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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
As these comments by David Norris true?
-
28-09-2011 11:23pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Having read and re-read this article, I am surprised to find so much in it that is complimentary to David Norris - looking at the various reactions by different commentators and posters on various internet sites, one would imagine that the article was a complete hatchet job and one that was focussed on one thing : that is demonising David Norris. The reality seems to be compeletely different, for example consider the passage where she refers to his passioante campaigns where " the common theme being the protection of the underdog "phantom_lord wrote: »I think you're better off reading the full article in context.
And I have also noticed that the author refers to the first meeting she had with David Norris when he showed her around his house 25 years previousily. Maybe it is time this article was analysed properly and then any or all of the different comments over a wide range of issues can be properly placed in context. And I have to say that many of the comments made by HLB re-inforce comments made both by Mr Norris and his supporters about his human righst campaigning.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Mr Norris contributed tot he Sex Offenders Bill 2000, Committee stage so his comments may shed light on some of the questions asked here and are of course part of the public record for Seanad eireann My 30, 2001:
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2001/05/30/00006.asp#N14
...
Mr. Norris: <A href="http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=1&HouseNum=23&MemberID=1758">
<A href="http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2001/05/30/member1758.asp">
<A name=N29>
I know Senator Henry mentioned it, but only after I referred to it, and subsequently she retreated to the subject of girls.
<A name=N30>
Reference was made to public opinion and society making decisions. Society is a very complex organism. Nobody who listens to the radio or reads the newspaper can be unaware of the fact that young people of 14, 15 and 16 years – schoolgoers – seem to be routinely engaging in sexual activity, not necessarily full sexual activity. I am concerned about any measures that would marginalise young men and women, either by putting them on a list as sex offenders or by subjecting them to terms of imprisonment.
<A name=N31>
I am simply sounding an alarm bell warning that the Bill must reflect the reality of society as a whole and not merely consist of the aspirations of an older generation. It must reflect the reality of young people who are sexually active, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
Ms Hanafin: <A href="http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=30&MemberID=484"> <A href="http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2001/05/30/member484.asp"> <A name=N32>
I reassure Senator Norris that young men are dealt with in section 3(3)(b), which stipulates that they will be treated in the [1370] same way as young girls aged between 15 and 17 years.
Mr. Norris: <A href="http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=1&HouseNum=23&MemberID=1758"> <A href="http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2001/05/30/member1758.asp"> <A name=N33>
That is the problem. The experience of young men may be radically different from that of young women. That is why the Minister of State must be in touch with the organisations.
Ms Hanafin: <A href="http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=30&MemberID=484"> <A href="http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2001/05/30/member484.asp"> <A name=N34>
From the point of view of being an offence, which I think is Senator Norris's original question, it is in the Bill. We are not talking about changing the criminal law regarding such offences and a register. The question of consent will be examined when the discussion paper on the law on sexual offences is being considered further. Just as Senator Norris spoke of the appropriate use of words, the message today is that we should have the appropriate use of the register, which is designed to work against paedophiles and sex offenders. I thank Senator Keogh for withdrawing her amendment.
Mr. Norris: <A href="http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=1&HouseNum=23&MemberID=1758"> <A href="http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2001/05/30/member1758.asp"> <A name=N35>
Would the Minister of State be prepared to give an indication to the House that, in the framing of this kind of legislation, there will be contact with counselling organisations, particularly those for gay men? That would be very helpful.
Ms Hanafin: <A href="http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=30&MemberID=484"> <A href="http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2001/05/30/member484.asp"> <A name=N36>
The legislation is outside my remit, but I will pass on that information to the Minister for Health and Children.
<A name=N37>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
<A name=N38>Section 3 agreed to.
<A name=N39>Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
<A name=N40>0 -
-
Mr. Norris: I also oppose the amendment for some of the reasons the Minister of State has outlined but those very reasons should give us pause to consider the operation of the Bill in these terms. I have always believed, for example, that a far better way of dealing with these issues is the principle of consent. I am aware that is awkward because it would have to go to a court and a judge, or some kind of panel, would have to determine whether consent actually existed but the Minister of State said it all when she said that any of these lines are arbitrarily drawn, and when these lines are arbitrarily drawn there will be cases where moral injustice or damage is done to young people.
I notice the Minister of State referred to the girl under 15 years but this is not confined to girls. There is no recognition or understanding of the whole area of gay sexuality in the Bill and my experience of this area, in founding counselling organisations and so on, is that whether society likes it very frequently and, in most cases, viewed positively by the subject, a young gay man's experience is in partnership with somebody who is some years older and seen by the younger person as a secure and reassuring entry into the full expression of sexuality. I do not believe there is any understanding of this fact in the Bill because the Minister of State simply referred to “a girl” and that is the way in which people think. They do not accept the area of gay sexuality at all.
Even the language in which many of these matters are couched is questionable. The Minister of State spoke about the defilement of a girl. This, presumably, is something that can take place with or without consent because the girl is under a certain age. Is this language we should accept in the 21st century as appropriate to describe a consensual sexual relationship, even though I accept that parents may be concerned because of a difference in age or because they believe their child, young woman or young man, is too young to have any experience of sexuality? There is a whole area therefore that has not been taken into account by those framing the Bill.
The Government's amendment, No. 18, appears to be in the same area – I am surprised it is not linked but I am sure there is a technical reason for this – where it specifies prison terms for persons found guilty of sexual assault and so [1368] on. If somebody is under the age of 17 years, regardless of whether there is consent, in legal terms it is defined as an assault. No consent can be deemed possible by a person under a certain age so a situation may arise where the relationship is perceived by the two parties engaged in it as consenting, yet the law describes it as assault and defilement and apportions severe penalties in terms of imprisonment or the social stigma of being added to a register.
I accept the enormous public concern about this issue, especially because so much tragic information has been given to the public in the area of paedophilia. The Minister of State used the word appropriately but unfortunately often in these discussions it is not used appropriately and people assume that certain types of behaviour of which they disapprove are paedophilia when they are not. I am against the idea of arbitrary age considerations and in favour of a principle of consent. Since that appears not to be available I support the Minister of State's view.
I ask the Minister of State and her advisers to bear in mind this area. I do not ask them to necessarily take what I say as fact but to contact those agencies that deal with young people with troubled sexuality, especially young people in the gay community who are coming to understand their sexuality. I also ask them to listen to what the people who deal with young people in this area have to say. Surprising conclusions may emerge which might affect the way these legislative provisions are framed in the future. I welcome the Minister of State's indication that this may be possible and that in future when such legislation is being framed these kinds of contacts will be made. As it is, a whole area of human sexuality is totally ignored in the consideration of this legislation.
Learn how to copy and paste properly
0 -
Apologies for first quote above from Seanad.
Below is a further commet from Mr Norris which is quite long but lays out some more of his thinking on these issues.
It would really be better if anyone interested looked at the Seanad page , via the link, itself and got a feel for the vatious questions and answers.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2001/05/30/00006.asp#N14
" I also oppose the amendment for some of the reasons the Minister of State has outlined but those very reasons should give us pause to consider the operation of the Bill in these terms. I have always believed, for example, that a far better way of dealing with these issues is the principle of consent. I am aware that is awkward because it would have to go to a court and a judge, or some kind of panel, would have to determine whether consent actually existed but the Minister of State said it all when she said that any of these lines are arbitrarily drawn, and when these lines are arbitrarily drawn there will be cases where moral injustice or damage is done to young people.
<A name=N15>I notice the Minister of State referred to the girl under 15 years but this is not confined to girls. There is no recognition or understanding of the whole area of gay sexuality in the Bill and my experience of this area, in founding counselling organisations and so on, is that whether society likes it very frequently and, in most cases, viewed positively by the subject, a young gay man's experience is in partnership with somebody who is some years older and seen by the younger person as a secure and reassuring entry into the full expression of sexuality. I do not believe there is any understanding of this fact in the Bill because the Minister of State simply referred to “a girl” and that is the way in which people think. They do not accept the area of gay sexuality at all.
<A name=N16>Even the language in which many of these matters are couched is questionable. The Minister of State spoke about the defilement of a girl. This, presumably, is something that can take place with or without consent because the girl is under a certain age. Is this language we should accept in the 21st century as appropriate to describe a consensual sexual relationship, even though I accept that parents may be concerned because of a difference in age or because they believe their child, young woman or young man, is too young to have any experience of sexuality? There is a whole area therefore that has not been taken into account by those framing the Bill.
<A name=N17>The Government's amendment, No. 18, appears to be in the same area – I am surprised it is not linked but I am sure there is a technical reason for this – where it specifies prison terms for persons found guilty of sexual assault and so [1368] on. If somebody is under the age of 17 years, regardless of whether there is consent, in legal terms it is defined as an assault. No consent can be deemed possible by a person under a certain age so a situation may arise where the relationship is perceived by the two parties engaged in it as consenting, yet the law describes it as assault and defilement and apportions severe penalties in terms of imprisonment or the social stigma of being added to a register.
<A name=N18>I accept the enormous public concern about this issue, especially because so much tragic information has been given to the public in the area of paedophilia. The Minister of State used the word appropriately but unfortunately often in these discussions it is not used appropriately and people assume that certain types of behaviour of which they disapprove are paedophilia when they are not. I am against the idea of arbitrary age considerations and in favour of a principle of consent. Since that appears not to be available I support the Minister of State's view.
<A name=N19>I ask the Minister of State and her advisers to bear in mind this area. I do not ask them to necessarily take what I say as fact but to contact those agencies that deal with young people with troubled sexuality, especially young people in the gay community who are coming to understand their sexuality. I also ask them to listen to what the people who deal with young people in this area have to say. Surprising conclusions may emerge which might affect the way these legislative provisions are framed in the future. I welcome the Minister of State's indication that this may be possible and that in future when such legislation is being framed these kinds of contacts will be made. As it is, a whole area of human sexuality is totally ignored in the consideration of this legislation. "0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement