Is David Norris Toast?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 30-05-2011 11:19PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Look up what classical pederasty is.

Pederasty in ancient Greece was a socially acknowledged relationship between an adult and a younger male usually in his teens.[1] It was characteristic of the Archaic and Classical periods.[2] Some scholars locate its origin in initiation ritual, particularly rites of passage on Crete, where it was associated with entrance into military life and the religion of Zeus.[3]

I don't see the issue here. sex with teens above 16 is legal in most countries and younger in some.

30-05-2011 11:24PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I don't have a homophobic bone in my body, nor is it fair to say that questioning things which Norris has said is in any way showing any acceptance of homophobia.

So you are saying that the woman in question is homophobic? Any evidence of that?

To answer your 2nd question,probably in my considered view yes.
In relation to your first point,you may not have but you are going on with much a do about nothing here for someone that doesn't.

If you were a student,I'd be suggesting it would be more in your line concentrating on assignments or something,just as it would be more in my line not to feel the need to be stating the obvious here over and over.

Wolfe Tone · 30-05-2011 11:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

To answer your 2nd question,probably in my considered view yes.

Why? Considering she says she both aided and donated to help Norris in his campaign to change the law regarding to homosexuality? What evidence do you have to back up your claim that Helen Lucy Burke is homophobic?

In relation to your first point,you may not have but you are going on with much a do about nothing here for someone that doesn't.

There is no "may" about it. I am not homophobic or prejudiced against homosexuals in any way.

tayto lover · 30-05-2011 11:35PM

Many of the people who take exception with articles putting Norris down are fairly quick at putting others down.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 30-05-2011 11:35PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why? Considering she says she both aided and donated to help Norris in his campaign to change the law regarding to homosexuality? What evidence do you have to back up your claim that Helen Lucy Burke is homophobic?

There is no "may" about it. I am not homophobic or prejudiced against homosexuals in any way.

She didn't appear homophobic to me but it is clear she doesn't like norris and I'm not sure its because of these comments.

She's either

drawing the conclusion he condones sex with minors despite him saying in the same interview that penetration of juveniles was wrong

or

She doesn't like him for another reason and is misrepresenting him.

The first means she's very very dim. The second means she has an agenda.

later12 · 30-05-2011 11:51PM

Wow. Have to agree with the poster who pointed out that if this were a priest, there would be a national furore.

I do not see any context in which some of these comments which have supposedly been made by Senator David Norris could be seen as acceptable. He doesn't actually seem to be denying the comments themselves, which is a little disconcerting to be honest.

I think this will damage his bid.

Godge · 30-05-2011 11:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh?
Nowhere does Norris say he believes in paedophilia.
Show me where he does.Kindly get your facts straight,pardon the pun.

There is however a complete attempt by this woman and no doubt with Noris haters in the background to discredit him by spinning an article in frankly a perverse direction.
I had to laugh when she was saying that 9 yrs ago when she read the article out to him over the phone,he said great well done or words to that effect.
She didn't give him a written copy of it,I'll bet she deliberately gave him the rushed version over the phone at the time,to cover her arse in printing the article.
And of course now her norris hating,homophobic beliefs are to the fore again as she digs it up to spread some uber catholic fascist agenda.

Thats what I think.

I think she also said that when he got back from Thailand he bought a copy of the magazine, read the article and again rang her to thank her for representing his views accurately.

According to her, the denials only started after the tabloids got hold of the article.

And as other posters point out she confirmed on radio that she had contributed to Norris' campaigns for the reform of the homosexuality laws.

Is it possible for someone to criticise Norris' views on sexuality and sex with teenagers without being called homophobic?

Godge · 30-05-2011 11:56PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

She didn't appear homophobic to me but it is clear she doesn't like norris and I'm not sure its because of these comments.

She's either

drawing the conclusion he condones sex with minors despite him saying in the same interview that penetration of juveniles was wrong

or

She doesn't like him for another reason and is misrepresenting him.

The first means she's very very dim. The second means she has an agenda.

"Sex with minors" and "penetration of juveniles" are two different things. There are many people who were scarred by sexual molesters when they were young in experiences that were not consensual but also did not involve penetration. By carefully phrasing his words the second time, is Norris saying that non-penetrative sexual relations with children is ok?

later12 · 30-05-2011 11:56PM

Joe Jackson called this slanderous in his article... which brings up the question, if this is an inaccurate and damaging portrayal of what Norris said, then why did Norris never sue?

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 12:00AM

What many posters seem to be missing is the fact that children under the age of 17 cannot consent to any form of sex.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 31-05-2011 12:00AM

Godge wrote: »

"Sex with minors" and "penetration of juveniles" are two different things. There are many people who were scarred by sexual molesters when they were young in experiences that were not consensual but also did not involve penetration. By carefully phrasing his words the second time, is Norris saying that non-penetrative sexual relations with children is ok?

He didnt say sex with minors - the journalist made it up in reference to another thing he said.

My query is how could she genuinely believe he was condoning sex with minors when he said in the same interview he thinks penetrating a juvenile is wrong and damaging?

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:01AM

tayto lover wrote: »

What many posters seem to be missing is the fact that children under the age of 17 cannot consent to any form of sex.

who mentioned 17?

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:02AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

He didnt say sex with minors - the journalist made it up in reference to another thing he said.

My query is how could she genuinely believe he was condoning sex with minors when he said in the same interview he thinks penetrating a juvenile is wrong and damaging?

Didnt he say boys and men?

And there are more ways of engaging in sexual relations than penetration. That does not make it better.

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 12:02AM

later10 wrote: »

who mentioned 17?

Its the law.

Icepick · 31-05-2011 12:04AM

later10 wrote: »

Wow. Have to agree with the poster who pointed out that if this were a priest, there would be a national furore.

Where is the uproar?
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/abuse-by-us-catholic-church-peaked-in-70s-505439.html

"Although the victims studied by the researchers were all legally minors, the authors said only a tiny percentage of accused priests - less than 5% - could be technically defined as paedophiles.

The John Jay researchers define paedophile as an adult with an intense sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

However, victim advocates have disputed that classification, since boys aged 10-14 were the largest group of known victims, which could include children who had not yet gone through adolescence."

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:07AM

Icepick wrote: »

Where is the uproar?
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/abuse-by-us-catholic-church-peaked-in-70s-505439.html

"Although the victims studied by the researchers were all legally minors, the authors said only a tiny percentage of accused priests - less than 5% - could be technically defined as paedophiles.

The John Jay researchers define paedophile as an adult with an intense sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

However, victim advocates have disputed that classification, since boys aged 10-14 were the largest group of known victims, which could include children who had not yet gone through adolescence."

Yes but they are not saying that there is something to be said for it. They are just explaining a technical difference, not excusing it. Not in the same league at all as what DN has supposedly said.

Noodleworm · 31-05-2011 12:16AM

Ive seen the guy in public and he really is just very chatty, I really believe thats what happened. I can't really get any sense of anything wrong from what he says in the article.
He speaks hypothetically of Greece, and then talks about how its wrong, even though a younger him would have liked it. Thats no different to an adult saying its wrong for an attractive 30 year old woman to sleep with a 15 year old boy, the kid would probably like it, despite laws.

Wolfe Tone · 31-05-2011 12:17AM

"In my opinion, the teacher, or Christian Brother, who puts his hand into a boy's pocket during a history lesson, that is one end of the spectrum. but then there is another: there is the person who attacks children of either sex, rapes them, brutalises them, and then murders them. But the way things are presented here it's almost as if they were all exactly the same and I don't think they are. and I have to tell you this -- I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience."

What on earth is he saying here?

He needs to clarify what he means here as that can easily be interpreted as advocating abuse be swept under the carpet.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 31-05-2011 12:18AM

later10 wrote: »

Didnt he say boys and men?

And there are more ways of engaging in sexual relations than penetration. That does not make it better.

she said the minors part. i pointed out that statement is inconsistent with someone who says penetrating juveniles was wrong

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:22AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

she said the minors part. i pointed out that statement is inconsistent with someone who says penetrating juveniles was wrong

Yes she said minors. He said boys,, which was what I asked.

"In terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think there can be something to be said for it.

It is not necessarily inconsistent at all, one could, somehow, think that non penetrative sex were reasonable with boys.

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:24AM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What on earth is he saying here?

He needs to clarify what he means here as that can easily be interpreted as advocating abuse be swept under the carpet.

It is his silence on this which is most perplexing. What good is referring us to the Joe Jackson article (as per his website) when it does not actually explain bizarre comments like the one quoted.

Quite frankly I would have voted for David Norris last week. I would not even support his candidacy if he does not clarify this is some meaningful and credible way.

Godge · 31-05-2011 12:38AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

she said the minors part. i pointed out that statement is inconsistent with someone who says penetrating juveniles was wrong

I pointed out two pages ago that they were different things.

Being against penetrating juveniles can be consistent with sexually molesting said juveniles. For example, a 50-year old man giving a handjob to a 15-year old boy is non-penetrative sex. The point I am making is that his statement that he is against penetrating juveniles is not enough.

For a start, does he believe that the current laws in relation to consensual sex among teenagers and between teenagers and older adults are satisfactory? If not, (and I have my own doubts) what changes does he see necessary? What are his views on that Donegal poet who went to Thailand? Does he believe that non-penetrative sex between adults and teenagers is acceptable?

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:50AM

Godge wrote: »

What are his views on that Donegal poet who went to Thailand?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/norris-in-plea-for-o-searcaigh-probe-1314125.html

and from the irish times

Madam, - Last week I received a copy of the programme for the Jameson Dublin International Film Festival. The first thing that caught my eye on opening it was a sultry poster of a muscular, half-naked youth in what a friend subsequently described to me as "a classic St Sebastian pose". The film was called Fairytale of Kathmandu.

The accompanying description presented it as a documentary on the poet Cathal Ó Searcaigh. I noted it as an interesting film that I would certainly like to see.

That Saturday your Weekend Review section carried a full-page account by Kathy Sheridan of the film and the process of its making that made me wonder if in fact it was not closer to a tabloid exposé of the poet's personal life. Ironically, but perhaps appropriately, the only other material on this page was a large advertisement featuring a picture of the late Oscar Wilde.

I know Mr Ó Searcaigh slightly and have had some occasional professional dealings with him. I have always found him to be open, honourable and generous and there is no question that he is a remarkable writer and performer of poetry in the Irish language. He may also be quite literally an innocent abroad when it comes to the making of bio-pics.

On Monday the subject was being pruriently ventilated on the Joe Duffy Showon RTÉ radio. On Tuesday the story was on the one o'clock news and also again on Joe Duffy. It now appears that the video has been made selectively available to members of the press and others. The health authorities, the Rape Crisis Centre and the police have now been involved.

This all revolves around suggestions that Mr Ó Searcaigh, who has clearly been the generous benefactor of quite a number of young men in Nepal, may also have had sexual relations with some of these youths, although it is not claimed that any of them were under the Nepali age of consent. The issue of disproportionate status, although not of coercion, has been raised.

There may indeed be some questions to be clarified. However, the manner in which these issues have been sensationally presented to the Irish public could hardly be construed as being helpful. Indeed Tuesday's Live Lineshowed signs of a witch-hunt being stirred up with calls for Ó Searcaigh's poetry to be withdrawn from the Leaving Certificate syllabus and for him to be drummed out of Aosdána. I find this very sad as I had hoped that we had in recent years matured beyond this ignorant vindictiveness.

On the other hand I was very struck by the bravery of the poet Máire Mhac an tSaoi, who, although elderly and, as she indicated herself, from a rather prim background, yet refused to be cowed into joining the pack baying for Ó Searcaigh's blood.

The stirring-up of this controversy may well advance the commercial prospects of this venture but one may ask if it advances the cause of justice and fairness. There are some, apparently, who are determined to push this into the criminal arena. The waters have been very effectively muddied by the fact that Mr Ó Searcaigh has already been subjected to an extensive media trial and by the selective introduction to the public consciousness of materials that appear to be damaging. Official investigations are apparently now being carried out also in Nepal.

Some of those critical of Mr Ó Searcaigh have actually questioned whether homosexuality exists at all in Nepal. This in itself betrays a certain mindset. The youths themselves, although above the age of consent, might well find it extremely difficult to be positive even about consensual sexual activities in a country where, according to your own paper, homosexual activity between males is completely illegal.

To return to my opening point, I find it strange that a film which now appears to be in fact largely centred on allegations of what is presented to be a form of emotional, if not sexual abuse of young men should be advertised by such sultry visual materials. I have always disliked being manipulated and I will not now be paying money to see this film as I do not wish to swell the profits of those involved and I hope that other people may take a similar view.

- Yours, etc,

Senator DAVID NORRIS, Seanad Éireann, Dublin 2.

I really hope that David Norris comes out and says something dramatic to correct the Magill article with more effort than he has shown (or not shown) already. A lot of people are going to be very disappointed in a man they might previously have been happy to vote for, or indeed proud to vote for. The last thing Irish politics needs is another politician who is seen to let down his supporters.

Dub. · 31-05-2011 01:18AM

Godge wrote: »

And as other posters point out she confirmed on radio that she had contributed to Norris' campaigns for the reform of the homosexuality laws.

I don`t believe her.

hinault · 31-05-2011 01:31AM

Podcast is here.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_liveline.xml

Norris election campaign is over in my opinion.

later12 · 31-05-2011 01:33AM

Dub. wrote: »

I don`t believe her.

Why?

Wolfe Tone · 31-05-2011 01:37AM

later10 wrote: »

Why?

Her food writers guild page says she was active in the womans and equal rights movement so she has some form in that area fwiw.

mikom · 31-05-2011 01:39AM

tayto lover wrote: »

Its the law.

You'll go to your grave saying "it's the law".

later12 · 31-05-2011 01:56AM

Has everybody read the article in full as published online by politics.ie.... There are two versions of this article circulating, the long form and the short form.

I recommend you read the original long form which I suggest is actually more damning. Not only does Norris go into slightly more detail, it is coming slowly across that the journalist is quite the opposite of the hand wringing, soda bread baking Catholic who frets at liberal Ireland as she is, perhaps, being portrayed.

She praises the work that Norris has done in promoting equality and seems to like him, although she clearly takes issue with what, on the face of it, we probably all would.

Not sure if I should link the article here, but here goes.

http://pie.ie/ljk0RL

Wolfe Tone · 31-05-2011 02:45AM

1DCE5D2474614189967A61926A3A3C6C-0000333355-0002347602-01024L-D250A893D2724DD0B0B89909C03A7C46.jpg

78A3F054F1BD421B8C3CF4D08E5BEA67-0000333355-0002347601-01024L-FDF0BA51440040DEA9271A24C0F38263.jpg

FB229B96C24D46CCB1BF9AD174DCAD5B-0000333355-0002347600-00800L-57AFFA65F633437CB864BECCA0BC9C8E.jpg

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments