flabbergasted that people thought his having sex with young men he had been buying school books for was wrong. It was at the very least questionable as an abuse of power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairytale_of_Kathmandu

David Norris came to the defense of Cathal at that time which is consistent with the views he put forward in Magill.
I believe the statements attributed to David are part of his belief system and it is time they were brought out into the open examined and challenged.

I do not know how to bloc quote so forgive me if this is a bit all over the place.

1. Very few people are suggesting this is about homophobia. The suggestion is that this is a well timed opportunistic smear campaign.

2. The Catholic Church comparison does not add up. At what point did Norris spend hundreds of millions of pounds trying to cover up these allegations, (and lets be honest that is what they are as no evidence of these comments actually exists), unlike the systematic rape and murder of thousands of children in the care of the RCC of which there was literally a hundrend years of solid irrefutable evidence which the church chose to ignore and or bury.

3. A link to his defence of O'Searcaigh please. If that is indeed true then he is a verifiable idiot who should get nowhere near the Presidency.

4. "Granted the recent attention to the article probably was started as a political move to reduce Davids chances of the Presidency but I have some sympathy for that, as I don’t want a President who makes little of the seriousness of sexual contact with minors"

I do not have any sympathy with that as it is only being brought to the fore for political reasons, and not for reasons of safeguarding the welfare of children.

Galvasean

hinault wrote: »

Greece the home of fiscally responsible people too :rolleyes:

You do realise that the Greece of 'Classical' times is not the same country as the one we see today?
Making that comparison would be like saying Sitting Bull is responsible for America's war on terror.

population

fred252 wrote: »

she was on the news the other night saying that the tapes were not where she thought they were and that perhaps they had been damaged by water if they were still knocking about the attic somewhere. she's a joke.

whether you think she has nothing to gain from dragging this interview up or not is irrelevant. as it stands she is asserting something without evidence and as such it can be dismissed without evidence.

this isn't even worth discussing unless she comes up with the tapes.

Agreed. Having worked as a Journo for an admittedly short enough period of time, if a public figure gives you a piece of solid gold like a seemingly ambiguous justification of paedophilia, then you shut up, and let them shove their foot in their mouth as you record it. Also knowing that your editor will not just take your word against the interviewees on such a potentially serious issue, you play the tape for the editor. Upon deciding to run the story the editor will want a copy of the tape in the event he might have to go to court to defend the story. That recording will stay with the publication. The original will sit in the Journalists home as a little trophy from the day you caught out a public figure and got a little scoop for yourself. Saying "he said this, in this way and it was terrible but I have no evidence" well frankly is not good enough.

Galvasean

David Norris promised to give me a million Euro today. I don't have any recordings, but he has to give it to me now.

population

Me too!!!

I also do not have a recording but between us thats a cool 2 million! I'm buying a motorbike:D

Galvasean

Eff that, i'll use my money to run for president!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reKNc-ebqMc

syklops

David Norris admitted to me that he kidnapped Jimmy Hoffa. I recorded him saying so on my phone. I then accidentally dropped my phone in the toilet, and now it doesnt work, but he did say it. Honest!

condra

David Norris is responsible for world hunger.
FACT