Norris tape to be broadcast at 2:30pm (Oct 21)

alastair

anymore wrote: »

Problem is you are not quoting her at all !!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you need a second run at it? I'd have thought the quotemarks were the giveaway?

"Anyone who endorses sex between parents and children is not a suitable person for the presidency. We would be the laughing stock and the disgust of Europe"

There's your deluded rant in a nutshell - any justification for that nonsense evident in the partial recording?

alastair

Godge wrote: »

No, I haven't. I have taken his words, as heard on the tape and reported in the media and considered the full implications.

Nah - you've simply made sh*t up, and attempted to put that sh*t in Norris' mouth. The only 'logic' at play here is the logic of smearing a man with falsehoods.

Again - Norris's actual legislative position on the age of consent and it's relationship to the principle of consent (which you've already been informed of):

Mr. Norris: The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission should be listened to. There will be further attempts at clarification and definition through the courts process. I am supported in this view by an interesting article by Carol Coulter in today’s edition of The Irish Times in which she said difficulties could also arise when the courts come to define further a person in authority. She wonders how wide the net will be flung in this area. That suggests there will be scope for the court to define things. She also points to the rather loose phrase, “for the time being”. That is fairly vague. In my opinion that will certainly come in for scrutiny.
I cannot agree with what Senator Walsh said about higher sentences because of the present framing of the law. The age of consent of 17 is, in certain circumstances, too high. Without reducing that or without examining the question of a principle of consent, which I have repeatedly urged, injustice will be done to people. I would be happy with severe stringent sentences for the kind of horrible offence for which this man has rightly been sent back to jail today by a decision of the Supreme Court. However, it is plainly wrong to, for example, to increase the penalties and make the situation more perilous for two male adolescents aged 16 and a half having an experimental sexual relationship. Due to the mix and the balance, I would not agree with higher sentencing.

Mr. Norris: I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, subsection (5), line 8, to delete “honestly” and substitute “reasonably”.
The Minister has partly answered this in his response to understanding the mind of the offender in respect of guilt and responsibility. There can be situations where an accused person tells the court he or she honestly believed the recipient of his or her intentions was of a certain age. It would be difficult to know if that belief was honestly held.
There are situations in which the defendant can state a defence of honest mistake but it may not be true. It would be much easier for a judge to determine if it was reasonable. Even if the defendant could state that he or she did not know, in some cases the defendant should have known. If we are serious about protecting children, we ought to have a situation where someone can be penalised for acting with what, at the minimum, is gross irresponsibility. That is not covered by the term “honestly”, but it would be covered by that of “reasonably”.
Mr. Norris: I move amendment No. 8:
In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
“(10) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section—
(a) where a person who has attained the age of 15 years engages or attempts to engage in a sexual act with another person who has attained that age and the difference between the ages of those persons is not greater than 2 years, neither such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section;
(b) it shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that he or she honestly believed that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, each of the persons concerned had attained the age of 15 and that the difference between the ages of those persons was not greater than 2 years;
(c) where, in proceedings for an offence under this section, it falls to the court to consider whether the defendant honestly held the belief referred to in paragraph (b), the court shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the defendant’s so believing and all other relevant circumstances.” .
This goes to the heart of the question of age. It is quite wrong to enact criminal penalties and terms of imprisonment for young consenting people. It flies in the face of the lived reality of this Republic’s people. We are criminalising people who are not criminals.
I feel very strongly about the case of gay people in this age group. I have wide experience through national organisations and counselling services. When this legislation is reviewed, it is terribly important that the Government consult the gay community and its organisations. I have come across injustice in this area before. I dealt with a case where a man had a sexual relationship not with an under age person but with someone who was slightly mentally handicapped. He was sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment. The degree of mental handicap was marginal and the man was well capable of giving consent. It transpired subsequently that this young man had distributed his favours fairly widely around the city and had made a practice of attempting to blackmail people, which he had done successfully on other occasions. However, the person who was sent to jail simply refused to cough up. This is just an illustration which is not directly related to the Bill but analogous.
Criminalising two people between the ages of 15 and 17 and sending at least one to jail, or both in the case of gay persons, is a complete nonsense. One difficulty of this type of legislation is that it is being introduced in a period of heightened emotions. Unfortunately there is also an element of partisanship and political point-scoring. The age of consent is far too important a matter to be made the substance of political point-scoring or partisanship of any kind because it affects all citizens.
I must acknowledge that I filched this amendment from the other House because I believed it was good. I should have removed the word “honestly” and substituted “reasonably” but I failed to do so.

Side Show Bob

nesf wrote: »

You think fondling a child is as serious as raping and then murdering a child? What whacked out nutjob world do you live on?

The end result may not be as "serious" but it's equally wrong!

MOSSAD

Someone obviously doesn't want a gay guy in the Aras...

thebman

TBH the tape paints her in a bad light as does her comments and timing in finding the tape.

There really is not much of a smoking gun here.

I won't be voting for him though because when she started this interview and lead it down this road, he should have just got up and walked out on her.

I only listened to the youtube clip but it seems to me the tape goes on for longer but she cut it off too. Maybe the rest of it doesn't suit her agenda.

I think the only people would be put off voting for Norris over this, already aren't voting for him and never were going to vote for him.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Nah - you've simply made sh*t up, and attempted to put that sh*t in Norris' mouth. The only 'logic' at play here is the logic of smearing a man with falsehoods.

Again - Norris's actual legislative position on the age of consent and it's relationship to the principle of consent (which you've already been informed of):

Bertie had a 'legislative position' on corruption too. Didn't much matter to him in real life did it?
I don't think what he did in the Senate is really relevant when assessing what his 'real' beliefs are.
Taking the tape and the content of the letter we know about and allowing for some conjecture on what the other letters contain then he certainly needs to answer in much more detail just what his stances are.

Solair

I'm actually at the stage, I'm not even sure if I'll bother voting.
I don't feel remotely inspired by any of the candidates.
I might vote for M.D. but, I just found the whole campaign really dirty, mucky, chaotic, massively drawn out and it nearly turned me off politics entirely.

I'd say it'll be a case of only marking 1 preference on the ballot. To be quite honest, I am more motivated to go vote in the referenda than I am in the presidential election. Although, according to the referendum commission's adverts, I am apparently voting on ice cream sprinkles

It was totally uninspirational and I think the presidency will be an irrelevancy after it.

Also, I think Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese were the exception rather than the rule, I just feel the presidency is now going to slip back into the old boring gig that it was in the past. Both of them had an exceptional dignity and gravitas which I am really not seeing in any of the candidates at the moment. They are ENORMOUS boots to fill.

As for Norris, I have no issue with his sexual orientation or anything else about him. But, I just find him extremely pompous and it's not because of his upbringing or background either. It's just the fact that he comes across like a 19th century actor of some sort. He's entertaining and very lively, but needs to be viewed/listened to in short doses!

anymore

I dealt with a case where a man had a sexual relationship not with an under age person but with someone who was slightly mentally handicapped. He was sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment. The degree of mental handicap was marginal and the man was well capable of giving consent. It transpired subsequently that this young man had distributed his favours fairly widely around the city and had made a practice of attempting to blackmail people, which he had done successfully on other occasions. However, the person who was sent to jail simply refused to cough up. This is just an illustration which is not directly related to the Bill but analogous

Is this what legislation is to be based on ? Anecdotal tales, unsubstantiated by any facts, and which is " just an illustration which is not directly related to the Bill but analogous " ?
It might be worth pointing in realtion to the Israeli, Mr Norris refusing to reveal the letters and information contained therein.
And what is Mr Norris's attitude to mentally handicapped ?

nesf

Side Show Bob wrote: »

The end result may not be as "serious" but it's equally wrong!

No. They're both wrong and both need to be punished but raping a child is a lot worse than fondling one. Same as beating a child and murdering a child are both wrong but markedly different in terms of which is worse.

anymore

nesf wrote: »

No. They're both wrong and both need to be punished but raping a child is a lot worse than fondling one. Same as beating a child and murdering a child are both wrong but markedly different in terms of which is worse.

It seems to me you are both essentially saying that there is a difference in degree of severity and both are crimes. I tihink we can all agree on that ?

nesf

anymore wrote: »

It seems to me you are both essentially saying that there is a difference in degree of severity and both are crimes. I tihink we can all agree on that ?

Which is what Norris said.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't think what he did in the Senate is really relevant when assessing what his 'real' beliefs are.

Ah right - he's beholden to his party. Oh wait....

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Ah right - he's beholden to his party. Oh wait....

Sigh......no, he needn't be beholden to anything but his image of himself as a crusading reformer.......let's try a priest analogy...they say a lot of things in public but in fact believe and do the opposite in private. Do I need to give you examples?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sigh......no, he needn't be beholden to anything but his image of himself as a crusading reformer.......let's try a priest analogy...they say a lot of things in public but in fact believe and do the opposite in private. Do I need to give you examples?

So, your premis is that Norris has a secret private life, with different attitudes that have some unique and special insight into? Best of luck with that.

Godge

alastair wrote: »

So, your premis is that Norris has a secret private life, with different attitudes that have some unique and special insight into? Best of luck with that.

No, that is not his premise, you are twisting again.

What he is saying, (and it is pretty clear to me) is that while Norris may say one thing in the Seanad (just like you quoted to me earlier) his true beliefs may be seen from a more relaxed chat such as the dinner with HLB (which you were trying unsuccessfully to rebut).

To put it another way, in the Seanad, he is on his guard, appearing reasonable and pushing the agenda slightly in the direction he wants to go. Off camera, he reveals his true beliefs. Now, before you jump down my throat, I know a few politicians and the same is true of them, one thing in public, another behind closed doors.

Norris is probably unfortunate in one sense, HLB and others had heard his private views and were appalled and felt compelled to reveal them just as some of his campaign team felt compelled to resign. As strange as say MDH's private views and behaviour might be, they are unlikely to appal people in the same way.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

So, your premis is that Norris has a secret private life, with different attitudes that have some unique and special insight into? Best of luck with that.

:rolleyes: It wasn't complicated enough to be a premise Alastair it was a simple observation that what he does in the Senate may not be what he actually believes. The existence of the unpublished letters, this interview, the published letter all point to that being the case.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes: It wasn't complicated enough to be a premise Alastair it was a simple observation that what he does in the Senate may not be what he actually believes. The existence of the unpublished letters, this interview, the published letter all point to that being the case.

Absolute nonsense. There's nothing in the published letters or interview that suggest any such thing, and as we all know, you've no idea what's stated in the unpublished letters, but logic suggests it's the same as the content of the published letters.

alastair

Godge wrote: »

What he is saying, (and it is pretty clear to me) is that while Norris may say one thing in the Seanad (just like you quoted to me earlier) his true beliefs may be seen from a more relaxed chat such as the dinner with HLB (which you were trying unsuccessfully to rebut).

To put it another way, in the Seanad, he is on his guard, appearing reasonable and pushing the agenda slightly in the direction he wants to go. Off camera, he reveals his true beliefs..

"off camera" eh, as in an interview for a national political magazine? Yeah that makes sense. Oh wait....

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. There's nothing in the published letters or interview that suggest any such thing, and as we all know, you've no idea what's stated in the unpublished letters, but logic suggests it's the same as the content of the published letters.

How is it nonsense?
He spouts about victim welfare in the Senate but totally ignores the victim in his letter? He spouts about the integrity of office but has no problem writing several letters that have to be 'protected' by legal eagles because as his resigned team and (for want of a better word) 'journalist' Joe Jackson state these unpublished letters contain far worse.
If these letters can't be released then he can't be President..end of, and the electorate, thankfully, seem to agree.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

How is it nonsense?
He spouts about victim welfare in the Senate but totally ignores the victim in his letter? He spouts about the integrity of office but has no problem writing several letters that have to be 'protected' by legal eagles because as his resigned team and (for want of a better word) 'journalist' Joe Jackson state these unpublished letters contain far worse.
If these letters can't be released then he can't be President..end of, and the electorate, thankfully, seem to agree.

The letters were not about the victim, who we should remember, was on Norris's side regarding sentencing. The letters followed on from a guilty plea by Ezra - and related to Ezra only. Norris was certainly acting in the welfare of the victim, who wanted no custodial sentence for Ezra.

Joe Jackson never said anything about the content of the unpublished letters. And unless you believe that Norris had some juicy tittle-tattle to share with McAleese etc, they simply would reiterate the content of the published letters.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The letters were not about the victim, who we should remember, was on Norris's side regarding sentencing. The letters followed on from a guilty plea by Ezra - and related to Ezra only. Norris was certainly acting in the welfare of the victim, who wanted no custodial sentence for Ezra.

Joe Jackson never said anything about the content of the unpublished letters. And unless you believe that Norris had some juicy tittle-tattle to share with McAleese etc, they simply would reiterate the content of the published letters.

The letter ranged across many things including a cingeworthy display of the egotism of the writer (presidential aspirations, his perception of his stature etc) the Irish justice system, the Israeli justice system, all sorts of irrelevancies etc etc but NOT a mention the victim....despite the fact that under Israeli law he was a 'victim' regardless of what he thought himself...it's just another example of this man's arrogance that HE decided that he 'wasn't a victim?' :eek: Remember Norris apologised for that oversight too.


If you cannot see how wrong that was, that this man seems to see no boundaries when it comes to getting what he wants then I can only assume you are part of that deluded hysterical chorus of support who ultimately and insolently think that this man is not going to be President simply because he is gay. It's time to smell the coffee and mature a bit. It's not X-Factor.

alastair

So - you conveniently ignore that both Norris and the victim were singing from the same hymnsheet - the claim that Norris's letter (not about the victim, remember, but about Ezra) somehow didn't account for the welfare of the victim is a fiction. The victim was in an ongoing, and by that stage, legal relationship with Ezra.

As for the rest of your tirade? Whatever.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

So - you conveniently ignore that both Norris and the victim were singing from the same hymnsheet - the claim that Norris's letter (not about the victim, remember, but about Ezra) somehow didn't account for the welfare of the victim is a fiction. The victim was in an ongoing, and by that stage, legal relationship with Ezra.

And why wouldn't that fact have been the main part of Norris's plea for clemency?

Norris instead implied that the 'victim' was the instigator, he quoted a case where a girls appearance made her appear to be older, he complained about set-ups etc. His modus operandi was to make the 'victim' look as bad as he could. In summing up he never once mentions the fact....why? .....to cynically achieve the maximum leniency for his lover/former lover of course. And he used his position as a Senator and an arrogant twerp to do it.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

And why wouldn't that fact have been the main part of Norris's plea for clemency?

Norris instead implied that the 'victim' was the instigator, he quoted a case where a girls appearance made her appear to be older, he complained about set-ups etc. His modus operandi was to make the 'victim' look as bad as he could. In summing up he never once mentions the fact....why? .....to cynically achieve the maximum leniency for his lover/former lover of course. And he used his position as a Senator and an arrogant twerp to do it.

Complete tosh. Have you actually read the letter to the judge?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Complete tosh. Have you actually read the letter to the judge?

I have and I see mention of all those cases, I see a cynical and manipulative plea for clemency in OUR names but not one mention of the victim or an ongoing relationship. Thank goodness somebody did their research and they ignored his plea to be a witness, they probably knew about Norris's relationship to the perp and that his evidence would be inadmissible or dubious.
You can spin Alastair but you cannot convince otherwise because the evidence just isn't there.

MOSSAD

Teclo wrote: »

None of the age of consent issues but hearing much of the 'classic Greek paedophile' stuff is creepy.

Norris spoke about growing up gay when there was no role model to follow and when acting on ones sexual impulse would make them a criminal.

anymore

Norris spoke about growing up gay when there was no role model to follow and when acting on ones sexual impulse would make them a criminal.

How very amusing the idea that a Trinity College english lecturer would not have been aware of Ireland's most openly gay couple McLiamoir and Hilton Edwards !
" In the 1920s he travelled all over Europe. Willmore was captivated by Irish culture: he learnt Irish which he spoke and wrote fluently in and changed his name to an Irish version, presenting himself in Ireland as a descendant of Irish Catholics. While acting in Ireland with the touring company of his brother-in-law Anew MacMaster, Mac Liammóir met his partner and lover, Hilton Edwards "

I know it doesnt quite the picture that Norris like to paint, but Dublin of all places in irealnd was where a gay person growing up have had the cahnce to be aware of gay people. After all what is one of the things that famous protestant boarding schools are famous for ??????

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have and I see mention of all those cases, I see a cynical and manipulative plea for clemency in OUR names but not one mention of the victim or an ongoing relationship. Thank goodness somebody did their research and they ignored his plea to be a witness, they probably knew about Norris's relationship to the perp and that his evidence would be inadmissible or dubious.
You can spin Alastair but you cannot convince otherwise because the evidence just isn't there.

Again - for those slow on the uptake - the victim didn't want a custodial sentence for Ezra - the nonsense that the victim was being blamed by Norris is laughable - Norris knew very well the nature of the relationship between Ezra and Fuad - an ongoing and consensual one. Norris's character reference for Ezra was certainly admissible, and his points in relation to the victim impact statement stand regardless of whatever you think about Norris's relationship to Ezra. The implication of a trap set for Ezra have nothing to do with Fuad - it relates to his parents (and the likelyhood that the Israeli authorities might relish some difficulties for Ezra) - not him.

Maybe if you acquainted yourself with the actual facts of the case you'd be a bit less eager to paint Norris as having no regard for the victim, and 'implying' that he 'instigated' anything.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Again - for those slow on the uptake - the victim didn't want a custodial sentence for Ezra - the nonsense that the victim was being blamed by Norris is laughable - Norris knew very well the nature of the relationship between Ezra and Fuad - an ongoing and consensual one. Norris's character reference for Ezra was certainly admissible, and his points in relation to the victim impact statement stand regardless of whatever you think about Norris's relationship to Ezra. The implication of a trap set for Ezra have nothing to do with Fuad - it relates to his parents (and the likelyhood that the Israeli authorities might relish some difficulties for Ezra) - not him.

Maybe if you acquainted yourself with the actual facts of the case you'd be a bit less eager to paint Norris as having no regard for the victim, and 'implying' that he 'instigated' anything.

Ach deal with the issues Alastair, stop evading like Norris himself. I understand the facts, the whole country understands the facts and we know spin when we see it and with Norris we got to see him spinning facts on 3 occasions and there is more out there. Last night he was 'himself', a joker on the sidelines. He had long since gone down in a ball of bull****ting flame.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ach deal with the issues Alastair, stop evading like Norris himself. I understand the facts, the whole country understands the facts and we know spin when we see it and with Norris we got to see him spinning facts on 3 occasions and there is more out there. Last night he was 'himself', a joker on the sidelines. He had long since gone down in a ball of bull****ting flame.

I'm not the one evading the facts here. If you put BS out there, you'll get called on it. Norris didn't blame the victim - that's a fiction of your creation - nothing more.