David Norris' presidential bid at risk?

ongarboy

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0531/breaking27.html.

I'm not even sure if I was going to vote for David Norris if he secured the nomination (even though I have utmost respect and admiration for him) as I want to weigh up all the pros and cons of the final list of eligible candidates before I make my decision. However, the attached article saddens me as I can't help thinking there is a whiff of homophobia about the intentions of the journalist in question. Would it even have come up as an issue if a straight interviewee made such comments?

Would be interested to here other posters views.

Endymion

Yes it would have come up if a straight public figure had made the comments he made. You're being very disingenuous to suggest otherwise, and it's extremely weak to try and dismiss this as homophobic. The quotes are accurate, he said what he said. The only thing up for debate was the contents and what was extrapolated from the comments. I read the article years ago and was wondering when it would come up in his campaign. This combined with his defence of Cathal O'Searcaigh and various talks I've been to has lead me to believe the man exists on another planet were everything is an academic debate with zero thought ever given to how it might be perceived.

For this reason, I won't be voting for the senator. Not because I believe he genuinely supports incest (I'd imagine he has no concept of the realities of it all) but because his mouth is an absolute liability.

hotmail.com

Why is this being posted in the LGBT section? This isn't an LGBT issue.

Endymion

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why is this being posted in the LGBT section? This isn't an LGBT issue.

Denial, it isn't just a river in Egypt. The first openly gay presidential candidature of the country, is an LGBT issue.

hotmail.com

Endymion wrote: »

Denial, it isn't just a river in Egypt. The first openly gay presidential candidature of the country, is an LGBT issue.

This has nothing to do with LGBT issues.

Endymion

Says you... ?

rainbow kirby

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why is this being posted in the LGBT section? This isn't an LGBT issue.

Gay presidential candidate being discussed, therefore it is suitable for discussion in here.

Back on topic please.

mikemac

Don't play that card OP

It was always going to come up, every candidate will be asked questions over their history.

And probably best for him it happens now and not on live TV in a debate and he wasn't expecting it. He had all last night to compose a response for Pat Kenny Show.
But realy it's a side issue

He has even more explaining to do over rushing to defend Cathal O'Searcaigh. He needs an response to the inevitable questions here.
The media will ask in the coming months and no, it isn't homophobic to ask why he did it

WarnerT

Have to agree with Endymion here, unfortunately.
I think David Norris is of an age and class of gay man who saw themselves as following in the lineage of what they saw as the misunderstood but ancient tradition of man boy love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

I too remember my dismay at hearing David being quoted as saying

In the article, Mr Norris is reported as saying: "I cannot understand how anybody could find children of either sex in the slightest bit attractive sexually ... 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 something said for it. Now, again, this is not something that appeals to me.

"Although, when I was younger, I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, treating me with affection, teaching me about life."

His defence of Cathal O'Searcaigh further convinced me that neither David nor Cathal understood that people were objecting to the abuse of power with these youths and not to homosexuality itself.

I think the love of youth and the abuse of power needs to be talked about in Gay circles.
I think there is a lot of denial and defensiveness around the subject but I do believe pederasty needs to be addressed.
There is a line from young man and boy and perhaps more importantly there is sometimes just an imbalance of power.
But where is that line and often the person holding the power sees themselves as a benign benafactor protesting loudly and crying at how misunderstood they are.
So how young is too young, how big an age difference is too much, or is it a combination of age and priveledge.

KnifeWRENCH

hotmail.com wrote: »

This has nothing to do with LGBT issues.

If he was just a gay man who happened to be running for president, I'd agree. But given his record of campaigning for civil rights and LGBT issues, I think it's quite relevant.

On topic, there is definitely a smear campaign out there against him. Supposedly he is now in favour of incest, paedophilia, joining the Commonwealth and regards the men of the Easter Rising as terrorists. :rolleyes:

Norris' biggest problem is his inability to see when people are out to get him; he will wax intellectual to anyone about any subject, and he is certainly a man who knows a lot on almost every subject under the sun, but he never seems to realise that his words will be twisted, taken out of context and used against him.

I will still (almost certainly) vote for him. Alas, I'm not as optimistic about his chances anymore.

Endymion

Not only that, he doesn't realise how someone could be offended when his words are taken in context and without twisting. I have absolutely not doubt that he saw nothing overly wrong with the MacGill article until after it blew up in his face.

thebullkf

interesting in that he didn't retract them. I also heard he naver actually said the men of 1916 were terrorists (obviously a sticking point come the centenary). His defense of O'Searcaigh is also a concern.
As someone else said before,an excellent radio guest but not an excellent candidate... i wonder- if he wasn't Gay would he have less or more support

Aard

Endymion wrote: »

Not only that, he doesn't realise how someone could be offended when his words are taken in context and without twisting. I have absolutely not doubt that he saw nothing overly wrong with the MacGill article until after it blew up in his face.

Yeah. He should learn to differenciate between "mass media interview" and "niche ivory-tower-ing on Greek history".


I don't think there was anything wrong with his comments per se, it just was a case of wrong place, wrong time.

jamijary

He is pretty stupid to think this interview wouldn't be dragged up? all candidates will have to face up to things they said/did in the past, that's politics.

Ambersky

In the early 80s I attended a workshop run by the men of MANBLA or the man boy love association, at a conference in Canada organised by the NLGF or National Lesbian and Gay Federation.
The men were looking for the legalisation of sex with children who they saw as being intrinsicly sexual and having a right to express that sexuality.
They also saw their struggle for recognition to be alligned with the struggle for Lesbian and Gay rights and were seeking support from the NLGF. I think they were looking for affiliation.
To be giving an official workshop at the conference in the first place showed that they did have some support, but the women of the Lesbian Mothers Defense Fund organised to be at the workshop and oppose the men of MANBLA.
It became a highly controversial event and effectively split the community at the time.
Im bringing this up to show that the issue of attitude to under age sex is not a new controversy and to say that there are many in the gay community who defended sex with minors as a right, or as not that serious a problem.
I also want to say how familiar the explanations and excuses are, the crying and the indignation and far from showing innocence, denial and and inability to see the seriousness of the issue appears to be common among those who engage in man boy love and their supporters.

All of the men spoke about their experiences of sex with minors ranging in age from babies to teens.
They spoke about how the particular practices they took pleasure in were of no harm to the children and were in fact liberating and loving for them.
None of the men saw any harm in anything they did.
They were also, all able to give examples of how they thought others went too far or were damaging to children but were very adamant that what they themselves did was different.
One would say he was ok because he never went for children under 10, another would say he never forced anyone, another that he didnt engage in penetrative sex and another would say he never locked the door or never actually tied anyone up.
All of these excuses and carefully drawn lines designed to make the perp feel like its ok.

Innocence and purity were charachteristics I heard the men say they found attractive in children.
They seemed to also see themselves as pure and good somewhat at a remove from the tarnished world of adulthood.
Anyone I have ever heard being accused of child abuse or pederasty has always protested that anything he ever did was done in the spirit of love.
He is usually astonished that others are saying otherwise and are making his gentle pure experience seem sully or dirty somehow.
He protests his goodness and says look at my reputation.

Even if David is saying he himself is not attracted to children, his language is simular to the men I heard justifying man boy love.
As I said all the men I heard said they were ok, they werent like the bad pedophiles you hear about because they knew where to draw the line, Davids line seems to be penetration, children shouldnt be penetrated, but the rest in negotiable.

If this is what he is saying he needs to cop onto himself and it doesnt matter that he has an excellent record in ever other regard.
This issue, this regard - the sexual abuse of children - has damaged the lives of so many, so deeply, that anything that offers support or justification for it needs to be challenged immediately.
In my opinion if the comments attributed to David Norris below are accurate it should have caused more of a controversy at the time of publication nine years ago.
It is coming up now again in light of a Presidential race but maybe it has taken this length to develop a better understanding of the seriousness of sexual abuse of minors.
Are the quotes from this article an accurate account of where David stands.
I have read his explanation and it sounds like he is only saying penetration is wrong but "fiddling around" is not so bad.
http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/

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.

Annasopra

mikemac wrote: »

Don't play that card OP

It was always going to come up, every candidate will be asked questions over their history.

And probably best for him it happens now and not on live TV in a debate and he wasn't expecting it. He had all last night to compose a response for Pat Kenny Show.
But realy it's a side issue

He has even more explaining to do over rushing to defend Cathal O'Searcaigh. He needs an response to the inevitable questions here.
The media will ask in the coming months and no, it isn't homophobic to ask why he did it

Ah but it's clear that it's people with an anti-gay agenda who are jumping on this bandwagon. I don't necessarily think HLB was motivated by homophobia but a lot of others area

LegacyUser

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Ah but it's clear that it's people with an anti-gay agenda who are jumping on this bandwagon. I don't necessarily think HLB was motivated by homophobia but a lot of others area

No it isn't at all clear. A lot of people are on this bandwagon because incest and child abuse isn't an academic topic for them. He's entitled to his opinions, but they are his opinions and he has to stand by them.

foggy_lad

endy151 wrote: »

No it isn't at all clear. A lot of people are on this bandwagon because incest and child abuse isn't an academic topic for them. He's entitled to his opinions, but they are his opinions and he has to stand by them.

And he can stand by his opinions without my vote.

mikemac

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Ah but it's clear that it's people with an anti-gay agenda who are jumping on this bandwagon. I don't necessarily think HLB was motivated by homophobia but a lot of others area

Ask a candidate for the highest office in the state to explain himself

Scream homophobia and become defensive
I think he's a better politician then that

Annasopra

mikemac wrote: »

Ask a candidate for the highest office in the state to explain himself

Scream homophobia and become defensive
I think he's a better politician then that

You clearly didn't read what I said and I'm not screaming anything.

Ambersky

The catholic churches defense is

• Its a media campaign against us
• They are all anti church
• We are the actual victims here

Sound familiar?
Just insert homophobic instead of anti church
So why dont we learn from the churches past mistakes and not go down that route of defenseveness and denial.
It doesnt matter who is doing the criticising and of course it is a homophobe field day, but lets not make it any worse.
Why dont we just show our maturity and face the issue head on.

David Norris has to listen to the reaction to his comments on underage sex.
He may be surprised to find them challenged.
But they may look different to him now and he may need to change and dare I say apologise.
His bid for the Presidency is gone in my opinion anyway but he still needs to change.

CdeC

HE says that it was an academic discussion on ancient greece, it is documented that young boys were taken in by older men who acted as teachers and brought them into adulthood. This involved some sexual contact.
While this is historic fact it does not mean that we live in this type of society. I don't think anything that Senator Norris said suggests that he finds this type of practice acceptable in modern Irish society. I think he should just release a statement and leave it at that. Hopefully our educated population can make their own mind up to what he meant.

Aard

I think anyone who takes 10 seconds to process what he said will realise that, CdeC. It's the red-tops and Chinese whispers that he should worry about.

Ms.Odgeynist

The tapes need to come out.
There are certain things he said that are certainly being construed differently due to the fact that he is a gay man.
I am straight, and if I said that as a young man I would have liked and older woman to teach me about sex, no problem.

However certain other things that were said need explaining.
It is stating the obvious to say that there is a spectrum when it comes to the sexual abuse of children. That is not to say that any of it is ok. It is all heinous, but even the law discriminates between the seriousness of various offenses.

Regarding HLB, I think she should be obliged to produce these tapes. It is very easy to make allegations and have them stick. Its an age old story. All I would say is that Norris seemed happy to stand by what he said, and himself called for the tapes to be released.

littlemac1980

Well I believe Senator Norris's campaign is at risk, and has always been at risk, and I won't be voting for him simply because he is too volatile. He's a damn good politician, but in my opinion he's not suited to the role of the president as it currently exists in Ireland.

Ambersky

If the Magill article is so different from what David actually believes why didnt he take a court case against them.

If someone printed an article saying I believed sex with minors wasnt so bad
or any of this http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/ as I have already quoted I would be hopping mad and everyone would know that a terrible thing was done to me.
I wouldnt just be issuing denials now, nine years later.

If the statements are so contrary to what David believes why did he defend
Cathal O’ Searcaigh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairytale_of_Kathmandu
a man who was having sex with young men he was buying school books for.
That goes beyond an intellectual discussion on the ancient greeks.

I think we need to face it David has some dangerous thinking around sex with minors.

Annasopra

Ambersky wrote: »

If the Magill article is so different from what David actually believes why didnt he take a court case against them.

If someone printed an article saying I believed sex with minors wasnt so bad
or any of this http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/ as I have already quoted I would be hopping mad and everyone would know that a terrible thing was done to me.
I wouldnt just be issuing denials now, nine years later.

If the statements are so contrary to what David believes why did he defend
Cathal O’ Searcaigh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairytale_of_Kathmandu
a man who was having sex with young men he was buying school books for.
That goes beyond an intellectual discussion on the ancient greeks.

I think we need to face it David has some dangerous thinking around sex with minors.

Was Cathal O Searchaigh found guilty of something?

easychair

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Well I believe Senator Norris's campaign is at risk, and has always been at risk, and I won't be voting for him simply because he is too volatile. He's a damn good politician, but in my opinion he's not suited to the role of the president as it currently exists in Ireland.

Maybe he shoudl change his name to Mary to be assured of the job?

Seriously, the presidents "job" is very simple and consists of appoint and dismissing a governments, and, eh, thats about it. That the last two presidents have had bigger ego's than that and wanted to be seen as huggers and kissers was all very well, but it's nothing to do with the role.

I expect Norris will be as good as anyone else in the role.

littlemac1980

I'd be concerned he wouldn't be able to maintain a required degree of diplomacy when required.

He is very outspoken, and very capable of voicing his opinions and views. Such characteristics don't readily suit the post in my opinion, for the simple reason, as you suggest, that the 'job' is more simple than that.

I'm sure you left out the ';)' after your comment re 'Mary', both of whom have been exceptional representatives of our country.

KnifeWRENCH

easychair wrote: »

Seriously, the presidents "job" is very simple and consists of appoint and dismissing a governments, and, eh, thats about it. That the last two presidents have had bigger ego's than that and wanted to be seen as huggers and kissers was all very well, but it's nothing to do with the role.

:eek:
Oh, you did NOT just insult Mary Robinson....

Ambersky

At the beginning of this and whenever the connection between homosexuality and child abuse are brought up there is an immediate cry that child abuse and homosexuality are two different issues.

I imagine all the younger posters here are well versed in this as almost a knee jerk counter argument at this stage.
However I wonder how much thought has gone into it.

All the organisations working for child welfare have a basic tenent too and that is we need to learn to, think of and see things, from the point of view of the child first.
That is the basis of the Children first Campaign

Every past experience involving any organisation and dealing with any gender or sexual orientation, from the church to the family have first attacked the victim and then defended the accused.
It has taken ages for stories to get out, be listen to and taken seriously, perhaps, but not always, leading to court cases
We as a society dont seem to be able to see things from the point of view of the victim or the child or young minor taken advantage of.
This discussion has focused on David as a very nice man, someone we owe a debt of gratitude to, someone who opens his mouth and just says what he is thinking unaware of the consequences.
Im not concerned about David.
I am concerned about the youths and children who have been and are being sexually exploited.
I am concerned that what David has said and believes could help justify the actions of abusers and put children and youths in danger.

I had hoped the LGBT community at this stage would be more mature and be capable of saying
it is against our basic principles that our young people be taken advantage of, by older privileged men offering books, education, food, clothing, travel and other neccessary and luxury items not normally available to these youths particularly in poorer countries.

This is part of the reason we have organisations here like BeLongTo so that our youth have the chance to develop with others of a simular age and be able to learn about life and love, in relationships with an equal power balance.

We can not be saying to society that Homosexuality has nothing to do with child abuse and at the same time find it acceptable that middle aged gay men habitually sleep with sixteen year old youths and younger.
It appears that seventeen is the legal age here ( is it) but some gay men travel to countries like Morocco, Nepal and Tailand where they can legally sleep with sixteen year olds but have admitted to sleeping with younger.
That is unethical in my opinion and why are gay people so reluctant to condem this behaviour.
Do the readers and posters of this forum find this behaviour acceptable?

The quotes from the Magill article saying

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

I need to hear David say he does not agree with the above statement.
It is not enough to say it is taken out of context.
No context would be ok to say the above.
I would like him to contradict the statement and say what he does find unacceptabe in sexual contact with children and minors.
It is not good enough to say go find the tapes if he does believe the general spirit of the statement in quotes.

So I am asking posters here directly, do you think habitual sexual activity between middle aged men and youths seventeen and younger is ok.

I am specifically saying sexual activity because I am not drawing lines like, yes if you dont do anal or if there is no penetration and unlike David I am not saying a Christian Brother fumbling in a boys pocket is at a lower scale, Im talking about any sexual activity between older men and youths seventeen and younger, is it ok or not?