David Norris - Post-Revelations

Sunnyisland

Fionnula wrote: »

What Norris did was irresponsible and stupid. I would not be so quick to jump bandwagons though when there is nobody with such determination investigating the other candidates. Perhaps the public will never know some of the idiotic decisions they have made.

I am not jumping in on any bandwagons. And i am quite sure there are people investigating all the other candidates as its the normal procedure by now.

7Sins

Chuck Norris can still win this election even without votes

HarryPotter41

7Sins wrote: »

Chuck Norris can still win this election even without votes

Kudos

Toby Take a Bow

Lustrum wrote: »

Can anyone shed some light on where the letter was leaked from? After all, someone has known about this letter for the last 19 years, but said nothing about it - in my mind that's as bad as writing the letter in the first place

The letter was sent to an Israeli court, no? If correspondence like this is supposed to remain private and confidential, then it's possible it was leaked by the government in Israel. I think Norris is fairly explicit in his condemnations of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. However, if correspondence is on the public record, and Norris' relationship with his ex was public knowledge (not sure if it was) then it could've been anybody willing to dig up some dirt on Norris (which would be the vast majority of the media and all of the political parties).

Alivia Square Alphabet wrote: »

What would happened if it was a woman riding a young lad?.

Iris Robinson was fairly quickly turfed out of office, and the guy she was with wasn't even a minor. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether the person in question consented, it's still illegal.

I would've voted for Norris before, primarily based on his work on civil rights legislation, but would have had a problem with him mainly due to his support of the Seanad (which I would view as deeply undemocratic) and also because I find him on a personal level incredibly annoying and obnoxious.

The initial revelations made me feel uneasy, but I took him at face value when he said that it was more a theoretical discussion he was having, and also one based on his experience of the gay community 'back in the day' (when everything they did was illegal) but these letters would make me think differently. I would have to read them over and again, but it looks fairly damning.

Which leaves Micky D for my vote

Lord TSC

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is the worst reason to choose a presidential candidate ive ever seen , this is my biggest problem with what seems to be a majority of norris supporters , voting for or against him because of his sexuality is a terrible way to choose.

Agree, and I say this as someone who was behind Norris.
Much as how I hate anyone who says they won't vote for him cause he's gay, he shouldn't get a vote cause he's gay either.

UglyBolloxFace

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Agree, and I say this as someone who was behind Norris.

HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha.




Sorry, continue.

El Siglo

I might have voted for him before but this settles it. You defend someone on statutory rape, then you're fucking piece of shit. I'm actually sickened reading that letter and I hope he never gets the nomination.

Show Time

Could he not be removed from the Seanad over this attempted abuse of power on his part?

Kajuku

Min wrote: »

I am waiting to see who is running, can't say I am enthused by any of the current and possible candidates.

Agree. For me it's probably going to be a question of who's second-best for the job now, if I can really bring myself to endorse any of them for the next 7 years.

All I know about Mary Davis is that she does some charity work (?) and is apparently very respected for it, and Gallagher is on some TV show I've never seen. I couldn't pick either of them out of a line-up. But it makes me wonder exactly what qualifies someone for the Presidency in 2011. If it's an understanding of the laws and legislative processes, then Norris probably was/is the most qualified (though, for the same reason, I think he's of much more use in the Seanad than as a ceremonial head of state). If it's a popularity contest or a reward for public service, then the above two would be the front runners. Most comments suggest it's the role of a glorified salesperson, traveling around the world hocking Irish trade out of a (metaphorically) battered suitcase.

xsiborg

northkildare wrote: »

We dont complain about what straight people do

Bill Clinton, President of the United States at the time, arguably the most powerful man in the world, was impeached for his indiscretions with Ms. Monica Lewinsky.

I used view David Norris as a highly educated, compassionate individual. Of course the fact he was a homosexual had a bearing on my opinion of him. Even more formative of my opinion though was his eccentric and volatile nature.

Latey though, the way he had been foisted on a pedestal as a model president, and his supporters could easily imply that if you didnt support his bid for nomination for presidency, you must be homophobic, afraid of change, unwilling to see what is now a modern ireland, etc.

I remember when Mary Robinson was elected she changed our perception of the office of the president, she made nothing of the issue of her gender and did an unquestionably good job in office.

The United States went to the polls and elected Barack Obama as president, change and all that, and there's not too many can deny that the colour of his skin influenced his nomination and subsequent election. It seemed like his policies were completely ignored. Now that has come back to bite the americans in the ass. Their "forward thinking, wouldn't it be cool to elect the first black president" idea has fallen flat on its face as he runs the country even more into the ground. I think Hilary Clinton would have been a much better president, but her policies were not even looked at because it was much "cooler" to have a black president than "just" a female president.

Some of us then in Ireland think we have to go that one step further and say "lets be even more forward thinking, lets elect a gay president! policies? what policies? ignore that, he's gay, thats what matters!", and then his supporters tell his detractors to ignore the fact that he's gay, when all over the various threads they champion what he has done for gay rights and equality as the reason he should be elected.

Which to be quite honest leaves me confused:

- Get with the times of modern Ireland and vote David Norris because he's gay, or

- Ignore the fact that he's gay and concentrate on what else would qualify him as a suitable presidential candidate, which is....

hmm, i seem to be falling short on that one.

It is for these reasons (or lack of reasons even!), that even if Mr. Norris does get his name on the ballot paper, I for one will not be voting for him.

I had voted in the original poll that i would vote for Mr. Norris, simply because i believed that despite his volatile and eccentric nature, he could be a great ambassador of Irish culture.

I now believe that those good qualities will by far be overshadowed by his own, well, stupidity, really. He has made himself a target of tabloid fodder, simply through his own actions and words, and it is these actions and words that will overshadow any good work he could do in any potential presidential term in office.

Sooopie

I for one am sorry its ended like this for him. What he did was use his position to stand up for someone he cared for. As it turns out now, it looks very bad on him. But I believe he did so in order to help someone he cared for. I've done the same, but not to the extent that DN did. I'd still love to see him become President, but thats not likely now & its probably through his own actions. What can you do, its done.

lighthouse

I really don't know what all the fuss is about. Those who were voting for Norris and wanted a gay in the park can now vote for the FG Gay

Sooopie

lighthouse wrote: »

I really don't know what all the fuss is about. Those who were voting for Norris and wanted a gay in the park can now vote for the FG Gay

when titanic came out in the cinema, he was sat behind me and sobbed when Jack died, in the Stella Cinema, Rathmines

*happy memories*

joshrogan

I was going to vote for him until I read that letter and subsequent article.

Freddie59

northkildare wrote: »

Most of the 40yr olds on the scene are very good to the younger

Anywhere else and they'd be called predators. But that would make us homophobes....:rolleyes:

Interesting to see all the sigs removed though.................

Freddie59

northkildare wrote: »

david has normal point of veiw

Not in this instance.

ebbsy

Its beginning to turn into a circus act now, he should pull the plug so we can get down to the serious candidates.

Freddie59

Fionnula wrote: »

Perhaps the public will never know some of the idiotic decisions they have made.

So we're idiots because we refuse to vote for him, based on his actions? WTF?

sollar

Show Time wrote: »

Could he not be removed from the Seanad over this attempted abuse of power on his part?

You'd have to do alot of removing then as i'm sure alot of them have done similar.

Liam Byrne

twinQuins wrote: »

But why were such lengths taken to dig this up?

We should be thanking whoever dug it up, not questioning them.

Yes, the timing is odd, and all available crap should be dug up on everyone. But as Tesco say.....every little helps.

I wouldn't have voted for Norris - he was the token gesture of a camp gay guy to show that Ireland had changed.

As with the "vote for women" brigade in the Dáil, or even the "vote Obama coz he's black" campaign over in the U.S., that is just ridiculous.

You vote for the best.....or rather, in Ireland, you vote for the least worst.

Norris wouldn't have gotten my vote in the first place, but he definitely wouldn't now.

CramCycle

joshrogan wrote: »

I was going to vote for him until I read that letter and subsequent article.

I read through it and was quite frankly disgusted, it basically reads as a "I'm not a bad lad, loads of people say so, so you can trust me". Haven't read through the entire thread in case this is just rehashed stuff but the letter reads as a "c'mon, trust me, everyone else does".

I have no issues with him knowing the man before he knew of this case, it's the fact that he is trying to sway a legal proceeding with his perceived popularity rather than any statement of fact.

ebbsy wrote: »

Its beginning to turn into a circus act now, he should pull the plug so we can get down to the serious candidates.

There are no serious candidates, it's a shame that the office of president in Ireland is such a joke that no one who might command the respect of the people can run for it. It's more a competition to see who is not the worst candidate.

MonaghanPenguin

xsiborg wrote: »

I remember when Mary Robinson was elected she changed our perception of the office of the president, she made nothing of the issue of her gender and did an unquestionably good job in office.

"The hand that rocked the cradle can rock the system"

Made nothing of the issue of her gender? It was in her acceptance speech!

bernardo mac

Sure,David Norris made a serious and damaging error of judgement but he still. possesses many admirable qualities.I cannot say that I admire the work of John Connolly

CramCycle

bernardo mac wrote: »

Sure,David Norris made a serious and damaging error of judgement but he still. possesses many admirable qualities.I cannot say that I admire the work of John Connolly

Do these "admirable qualities" outweigh his "error of judgement"? Should we have someone in office who can make such errors?

Actually scrap that argument, look at some of our TDs, being able to make errors seems to be a requirement of being in power in Ireland.

philologos

Won't be able to vote as I'm not going to be here at election time.

However I think what Norris did in the case of his ex-partner was wrong. I can at the same time see why he did it. Love clearly got in the way of reason and obscured his judgement in respect to ethical and moral action.

Before this people on boards.ie had signatures effectively saying Vote Norris and don't listen to right wing bigots. It's clearly fallacious to say that if you had no interest in voting for David Norris that you of necessity are a right wing bigot / homophobe. As people have stated in both threads people should be voted on the basis of their actual merit rather than their sexuality.

pablomakaveli

I can understand why Norris did it even if it was the wrong thing to do and an example of poor judgement. But taken with the early controversy it will cause his reputation a lot of damage.

If he made a sincere public apology i would at least be willing to consider him again but i dont think many other people will.

alcomoholic

xsiborg wrote: »

Bill Clinton, President of the United States at the time, arguably the most powerful man in the world, was impeached for his indiscretions with Ms. Monica Lewinsky.

I used view David Norris as a highly educated, compassionate individual. Of course the fact he was a homosexual had a bearing on my opinion of him. Even more formative of my opinion though was his eccentric and volatile nature.

Latey though, the way he had been foisted on a pedestal as a model president, and his supporters could easily imply that if you didnt support his bid for nomination for presidency, you must be homophobic, afraid of change, unwilling to see what is now a modern ireland, etc.

I remember when Mary Robinson was elected she changed our perception of the office of the president, she made nothing of the issue of her gender and did an unquestionably good job in office.

The United States went to the polls and elected Barack Obama as president, change and all that, and there's not too many can deny that the colour of his skin influenced his nomination and subsequent election. It seemed like his policies were completely ignored. Now that has come back to bite the americans in the ass. Their "forward thinking, wouldn't it be cool to elect the first black president" idea has fallen flat on its face as he runs the country even more into the ground. I think Hilary Clinton would have been a much better president, but her policies were not even looked at because it was much "cooler" to have a black president than "just" a female president.

Some of us then in Ireland think we have to go that one step further and say "lets be even more forward thinking, lets elect a gay president! policies? what policies? ignore that, he's gay, thats what matters!", and then his supporters tell his detractors to ignore the fact that he's gay, when all over the various threads they champion what he has done for gay rights and equality as the reason he should be elected.

Which to be quite honest leaves me confused:

- Get with the times of modern Ireland and vote David Norris because he's gay, or

- Ignore the fact that he's gay and concentrate on what else would qualify him as a suitable presidential candidate, which is....

hmm, i seem to be falling short on that one.

It is for these reasons (or lack of reasons even!), that even if Mr. Norris does get his name on the ballot paper, I for one will not be voting for him.

I had voted in the original poll that i would vote for Mr. Norris, simply because i believed that despite his volatile and eccentric nature, he could be a great ambassador of Irish culture.

I now believe that those good qualities will by far be overshadowed by his own, well, stupidity, really. He has made himself a target of tabloid fodder, simply through his own actions and words, and it is these actions and words that will overshadow any good work he could do in any potential presidential term in office.

this man deserves a medal, couldnt have said it better myself.

Arnold Layne

Kajuku wrote: »

Agree. For me it's probably going to be a question of who's second-best for the job now, if I can really bring myself to endorse any of them for the next 7 years.

What made Norris the "best" candidate for the job,in your opinion?

All I have seen him do in the past 20 years or so is to be at the forefront of Bloomsday; and more recently trying to stop An Seanad from being scrapped in his first speech.

squod

This letter just makes me distrust politicians all the more. I'm bluddy fuming. Left with a poorer choice of candidates now that the cat is out of the bag. Time to knock this president thing on the head permanently, we don't need one anyhow. It's just another bill the citizen has to pay for.

Arnold Layne

squod wrote: »

Time to knock this president thing on the head permanently, we don't need one anyhow. It's just another bill the citizen has to pay for.

The same applies to An Seanad, considering that the "Father of the House" used its notepaper to plead for clemency in the sentencing of a convicted paedophile in another country.