David Norris for President....would you vote for him?

My name is URL wrote: »

What revelations were made on the Doe Juffy Show?

A journalist, Helen Lucy Burke, was on saying how she had interviewed DN in 2002 where he had endorsed pedophilia and incest. DN refuted the claims saying he was taken out of context and that it was a conversation they were having on ancient Greece. A journalist from the Sunday Times came on to criticise the Mary Lucy Burke one on her journalistic integrity. IShe has been challenged to produce the tape of the interview which she claims she still has but is not sure if it will work as its old.

If theres a pod cast of that section of the show, it is worth a listen.

tayto lover wrote: »

http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/
He would not have been getting my vote anyway but if his views on paedophilia are true, and he did not deny the comments, he will lose out big time.
Why did he not go on the show and deny them ?

He denied them many years ago, in a full and frank interview with another paper, and explained how his comments were taken out of context, and words twisted. since google is your friend, look it up.

David Norris? Wonderful Man. Intelligent, articulate and honest. What more could anyone hope for? I refuse to listen to any smear campaigns which they are trying to link to him. I would vote for him as president, prime minister and king of Ireland all rolled into one.

tayto lover wrote: »

So after today's revelations on the Joe Duffy Show how many of you would still vote for him ?

What revelations? That he's gay? Never knew that, really I didn't :pac:

In answer to your question, yes I'd still vote for him, nothing has changed, he's the right man for the job!

I'm assuming your talking about the attack on him made by some woman that apparently had "no agenda"? (I didn't hear it, just read about it)

I seen this, and it just makes me realise how pathetic and how scared people who don't like him (possibly hate) him really are

http://www.norrisforpresident.ie/askdavid/magill-magazine-2002

This election should be fought on a level playing field. David Norris isn't 'creating' dirt on other candidates, just shows how much class the guy has, and I doubt he'll resort to the same tactics

Senator David Norris finds the abuse of children "absolutely abhorrent", he has said. Responding to an article in yesterday's Ireland On Sunday, he said he did not defend incest or paedophilia.

On RT Radio's Sunday Show, he said the article - which drew on an earlier interview with him in this month's edition of Magill - took quotes "out of context"...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-24607678.html

That article is dated 2002, that the issue is being dredged up as part of a smear campaign is insane, its also pretty damn insulting in that it plays on the idiotic notion some people have that gay = paedophile.

annascott wrote: »

David Norris? Wonderful Man. Intelligent, articulate and honest. What more could anyone hope for? I refuse to listen to any smear campaigns which they are trying to link to him. I would vote for him as president, prime minister and king of Ireland all rolled into one.

He'd get my vote too, for all the reasons you gave. I'd add to that a compassionate and erudite man of good integrity.
Thank fook the likes of Bertie Ahern, who is none of those things is not running after all.
Dodged a bullet there!

tayto lover wrote: »

If she comes up with the tape she claims to have will you then believe it ?

If she comes up with the tape, it will let us hear the context of the discussion, and not her interpretation of the context. There's an important difference.

RachaelVO wrote: »

YES!!! Thank you, I was trying to find a way to phrase it. That's exactly how ignorant this smear campaign actually is!

I cannot believe they keep dragging this stuff up. First it was the 1916 rebels being terrorists, which he NEVER said, and it was retracted in the paper (can't remember which one). Now this sh1te! They (whoever they are), are clearly worried sick we might just have someone who will make a great president!

"They" are too busy judging him on poor assumptions made over his accent, mannerisms and sexuality to go so far as to judge him on his merits from what I can see...

tayto lover wrote: »

If she comes up with the tape she claims to have will you then believe it ?

So you believe it without any proof? When not only all other interviews, but also the man's actions show him to believe the exact opposite?

Well, in fact, I’m just back from a visit to Thailand where we were looking at the situation of HIV and the trafficking of women and children for sexual purposes. I was asked to be the leader of that group. And I was responsible and successful as that leader. Then I come home to this.

- Norris after the original scandal 2002.
http://joejacksonjournalist.com/2010/09/06/david-norris-the-joe-jackson-interview/

RachaelVO wrote: »

YES!!! Thank you, I was trying to find a way to phrase it. That's exactly how ignorant this smear campaign actually is!

smear campaign maybe - but if he said it then he shouldn't be president.
So what if the articles are 9 years old - I wouldn't care if he was filling in on george hook what his view were - but as president then I think they (if true) are relevant.

tayto lover wrote: »

Well how would this statement make you think ? Its an extract-

"Now again, this is not something that appeals to me, although when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life - yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that.".

Its a few sentences taken from an entire conversation, and all he says is (and I'm reading slightly between the lines here), is that as a young gay man he would have like to have had some older male guidance. Someone to help him through what has to be the difficulties of being a gay man in what was undoubtedly "staunchly catholic" Ireland. Someone he could have had a trusting safe relationship!

Yeah, that's very questionable :rolleyes:

feelingstressed wrote: »

To answer the OP, I wouldn't vote for him

But not over this.
I've been waiting for Michael D since 2004. Met him often around Galway and was always impressed

There's a few posts in this large thread however if you oppose Norris you must live outside Dublin and you're probably a bigot. :rolleyes:

+1 to all of that. I think Higgins would make a great president. He's reserved, stately and doesn't speak out of turn.

I don't dislike Norris, in fact I greatly admire his outspokenness and honesty. I just think he'd be wasted in the role of President of Ireland, where he simply would not be allowed to speak out against the government etc, due to the 'separation of powers'. I'd much sooner see him in a position where he could make change happen rather than in the ceremonial role of president.