David Norris - Post-Revelations

MOSSAD

xsiborg wrote: »

.

Of course the fact he was a homosexual had a bearing on my opinion of

.

What's his sexuality got to do with the price of a sliced pan? :rolleyes:

Paparazzo

I was a David Norris supporter, but not now. I hate when any politician tries to interfere and get people off on lighter sentences. I seem to remember another politician doing something similar before? Does this happen often?
I do thing it's a bit sinister with this letter coming out now too.

Show Time

Arnold Layne wrote: »

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.

Bloomsday is another big money spinning racket.

whydoibother?

He would have been my favourite candidate a few months ago.
The age of consent comments made me question him a bit. I was then undecided about whether I liked him.
This latest revelation is the final nail in the coffin. I don't see how anybody could get past his using his position as an elected representative to try to influence the outcome of a trial for statutory rape especially when it's a 45 year old and a 15 year old i.e. not the situation where there two teenagers with a year between them or something.

Kajuku

Arnold Layne wrote: »

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.

Well, his record as a campaigner for equality rights, and human rights worldwide, his experience as a legislator in the Seanad, the energy and enthusiasm he shows in his approach to politics, his separation from the party-political machine, and his (ahem, seeming) basic integrity as a human being.

The Bloomsday stuff is pretentious nonesense and would have been the only minor blemish as far as I'm concerned. And as for the Seanad, personally, I think it needs a major overhaul rather than abolition, which was little more than a populist election ploy by FG (notice TDs are far less inclined to reduce their own numbers). The possible absence of a Seanad is also a pretty good reason to avoid an FG president in addition to a Dail dominated by the party (and very quickly adopting the kind of swagger FF used to be known for), aside form my general dislike for Gay Mitchell. Michael D. Higgins is the only other candidate I both know anything about and have some respect for, for many of the same reasons I supported Norris.

theg81der

I`m shocked that people are shocked. I would expect this of our political class in this country even before everyone else woke up - Have the last few years thought you nothing (to anyone who`s suprised)?

Maybe the people who wanted him out of the race have invested alot (of tax payers money probably) in digging to get this dirt and maybe Norris just doesn`t have the same resources. What would we find if we dug on our other candidates?

Trust me their all dirty and not in a good way and the majority of you have bad judgement anyway so you won`t have a clue how to identify anyone decent if you did see them (judging by the majority vote which has choosen the wonderful bunches that got us into our present predicament).

Few weeks ago anyone against Norris was a hater. Please stop being so populist its boring!

partyatmygaff

theg81der wrote: »

Maybe the people who wanted him out of the race have invested alot (of tax payers money probably) in digging to get this dirt and maybe Norris just doesn`t have the same resources. What would we find if we dug on our other candidates?

Who knows? We may find things even more reprehensible or more probably nothing whatsoever. What other candidates may or may not have done has no bearing on what Norris has done.

Trust me their all dirty and not in a good way

How so? Sure there is a lot of abuse and corruption in politics but it doesn't necessarily extend to each and every politician.

Guy:Incognito

Fionnula wrote: »

There are so many errors in this rebuttal. Do you really expect anyone to take that serious?
1- Catholic clergy take a vow of celibacy and when engaging in sexual activity they are breaking a promise they made to their god and their followers
2- The Roman Catholic church has a strict stance against homosexuality, not to mention pre-marital sex, and therefore a priest engaging in that behavior goes against all the other gays they contemptuously say are going to hell
3- A priest raping or molesting a child is exactly that, there is no consent from the minor
4- A 15 year old is 1 year away from age of consent in many countries and most young people of that age are already having sex
.

Why was there a top down cover up so ?

As for number 4, 1 year away is still underage. The law isnt "age of consent is 16 +/- 1 year. Anyway, two 15 year olds having sex is not the same as a 15 year old and a 40 year old doing it.

Fionnula wrote: »

I was commenting on the comparison to a Catholic member of clergy and to the smear campaign that only seems to be targeted at Norris and non of the other candidates.

If something wrong is there to be found then it doesnt matter how much digging is done to find it, the wrongdoing is still wrong,

theg81der

Partyatmygaff

There an ambitious bunch hard to say what any of them would do. You have to accept bad things in politics otherwise your career finishes very early, thats the nature of the beast. Its a bit like medicine if interns reported the stuff they see, which initially shocks them, their careers would be over so they tell themselves its for a greater good (ie their own wallets and self satisfaction IMO).

partyatmygaff

theg81der wrote: »

Partyatmygaff

There an ambitious bunch hard to say what any of them would do. You have to accept bad things in politics otherwise your career finishes very early, thats the nature of the beast. Its a bit like medicine if interns reported the stuff they see, which initially shocks them, their careers would be over so they tell themselves its for a greater good (ie their own wallets and self satisfaction IMO).

Using your position of power to try and obtain clemency for a man convicted of rape in a foreign jurisdiction isn't exactly what i'd call a "bad thing in politics that you just have to accept". He did it out of choice, in self-interest, the same way nearly all corrupt politicians behaved and continue to behave. The letter would not have furthered his career. He didn't necessarily need to abuse his position of power to further his career in politics.

For example, Charles Haughey's political career wouldn't have suffered if he choose to remain honest. He didn't need to steal what he stole to maintain his career. He just did it because he could. The same way Norris attempted to use his position as Senator to try and obtain clemency for the convict in question.

stanley 2

ideas have consequences he belives in his ideas but society has the right and duty to defend itself and its young even against themselves at times

Loch Garman

I was going to give him my number 1. Very disappointed with this. He has stepped across the line. Very uncomfortable with all this now.

Its a great pity but he dug his own grave.

Pompey Magnus

Fionnula wrote: »

4- A 15 year old is 1 year away from age of consent in many countries and most young people of that age are already having sex

A child of 14 years and 364 days is only 1 year and 1 day away from the age of consent in those countries, that one day isn't going to make any real difference so shall we excuse them having sex also? But then a child of 14 years and 363 days is only one day younger again and that isn't going to make much difference so lets excuse them having sex too etc etc...

This is known as the Sorites Paradox, the idea of an age of consent may not be perfect but without it how else can we protect the children that aren't ready for sex who are preyed on by adults?

A partially arbitrary but definite line has to be made at a certain age, it is no different to the alcohol limit for drivers. Some people would be very capable of driving competently whilst over the limit but then some people wouldn't be. It's impossible for the law to tell who can't until after they cause an accident and the damage is done. A limit is set and everyone is expected to follow it, the argument that "I could handle a little extra drink" is not a legitimate defence, even if it is true.

Why should children be any different? It isn't possible to know which of them are really ready for sex and which just think they are (or have been convinced into thinking they are by an influencial adult in their life who wishes to take advantage of them).

AngeGal

I wasn't going to vote for Norris anyway. Whilst I admired his fight for gay rights, he also appeared to me to be a constant attention seeker and unsuitable for the office.

I was also pretty sick of people automatically assuming you were a homophobic bigot just because you didn't think Norris was right for the office, it was ridiculous.

Lola92

I havn't read though this whole thread, so my apologies if this point has already come up.

From reading certain parts of Sen. Norris letter, specifically referring to being "lured into a carefully prepared trap", I wonder what the circumstances were.

I have heard a lot of terms like molester, pedophile, child abuser etc. being thrown about in relation to this case but Mr. Azra was convicted of STATUTORY rape.

Now I may be wrong but I was under the impression that ANY sexual intercourse involving a minor is deemed to be statutory rape by default. As opposed to the general term rape - being unconsensual sex.

I would consider this to be a big deciding factor- Is Senator Norris is supporting the rapist (in the general sense of the word) of a minor or someone who by default was convicted of statutory rape despite willingness and consent being given by both parties?

Just a thought.

7sr2z3fely84g5

Lola92 wrote: »

I would consider this to be a big deciding factor- Is Senator Norris is supporting the rapist (in the general sense of the word) of a minor or someone who by default was convicted of statutory rape despite willingness and consent being given by both parties?

Just a thought.

i think this could be the reason,wasn't there a similar debate before about consent when two men who met an 14 year old on a gay website,met in dublin,and had sex with him.

Story here- http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/exfair-city-star-and-courier-jailed-for-sex-with-schoolboy-1672769.html

He picked the boy up a second time and brought him to a nearby lake and they engaged in sexual activity before he again dropped him back at the shopping centre. He gave the boy €10 to buy phone credit.

The boy's mother learned of the meetings after she found suggestive text messages from the men and nude photographs of her son on his phone. She contacted gardai who then launched an investigation.

Garda Hynes said the boy had declined to make a victim impact statement.

Judge Martin Nolan said that neither Dunleavy nor Rogers "groomed this young man or enticed him to meet them", before sentencing them both to two years in prison. He also ordered that both men be registered as sex offenders.

AngeGal

Lola92 wrote: »

I havn't read though this whole thread, so my apologies if this point has already come up.

From reading certain parts of Sen. Norris letter, specifically referring to being "lured into a carefully prepared trap", I wonder what the circumstances were.

I have heard a lot of terms like molester, pedophile, child abuser etc. being thrown about in relation to this case but Mr. Azra was convicted of STATUTORY rape.

Now I may be wrong but I was under the impression that ANY sexual intercourse involving a minor is deemed to be statutory rape by default. As opposed to the general term rape - being unconsensual sex.

I would consider this to be a big deciding factor- Is Senator Norris is supporting the rapist (in the general sense of the word) of a minor or someone who by default was convicted of statutory rape despite willingness and consent being given by both parties?

Just a thought.

Would you be so concerned about consent if it was your 15 year old son/daughter that was with a 40 year old? It is always wrong for a 40 year old to be with someone so young.

No defending Norris's actions here, his candidacy is over and he won't get a nomination in my opinion.

euroeuro

norris all the way.....not the former bertie/minister for FINANCE.. squirm **** scum

PK2008

I was only going to vote for him cos he's gay and I would feel all modern and all but now with the whole child abuse angle seems a bit dodgy...


Are there any other gays I can vote for?

Lola92

Alivia Square Alphabet wrote: »

i think this could be the reason,wasn't there a similar debate before about consent when two men who met an 14 year old on a gay website,met in dublin,and had sex with him.

Story here- http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/exfair-city-star-and-courier-jailed-for-sex-with-schoolboy-1672769.html

I think I remember that story from the time. I do think that consent should be taken into consideration along with the maturity of the minor involved, but that may be hard to determine. Also was the boy honest and upfront about his age? Another point to consider I suppose.

I know that many people may take issue with the fact that one party was 15 and the other 40. A lot of people think if he was less than a year shy of the age of consent and it was consensual then where's the harm.

The context really plays a big part IMO.

7sr2z3fely84g5

Lola92 wrote: »

I think I remember that story from the time. I do think that consent should be taken into consideration along with the maturity of the minor involved, but that may be hard to determine. Also was the boy honest and upfront about his age? Another point to consider I suppose.

I know that many people may take issue with the fact that one party was 15 and the other 40. A lot of people think if he was less than a year shy of the age of consent and it was consensual then where's the harm.

The context really plays a big part IMO.

The brow raising part in that case,the judge said neither of them groomed or enticed the boy,but in eyes of law it was still wrong,i think the police would had took another approach if the boy met someone his own age,the age of consent is 17 for male and female in this country *its amazing how many ppl on boards thinks its 16.

Lola92

AngeGal wrote: »

Would you be so concerned about consent if it was your 15 year old son/daughter that was with a 40 year old? It is always wrong for a 40 year old to be with someone so young.

No defending Norris's actions here, his candidacy is over and he won't get a nomination in my opinion.

Honestly I can say I would very much care whether or not consent was involved. As I mentioned in another post maturity plays a big part (had it been consensual).

Of course I am not denying that there should be an age of consent and it is very necessary to protect children. I am not for one second advocating rape or child abuse. All that I am saying is that perhaps people should take a look at the circumstances before they jump on the child molesting pedophile bandwagon.


I also want to point out that I am not trying to defend the actions of senator Norris here. In fact I am no longer sure of my vote. Previously I was decided to give Norris my no. 1 had he gotten to that stage. His candidacy is indeed in big trouble.

dirtyden

Should we not be discussing his resignation from the senate, rather than the damage this has done to his presidential campaign (which is now as dead as the dodo).

He used his position as a senator to make representations on behalf of a confessed pederast.

Lola92

Alivia Square Alphabet wrote: »

The brow raising part in that case,the judge said neither of them groomed or enticed the boy,but in eyes of law it was still wrong,i think the police would had took another approach if the boy met someone his own age,the age of consent is 17 for male and female in this country *its amazing how many ppl on boards thinks its 16.

I was referring to the age of consent in Israel in case there was any confusion there.
But you are right, there is a huge amount of ignorance about the age of consent in Ireland. Many people hear 16 in British media and television and presume that it is the same here.

7sr2z3fely84g5

Lola92 wrote: »

I was referring to the age of consent in Israel in case there was any confusion there.

Apologies .

TryItMyWay

northkildare wrote: »

DN offered to pay the child so he aint all that bad, DN has done some great things like civil rights and the fight to allow us adopt children.

As for the 15 and 40yr old, try go on the gay scene and youl see it aint that big a deal, Most of the 40yr olds on the scene are very good to the younger

This is nothing to do with attacking people who are gay.

A man in his 40s who sleeps with a boy OR girl of 15 is profoundly wrong.

What bond or relationship, what can they have in common. It is simply someone middle aged using a teenager for sexual gratification. It is profoundly disturbing and disguisting to anyone who is a parent, I am sure that there are many gay men who are also revolted by it as they are straight people.

A direct approach has been taken to those Roman Catholic priests who engaged in rape and statutory rape.

If this indeeed an accepted norm for many in the Dublin gay scene then they should reflect on the fact that those who are middle aged and use teenagers for sex are foul human beings and they they should be rooted out and prosecuted just as those who broke the law and were clerics were.

They are clearly unfit to be engaged in professions that place teenagers in their care and letting such scum have a 'scene' or be an accepted part of a gay pride march just means that (if true) the Gay community in Dublin has far bigger issues to tackle and deal with than David Norris carrer.

Someone who is 15 is still developing mentally and physcially and should be focused on their education and peer group and not have their developmental years disturbed by some old creep using them for sex, to someone of 15 a person in their 40s is an authority figure.

Equally a woman in their 40s having sex with a 15 year old boy is creepy, wierd, illegal and utterly unacceptable.

David Norris per say in his letter seems to be a self promoting, egotistical and narcissistic fool. I believe the senate should be abolished, anyway who has viewed it on television and sees it as of worth should pay for it and leave the rest of us be. The manner of election is profoundly undemocratic and inspired by fascist Italy, that David Norris is willing to interfere in a criminal case in a foreign juristiction that Ireland has diplomatic relations with outside of official channels and on the tax payers letter head is beyond disgracful.

That he feels in any way such action was acceptable then he should have least have done in in a manner that in no way related his public office to the private matter.

Clearly our country has a LONG way to go in all areas of society, gay, straught, Catholic and atheist to realise our duty is to PROTECT children and leave them their childhoods there is enough time in adult life for the modern obsession with sex.


David Norris is utterly unacceptable to represent the country and furthermore should resign his senate seat.

Those who support him 'no matter what' because of his sexuality are blind to the fact that we would be internationally associated as a nation further with child abuse by electing him and would be sending a signal to all those who see teenagers as 'fair game' dispite that they are children that our society will toletate it.

Personally the pompous buffonery inheirent in his letter (most votes in the Senate?????) means he should be kicked to touch for the shallow narcissist he is who has played and used those who share his sexuality to build himself a nice little earner.....

Pompey Magnus

PK2008 wrote: »

I was only going to vote for him cos he's gay and I would feel all modern

Well as seemingly the majority of Irish people went from the arms of the medieval mindset of the Catholic Church to become fond of a man who appears to have landed here from the Victorian period it certainly is progress, I wouldn't say there is an awful lot "modern" about Norris though.

ixoy

TryItMyWay wrote: »

If this indeeed an accepted norm for many in the Dublin gay scene then they should reflect on the fact that those who are middle aged and use teenagers for sex are foul human beings and they they should be rooted out and prosecuted just as those who broke the law and were clerics were.

It's not anywhere close to normal. It's as abnormal as anywhere else and righly so - gay people react with the same disgust as anyone with such abuses.
Northkildare is a troll - I've already had to delete its posts from the LGBT forum for transphobia. Ignore it and don't let it twist people's views.

TryItMyWay

ixoy wrote: »

It's not anywhere close to normal. It's as abnormal as anywhere else and righly so - gay people react with the same disgust as anyone with such abuses.
Northkildare is a troll - I've already had to delete its posts from the LGBT forum for transphobia. Ignore it and don't let it twist people's views.

I personally found it very very hard to believe that the vast majority of gay men would not be horrified to see themselves being classified as chid abusers.

To keep on topic. My two cents on David Norris (which has notging to do with sexuality)
David Norris per say in his letter seems to be a self promoting, egotistical and narcissistic fool. I believe the senate should be abolished, anyway who has viewed it on television and sees it as of worth should pay for it and leave the rest of us be. The manner of election is profoundly undemocratic and inspired by fascist Italy, that David Norris is willing to interfere in a criminal case in a forgeign juristiction that Ireland has diplomatic relations with outside of official channels and on the tax payers letter head is beyond disgraceful. That such a self promoting, wittering, ivory tower looser should represent millions of people who have had to work so that their money should be taken from them to fund his windbaggery is a surreal nightmare. I don't give a rats ass WHAT he does with his cock, he's entirely representative of the narrow, over paid, egomanic culture within Irish university lecture culture, which for far too long has provided huge salaries and concealed drunks, dossers and con artists.

That he feels in any way such action was acceptable then he should have least have done in in a manner that in no way related his public office to the private matter.

". “At the recent election held last month, I received the highest vote ever recorded in the Senate, being elected on the first count, and have been widely mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in the forthcoming elections for the presidency of Ireland.”


What an ass. Lets look at his 'Senate' shall we?

From wikpedia
"Seanad Éireann consists of sixty senators:
Eleven appointed by the Taoiseach (prime minister).
Six elected by the graduates of certain Irish universities: Three by graduates of the University of Dublin.
Three by graduates of the National University of Ireland.

43 elected from five special panels of nominees (known as Vocational Panels) by an electorate consisting of TDs (member of Dáil Éireann), senators and local councillors. Nomination is restrictive for the panel seats with only Oireachtas members and designated 'nominating bodies' entitled to nominate. Each of the five panels consists, in theory, of individuals possessing special knowledge of, or experience in, one of five specific fields. In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates: Administrative Panel: Public administration and social services (including the voluntary sector).
Agricultural Panel: Agriculture and the fisheries.
Cultural and Educational Panel: Education, the arts, the Irish language and Irish culture and literature.
Industrial and Commercial Panel: Industry and commerce (including engineering and architecture).
Labour Panel: Labour (organised or otherwise).
"


So who got to vote for him? Graduates of TCD. Very democratic, that this those graduates of TCD who could be bothered to vote for what is one of the most idiotic institutions in the Irish republic, a virtually powerless and extraordinary low calibre second chamber that was inspired by facist italy....stuffed full of the leftovers, relatives and self promoting scumbags that the public democratically rejects and yet still find a way for the public purse to fund their narcissitic 'status' building. In a time when we need every penny we have for services for the poor and the disabled their take OUR money and sit there, so blind as they cannot see what a shower of rotten bastards they are?


The other alternatives are equally bad - career politicians and self promoters who I would not hire to shine shoes let alone represent me to the world..

thebaz

Surely the people of Ireland are not stupid eneogh to vote in David Norris as our National ambassador - do the honourable thing David, and stand down, with a little dignity