Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
David Norris - Post-Revelations
Options
Comments
-
jill_valentine wrote: »Indeed.
I'd have supported him short of this, and no longer do - however, the haste with which people have rushed to indulge in tabloid speculation well beyond the facts of the case, or discuss very different kinds of crime as though they're wholly interchangeable, is alarming and frustrating. These distinctions might seem inconsequential in such an emotive context, but they aren't, and people shouldn't feel free to let their imaginations run away with them for the sake of more dramatic rhetoric.
For instance, the amount of "God, he probably even..." comments throughout this thread and its counterparts is disquieting and a little nauseating. The case should be discussed in terms of the facts of the matter, no more no less - but pointing that out shouldn't be misconstrued as an implicit approval or defense of the people in question.
Conversely, more than one poster has voiced the suggestion that Nawi's crime was far worse simply by virtue of their own personal hangups about anal sex, and how "unnatural" the practice itself is.
What I'd argue is that, rather than defending Norris or his actions, a lot of the people being cast as his "defenders" here are just contesting some of the issues surrounding it, or looking to object to the tawdry angles of attack cropping up in the conversation along the way. Not all; but certainly some.
For instance, although homophobia in itself was not what ultimately did for Norris - again, he was entirely responsible for his own undoing - it's reared its ugly head over and over in the course of the discussion about it. Contesting homophobia where it clearly occurs in the conversation should not be confused for an attempt to either suggest that it had a hand in Norris' downfall, mitigate Nawi's crime, or deflect responsibility for either one.
I know this is AH and all, I just want to be abundantly clear about my own standpoint here.
+1000 thanks for this post.
Strikes me that there are some people who are attacking Norris based on what they think his "defenders" are saying and responding to the agurements they want to have, rather than responding to what people are actually saying.0 -
i have no doubt once the charges are pressed and it goes to court there will be debates galore across the country.
I look forward to that debate when it does happen. The only reason that this case was mentioned in this thread was because the 'fact' that he has been 'utterly, utterly vilified' (which, in my view, he hasn't - yet) was put forward to demonstrate that its not just homosexual statutory rape that gets the type of attention that the Norris case has (or somesuch - forgive me if I'm phrasing this badly).
I agree that statutory rape is and should be condemned regardless of whether it is straight or gay; I just don't think the Humphries case demonstrated anything. It was a small point that has been overblown at this stage.0 -
The hysteria about statutory rape is quite incredible. It's a crime, but in my view should be treated under the same criminal justice system as other crimes, such as assault, rape and murder. If we accept ideas such as forgiveness, leniency and clemency for any crime then we need to accept that these ideas might apply to all crimes.
If the relationship is consensual, then do people believe that it's OK if they are married? is it OK to have sex with a 15 or 16 year old if you've made some sort of marriage commitment to them (whatever that means these days)?
For example a 15 year old can "marry" in Scotland with parental consent - is there any statutory rape happening in this relationship?
In Ireland the situation is even less clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age
Are people condemning all these countries, or is it not statutory rape if it's legal in another country? If that's the argument then this whole debate would then revolve around Israel's right to impose its laws on Palestinians.0 -
I look forward to that debate when it does happen. The only reason that this case was mentioned in this thread was because the 'fact' that he has been 'utterly, utterly vilified' (which, in my view, he hasn't - yet) was put forward to demonstrate that its not just homosexual statutory rape that gets the type of attention that the Norris case has (or somesuch - forgive me if I'm phrasing this badly).
I agree that statutory rape is and should be condemned regardless of whether it is straight or gay; I just don't think the Humphries case demonstrated anything. It was a small point that has been overblown at this stage.
Well it did and probably will garner plenty of attention when the case comes up, but this case with involvement from a Presidential candidate was always going to get far more attention.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
You can get married in Ireland below the age of 16? What's that about?
Ireland: 18, below 16 with both parental and High Court consent.0 -
You can get married in Ireland below the age of 16? What's that about?
Ireland: 18, below 16 with both parental and High Court consent.
In the Travelling community many girls of 16 get married with parent consent.
It is something that always amazed me as the age of sexual consent is 17. I have heard of a Traveller girl getting married at 15 years. Seems to go against the laws of the land and nothing is being done about it. As far as i know some of these marriages have been "arranged" years in advance. They say its part of their culture but to me it is illegal.0 -
My understanding is that he is in favour of a graduated approach at the margins, so for example, a 17 year old wouldn't be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year old.
That isn't what it comes across as in his letters in my reading of them. In them he seems to believe that the law is to harsh in regards to the statutory age issue itself with no upper limit or graduated approach. I have come to this conclusion on the basis of his original letters and the fact they were written in defence of a man aged 40 at the time.
In this case, the guilty party was 40, there is no defence.0 -
I do think it's amusing and rather sad Gay Mitchell has come out to be an even shadier candidate, but people largely don't care.
But yeah, it's not because Norris is gay, or progressive, or anything like that. We're not resistant to change in this country AT ALL.
There's also the little matter of this, which was not widely published:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-am-not-a-paedophile-says-norris-expartner-2839306.html
And the fact that the guy who leaked the letter in the first place was a pro-Israel(as in attacks on Gaza, etc.) right wing douchebag:
http://bocktherobber.com/2011/08/david-norris-and-the-troll
Hardly a national hero.0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »I do think it's amusing and rather sad Gay Mitchell has come out to be an even shadier candidate, but people largely don't care.
But yeah, it's not because Norris is gay, or progressive, or anything like that. We're not resistant to change in this country AT ALL.
There's also the little matter of this, which was not widely published:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-am-not-a-paedophile-says-norris-expartner-2839306.html
And the fact that the guy who leaked the letter in the first place was a pro-Israel(as in attacks on Gaza, etc.) right wing douchebag:
http://bocktherobber.com/2011/08/david-norris-and-the-troll
Hardly a national hero.
So just because Norris is gay and progressive we should wade in behind him in support despite his dubious judgement and lack of grasp on reality? And nobody has been touting the person who broke the story on his blog as a National hero. Who cares who broke it, don't shoot the messenger. If it had never happened it could never have been a story.0 -
Advertisement
-
jill_valentine wrote: »Indeed.
I'd have supported him short of this, and no longer do - however, the haste with which people have rushed to indulge in tabloid speculation well beyond the facts of the case, or discuss very different kinds of crime as though they're wholly interchangeable, is alarming and frustrating. These distinctions might seem inconsequential in such an emotive context, but they aren't, and people shouldn't feel free to let their imaginations run away with them for the sake of more dramatic rhetoric.
For instance, the amount of "God, he probably even..." comments throughout this thread and its counterparts is disquieting and a little nauseating. The case should be discussed in terms of the facts of the matter, no more no less - but pointing that out shouldn't be misconstrued as an implicit approval or defense of the people in question.
Conversely, more than one poster has voiced the suggestion that Nawi's crime was far worse simply by virtue of their own personal hangups about anal sex, and how "unnatural" the practice itself is.
What I'd argue is that, rather than defending Norris or his actions, a lot of the people being cast as his "defenders" here are just contesting some of the issues surrounding it, or looking to object to the tawdry angles of attack cropping up in the conversation along the way. Not all; but certainly some.
For instance, although homophobia in itself was not what ultimately did for Norris - again, he was entirely responsible for his own undoing - it's reared its ugly head over and over in the course of the discussion about it. Contesting homophobia where it clearly occurs in the conversation should not be confused for an attempt to either suggest that it had a hand in Norris' downfall, mitigate Nawi's crime, or deflect responsibility for either one.
I know this is AH and all, I just want to be abundantly clear about my own standpoint here.
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe homophobia had nothing to do with his downfall here. There's a reason that the media latched on to every negative story here. Do you really think it's that unreasonable in conservative, catholic Ireland that some people would have opposed him because of his sexuality, or politics supporting the rights of those with that sexuality?
I can't stand this line of argument. Yes, it's possible for a gay candidate to fail on the basis other than being gay. But we're clearly seeing people not giving a toss about Gay Mitchell's controversies.
The sheer gullibility of the Irish people is sickening.0 -
HarryPotter41 wrote: »So just because Norris is gay and progressive we should wade in behind him in support despite his dubious judgement and lack of grasp on reality? And nobody has been touting the person who broke the story on his blog as a National hero. Who cares who broke it, don't shoot the messenger. If it had never happened it could never have been a story.
Where is this lack of grasp of reality coming from?
And again, are we ignoring the issues that has come up with another candidate now, which are debatedly worse?
Sorry, but the whole case against Norris is dishonest, and you are dishonest for supporting it. Not because he's gay or progressive, but because it's such a blatant smear campaign, misrepresentation of the facts and selective recognition of "morals".
It's one of the most disgusting things I've seen in Irish politics and you must have no shame to continue like this.
If you had heard about it happening on your own, without the media storm, and had properly researched it, would you care? Probably not. Most people here are only acting as the media has told them - they have no critical faculties of their own whatsoever.0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »Sorry, but I find it hard to believe homophobia had nothing to do with his downfall here. There's a reason that the media latched on to every negative story here. Do you really think it's that unreasonable in conservative, catholic Ireland that some people would have opposed him because of his sexuality, or politics supporting the rights of those with that sexuality?
I can't stand this line of argument. Yes, it's possible for a gay candidate to fail on the basis other than being gay. But we're clearly seeing people not giving a toss about Gay Mitchell's controversies.
The sheer gullibility of the Irish people is sickening.
If homophobia is so rampant in this country how come the revelations about Emmett Stagg in 1994 being found with a gay man in the cruising area of the Phoenix Park had no affect at all on his political career, he wasn't asked to resign and he has been elected at every election since. This homophobic straw man that is put up continually by David Norris supporters is ridiculous.0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »Where is this lack of grasp of reality coming from?
And again, are we ignoring the issues that has come up with another candidate now, which are debatedly worse?
Sorry, but the whole case against Norris is dishonest, and you are dishonest for supporting it. Not because he's gay or progressive, but because it's such a blatant smear campaign, misrepresentation of the facts and selective recognition of "morals".
It's one of the most disgusting things I've seen in Irish politics and you must have no shame to continue like this.
If you had heard about it happening on your own, without the media storm, and had properly researched it, would you care? Probably not. Most people here are only acting as the media has told them - they have no critical faculties of their own whatsoever.
Yes, I would care actually. I don't base my views on the media. I would also appreciate a little less of the personal comments on the views I hold. if you cannot debate without calling people shameless and dishonest perhaps you should refrain from debating because if someone does not hold the same view as you does not mean they are not entitled to that view.
There is no selective recognition of morals, my morals are quite clear, quite consistent and very very centred.
As for a grasp on reality, what does David Norris know about life for ordinary people in rural Ireland, of which I am one? Does he know the daily struggles, does he know what people in other parts of the country go through? he has been hit by the harsh reality that excited discussions of pederasty in Greek philosophy might make him popular amongst the intellectuals of his constituency in Trinity but the real world is slightly different and the fact that David Norris failed to see that shows his lack of grasp on reality.0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »I do think it's amusing and rather sad Gay Mitchell has come out to be an even shadier candidate, but people largely don't care.
But yeah, it's not because Norris is gay, or progressive, or anything like that. We're not resistant to change in this country AT ALL.
There's also the little matter of this, which was not widely published:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-am-not-a-paedophile-says-norris-expartner-2839306.html
And the fact that the guy who leaked the letter in the first place was a pro-Israel(as in attacks on Gaza, etc.) right wing douchebag:
http://bocktherobber.com/2011/08/david-norris-and-the-troll
Hardly a national hero.
How many times have we heard " well if i had known he was so young i wouldn't have made the mistake ". I read that in the local paper last week when a publican was fined and his pub closed for a week for serving a 16 year old. It didn't work for him and it didn't work for Nawi. Rightly so.
On the second part all i can say is don't shoot the messenger. We are far better off as a nation getting this out of the way now.0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »Sorry, but I find it hard to believe homophobia had nothing to do with his downfall here. There's a reason that the media latched on to every negative story here. Do you really think it's that unreasonable in conservative, catholic Ireland that some people would have opposed him because of his sexuality, or politics supporting the rights of those with that sexuality?
I can't stand this line of argument. Yes, it's possible for a gay candidate to fail on the basis other than being gay. But we're clearly seeing people not giving a toss about Gay Mitchell's controversies.
The sheer gullibility of the Irish people is sickening.
I'm not going to say there are not SOME people out there who don't like Norris because he's gay.
But the reason he has been scrutinised and attacked is not because he is gay but because he was the frontrunner in a political election race. Being gay was a defining characteristic of the candidate and annoyingly the crime he tried to defend is one that people have been fighting against having linked to homosexuality.
But the reality is the majority of people would have been going after him were he gay or straight because he was the man to beat in the race. He was the guy who was going to walk into office so he had to be the first one to be taken down. His popularity was huge and therefore so were the level of attacks on him.
Again, not saying homophobia did not play a role with SOME people, but rather that as soon as he became the frontrunner for the election, he was always going to be the biggest target....0 -
Teamshadowclan wrote: »I'm not going to say there are not SOME people out there who don't like Norris because he's gay.
But the reason he has been scrutinised and attacked is not because he is gay but because he was the frontrunner in a political election race. Being gay was a defining characteristic of the candidate and annoyingly the crime he tried to defend is one that people have been fighting against having linked to homosexuality.
But the reality is the majority of people would have been going after him were he gay or straight because he was the man to beat in the race. He was the guy who was going to walk into office so he had to be the first one to be taken down. His popularity was huge and therefore so were the level of attacks on him.
Again, not saying homophobia did not play a role with SOME people, but rather that as soon as he became the frontrunner for the election, he was always going to be the biggest target....
While I agree with the most of what you have said, I do wish people would get a grip on this huge popularity thing, he polled 25% in the last poll before this story broke.0 -
Teamshadowclan wrote: »He was the guy who was going to walk into office so he had to be the first one to be taken down. His popularity was huge and therefore so were the level of attacks on him.
That is a bit of a nonsense tbh.
The race hadn't even started, Norris was the front runner because he was campaigning way before the others. His profile was high because he had started early.
The only polls that count are the ones after the election has officially been called. That hasn't happened yet and we don't even know the full field as the deadline for nominations hasn't passed yet either.
He didn't get past the first round of scrutiny, that he would have 'strolled into the park' is a bit of a stretch, imo.0 -
HarryPotter41 wrote: »While I agree with the most of what you have said, I do wish people would get a grip on this huge popularity thing, he polled 25% in the last poll before this story broke.
Out of interest, was anyone polling higher than him?
I know AH isn't the best representation of Ireland overall but in the topic before these revelations, 60% of people were saying they'd vote for him. That means all the other candidates would share 40% between them. Hell, he's still got 30% of the voters on here saying they'd vote for him.
But regardless, I change a bit then...
Happyman says he was popular cause he started early, but that means then that the mudslingiing against him could start early. On top of that, since there wasn't that many other candidates announced, the media can focus all their attentions on him as well.
The other candidates will likely get the same level of scrutiny in the long run, and the more popular they are, the more the media will try and dig out the skeletons from their closets. My point stands though that the scrutiny wasn't (100%) because he was gay but because he was running and was popular.0 -
CrystalLettuce wrote: »Sorry, but I find it hard to believe homophobia had nothing to do with his downfall here. There's a reason that the media latched on to every negative story here. Do you really think it's that unreasonable in conservative, catholic Ireland that some people would have opposed him because of his sexuality, or politics supporting the rights of those with that sexuality?
It's not the reason I was not going to vote for him, it is not the reason that anyone who wasn't going to vote for him (that I had talked to) had. I didn't think he would be terribly good at his job. If these revelations had not come to light I would have still been fine with him on the ticket. Although I now wish that he had gotten on the ticket as from this thread, there are clearly some people in this country who believe that what he done was alright (even after he admitted it wasn't) and it would be nice to know how backwards we really are that this behaviour (the defending of someone who is clearly guilty by their own admission, the excuses that such behaviour is understandable and the use of power to attempt to influence a foreign states decision despite no such mandate being given).I can't stand this line of argument. Yes, it's possible for a gay candidate to fail on the basis other than being gay. But we're clearly seeing people not giving a toss about Gay Mitchell's controversies.
DN failed on an issue that was in no way connected to his sexuality?The sheer gullibility of the Irish people is sickening.
The facts are there, regardless of peoples suupposed motives for bringing them to the fore, they are still there, it still happened and it is still wrong. You would have to be gullible to think it was all bull or treat it as such even though it is a FACT.CrystalLettuce wrote: »And again, are we ignoring the issues that has come up with another candidate now, which are debatedly worse?
Debatable, no one is ignoring it, your tacking it into a thread about DN, please start a new thread about the issues and your views on them and post a link here, I will be happy to contribute (although I maybe biased as I hate Gay Mitchell)Sorry, but the whole case against Norris is dishonest, and you are dishonest for supporting it. Not because he's gay or progressive, but because it's such a blatant smear campaign, misrepresentation of the facts and selective recognition of "morals".
Please explain where they were misrepresented, i read the letters, I formed my own opinion and have expressed that throughly throughout this thread.It's one of the most disgusting things I've seen in Irish politics and you must have no shame to continue like this.
Politics is dirty unfortunately but it is hardly anyones fault but DNs that he wrote those letters, if he hadn't then this debate would be mute.If you had heard about it happening on your own, without the media storm, and had properly researched it, would you care? Probably not. Most people here are only acting as the media has told them - they have no critical faculties of their own whatsoever.
I had a paragraph written here but it was getting too long and waffly. Are you serious? Really, are you? I feel sorry for the world you live in were you think that such a thing would not raise some feelings in the average person.0 -
Advertisement
-
CrystalLettuce wrote: »If you had heard about it happening on your own, without the media storm, and had properly researched it, would you care? Probably not. Most people here are only acting as the media has told them - they have no critical faculties of their own whatsoever.
Says the person desperately trying to do the same with Gay Mitchell. :pac: Would I care that an elected representative was trying to use their position to influence the trial/sentencing of their one-time lover, particularly in a crime we are all mostly, apparently some people don't see it, agreed is despicable? Yes I would care, and I have put my critical faculties to great use.0 -
Teamshadowclan wrote: »Out of interest, was anyone polling higher than him?
I know AH isn't the best representation of Ireland overall but in the topic before these revelations, 60% of people were saying they'd vote for him. That means all the other candidates would share 40% between them. Hell, he's still got 30% of the voters on here saying they'd vote for him.
But regardless, I change a bit then...
Happyman says he was popular cause he started early, but that means then that the mudslingiing against him could start early. On top of that, since there wasn't that many other candidates announced, the media can focus all their attentions on him as well.
The other candidates will likely get the same level of scrutiny in the long run, and the more popular they are, the more the media will try and dig out the skeletons from their closets. My point stands though that the scrutiny wasn't (100%) because he was gay but because he was running and was popular.
The opinion polls that I go by are the ones conducted by polling firms out in the real world, not the rarified atmosphere of the internet.
The last poll in July had Norris on 25%, Mitchell 21%, Higgins 18%, Gallagher 13%, Davis 12%, O'Cuiv ( included though not a candidate ) 11%, don't know 28%. Those figures do not smack to me of huge popularity and that is an illusion that has been pushed about him romping home to the job. In my opinion from those kind of figures he would have struggled to get the transfers to elect him.0 -
HarryPotter41 wrote: »
The last poll in July had Norris on 25%, Mitchell 21%, Higgins 18%, Gallagher 13%, Davis 12%, O'Cuiv ( included though not a candidate ) 11%, don't know 28%. Those figures do not smack to me of huge popularity and that is an illusion that has been pushed about him romping home to the job. In my opinion from those kind of figures he would have struggled to get the transfers to elect him.
Bear in mind also that Norris was the closest thing to an "alternative" candidate on the menu, and therefore appealed to younger adult voters and students. In short, people who don't actually turn out to vote in large numbers. Turnout in 1997 was only 46% so I think he would have struggled to translate opinion polls into votes.0 -
tayto lover wrote: »In the Travelling community many girls of 16 get married with parent consent.
It is something that always amazed me as the age of sexual consent is 17. I have heard of a Traveller girl getting married at 15 years. Seems to go against the laws of the land and nothing is being done about it. As far as i know some of these marriages have been "arranged" years in advance. They say its part of their culture but to me it is illegal.
i don't think it only applies to the travelling community,if we took the law as serious there should be alot of non traveller teen dads locked up now.0 -
That isn't what it comes across as in his letters in my reading of them. In them he seems to believe that the law is to harsh in regards to the statutory age issue itself with no upper limit or graduated approach. I have come to this conclusion on the basis of his original letters and the fact they were written in defence of a man aged 40 at the time.
Here's what his policy position is:DN wrote:Age of consent
In my view, the people best equipped to make these difficult moral and legal decisions are the judiciary. Legislation based on the principle of consent empowers the judiciary. This is the approach that I would personally support.
Consent based on age, has resulted in many instances in the inappropriate criminal prosecution of minors.
The key bit being the phrase "inappropriate criminal prosecution of minors". This suggests a graduated approach.
While there may be some ambiguity about his personal preferences, his policy position doesn't suggest he wants to eliminate the age of consent.
Its a bit dangerous to assume that his defence of an offender means that he defends the offence. The phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner" comes to mind.I have come to this conclusion on the basis of his original letters and the fact they were written in defence of a man aged 40 at the time.0 -
HarryPotter41 wrote: »The opinion polls that I go by are the ones conducted by polling firms out in the real world, not the rarified atmosphere of the internet.
The last poll in July had Norris on 25%, Mitchell 21%, Higgins 18%, Gallagher 13%, Davis 12%, O'Cuiv ( included though not a candidate ) 11%, don't know 28%. Those figures do not smack to me of huge popularity and that is an illusion that has been pushed about him romping home to the job. In my opinion from those kind of figures he would have struggled to get the transfers to elect him.
I think he was way ahead before the Magill interview thing broke and that seemed to lose him some support, plus I don't think Higgins and Mitchell has been officially nominated then.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
CrystalLettuce wrote: »If you had heard about it happening on your own, without the media storm, and had properly researched it, would you care? Probably not. Most people here are only acting as the media has told them - they have no critical faculties of their own whatsoever.
I agree there are many people who just follow popular media trends but in my case I would definitrly have reacted. I was one of the callers to Liveline on Tuesday urging him to withdraw despite being involved with his supporters campaign here in Galway for a short while.0 -
I think he was way ahead before the Magill interview thing broke and that seemed to lose him some support, plus I don't think Higgins and Mitchell has been officially nominated then.
In January he had 27%, in June he had 30%. Not way ahead. Just shows the perception that was out there that he was steaming ahead.0 -
Advertisement
-
HarryPotter41 wrote: »In January he had 27%, in June he had 30%. Not way ahead. Just shows the perception that was out there that he was steaming ahead.
Yes but he was about twice the nearest rival. McGuinness and others were included in the earlier polls IIRC.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0
Advertisement