Is David Norris Toast?

Sunnyisland · 31-05-2011 09:17AM

After reading about the issue I shall not be voting for him as president,Imo young people should be educated through our schools about sexual relationships and not groomed by adults whether there women or men who are there for there own lust and greed.

31-05-2011 09:36AM

He'll be on liveline with Pat Kenny at 10am to rebuke that article

phantom_lord · 31-05-2011 09:38AM

He's going to be on Pat Kenny this morning at ten to discuss the issue.

Boulevardier · 31-05-2011 09:43AM

I cannot see anything particularly wrong with what Norris says in that article. I would not like to see him subjected to the same sort of sanctimonious hysteria that was levied on Cathal O Searchaigh a few yrears ago.

expectationlost · 31-05-2011 09:43AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

I cannot see anything particularly wrong with what Norris says in that article. I would not like to see him subjected to the same sort of sanctimonious hysteria that was levied on Cathal O Searchaigh a few yrears ago.

oh dear

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2011 10:00AM

We can't be having any of that durty stuff in the Áras, that's only for priests!

Sunnyisland · 31-05-2011 10:00AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

I cannot see anything particularly wrong with what Norris says in that article. I would not like to see him subjected to the same sort of sanctimonious hysteria that was levied on Cathal O Searcaigh a few years ago.

I dont agree with older more educated males/females grooming or taking advantage of much younger impressionable teens,I myself find it morally wrong & think the said people are taking advantage of other people for there own needs.

optogirl · 31-05-2011 10:02AM

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Norris is quite disgusting, hiding his sleeze behind a posh accent. If these things had been said by a bishop or priest, they would have been
denounced and rightly so. However if you try to play yourself off as an eccentric Trinners intellectual you can expect to get off with it. Says a lot about the values that the Celtic Tiger etc brought about.

Do we really want this thing to represent our country?

Apt username

mike65 · 31-05-2011 10:10AM

I wonder if HLB will come on the line to respond.

Ah! "Think twice before saying nothing" notes Pat Kenny. Norris says he's learned in the last decade.

"Academic discussion" cuts no ice David! You can see he might be a liability.

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 10:21AM

mikom wrote: »

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

Ha ha and you're probably right.

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 10:24AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

I cannot see anything particularly wrong with what Norris says in that article. I would not like to see him subjected to the same sort of sanctimonious hysteria that was levied on Cathal O Searchaigh a few yrears ago.

Oh my God are you for real or have you not respect for children if you think he was unfairly treated.

Boulevardier · 31-05-2011 10:40AM

Pederastry, unlike paedophilia, is a type of gay sexuality. If this comes under attack, the gains made by gays will be rolled back as well. There is no way the gay community can can dissociate itself 100% from pederastry. The entire gay community is itherefore n danger of coming under scrutiny.

31-05-2011 10:50AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

He's going to be on Pat Kenny this morning at ten to discuss the issue.

Yes and to summarise.
The mcGill author only read 2 paragraphs over the phone to him,which he wanted corrected.
She lied on yesterdays liveline about working on his campaigns as he says she never did.
Most of the article is totally out of context and missing the bits in the dinner where he spoke at length contextualizing the comments that she,the author cherry picked for sensationalism.
He didn't sue her or feel the need to at the time,he went on several radio shows rebutting it.She let on yesterday as if he hadn't done that.
Further he is saying she is lying about him agree'ing with the article.He also said she stopped and started the tape several times and this will be obvious if it turns up.
I wonder my self was that because she wanted out of context salacious quotes that weren't meant to be taken as such? That would be misrepresentation.
Of course neither her or McGill sued him either for his comments about the article at the time.

So my view hasn't changed,this is a homophobic attack.
A pathetic attempt to drag Ireland into the dark ages again.
I have to say it gets up my goat to see it and I despise people that do it for any reason especially political reasons.

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2011 10:52AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

The entire gay community is itherefore n danger of coming under scrutiny.

Good, let's get it out there, and have all the pre-Vatican 2 Dev supporters tut-tut about it.

Then everyone under 50 will vote them back into their box, and elect Norris.

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 10:57AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes and to summarise.
The mcGill author only read 2 paragraphs over the phone to him,which he wanted corrected.
She lied on yesterdays liveline about working on his campaigns as he says she never did.
Most of the article is totally out of context and missing the bits in the dinner where he spoke at length contextualizing the comments that she,the author cherry picked for sensationalism.
He didn't sue her or feel the need to at the time,he went on several radio shows rebutting it.She let on yesterday as if he hadn't done that.
Further he is saying she is lying about him agree'ing with the article.He also said she stopped and started the tape several times and this will be obvious if it turns up.
I wonder my self was that because she wanted out of context salacious quotes that weren't meant to be taken as such? That would be misrepresentation.
Of course neither her or McGill sued him either for his comments about the article at the time.

So my view hasn't changed,this is a homophobic attack.
A pathetic attempt to drag Ireland into the dark ages again.
I have to say it gets up my goat to see it and I despise people that do it for any reason especially political reasons.

Many people who read the article and listened to him on the P.K. Show might not come to the same conclusions as you at all. There needs to be a debate between Norris and H.L.B. i feel.

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2011 11:00AM

tayto lover wrote: »

There needs to be a debate between Norris and H.L.B. i feel.

Is she running for President now?

vibe666 · 31-05-2011 11:01AM

tayto lover wrote: »

Oh my God are you for real or have you not respect for children if you think he was unfairly treated.

aah right, i see what you did there.

(quite blatantly) implying that anyone who thinks it's wrong that DN is being dragged through the mud (again) to try and tarnish his name over something that was answered 10 years ago is automatically advocating child abuse by proxy. very classy. :rolleyes:

unfortunately for you, some of us can read for ourselves and have at least a modest understanding of what he was speaking about academically and are able to take it in the context that it was meant and weigh that against the BS article that HLB (whoever she may be) wrote to try and discredit him in 2002 and has regurgitated again rather than actually bother to even get of her ar$e and write something new or spend a little bit of time over the last 10 years actually performing any kind of investigative journalism at all, instead of writing about quiches and foccacia. :rolleyes:

Godge · 31-05-2011 11:02AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes and to summarise.
The mcGill author only read 2 paragraphs over the phone to him,which he wanted corrected.
She lied on yesterdays liveline about working on his campaigns as he says she never did.
Most of the article is totally out of context and missing the bits in the dinner where he spoke at length contextualizing the comments that she,the author cherry picked for sensationalism.
He didn't sue her or feel the need to at the time,he went on several radio shows rebutting it.She let on yesterday as if he hadn't done that.
Further he is saying she is lying about him agree'ing with the article.He also said she stopped and started the tape several times and this will be obvious if it turns up.
I wonder my self was that because she wanted out of context salacious quotes that weren't meant to be taken as such? That would be misrepresentation.
Of course neither her or McGill sued him either for his comments about the article at the time.

So my view hasn't changed,this is a homophobic attack.
A pathetic attempt to drag Ireland into the dark ages again.
I have to say it gets up my goat to see it and I despise people that do it for any reason especially political reasons.

None of that satisfies me. Does David Norris believe that a 30-year old man sexually molesting (without penetration) a 16-year old boy is unacceptable? The extracts in the article appear to suggest that he believes it is acceptable, whether those quotes are in context or not. A simple question to which we have yet to hear a simple answer.

The attempts to dress up the above views as a homophobic attack are unwarranted. Thankfully, as a society we have already reached the point where it is believed that a 30-year old man feeling up a 16-year old girl is wrong. Defending child abuse under the pretext that is is all a homophobic attack or that pederasty is a normal part of gay sexuality should not be accepted.

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2011 11:09AM

Godge wrote: »

The attempts to dress up the above views as a homophobic attack are unwarranted.

The attempts to slime Norris based on this ancient and already-refuted story are disgusting.

Fortunately, I think these attempts will backfire. I think more voters will think they will look like anti-gay bigotry and back Norris than will believe Norris is some sort of perv and vote against him.

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 11:10AM

vibe666 wrote: »

aah right, i see what you did there.

(quite blatantly) implying that anyone who thinks it's wrong that DN is being dragged through the mud (again) to try and tarnish his name over something that was answered 10 years ago is automatically advocating child abuse by proxy. very classy. :rolleyes:

unfortunately for you, some of us can read for ourselves and have at least a modest understanding of what he was speaking about academically and are able to take it in the context that it was meant and weigh that against the BS article that HLB (whoever she may be) wrote to try and discredit him in 2002 and has regurgitated again rather than actually bother to even get of her ar$e and write something new or spend a little bit of time over the last 10 years actually performing any kind of investigative journalism at all, instead of writing about quiches and foccacia. :rolleyes:

It was about Cathal O'Searchaig and not Norris and not even posted by you.

mikom · 31-05-2011 11:12AM

I await the accusation that David Norris used pedagogical strategies in his teaching career.

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:13AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Good, let's get it out there, and have all the pre-Vatican 2 Dev supporters tut-tut about it.

Then everyone under 50 will vote them back into their box, and elect Norris.

I am 24, have a gay sibling, have been to the George, love being around gay people (and I dont care if that is a so-called positive bias) and this article absolutely demolishes any interest I have had in voting for Norris. Please do not be so quick to dismiss concerns about his comments as homophobic or Catholic.

tayto lover · 31-05-2011 11:14AM

tayto lover wrote: »

It was about Cathal O'Searchaig and not Norris and not even posted by you.

There you go now Vibe 666
Originally Posted by Boulevardier
I cannot see anything particularly wrong with what Norris says in that article. I would not like to see him subjected to the same sort of sanctimonious hysteria that was levied on Cathal O Searchaigh a few yrears ago.

vibe666 · 31-05-2011 11:15AM

tayto lover wrote: »

It was about Cathal O'Searchaig and not Norris and not even posted by you.

apologies, but it was not clear from your response who you where referring to as both men were mentioned in the quote you were responding to.

you see how easy it is for you to say one thing and it be taken a completely different way that makes you look bad?

as for it being in response to something not posted by me, i thought this was an open forum?

Sir Oxman · 31-05-2011 11:16AM

I think the quote where he says "there is a complete and utter hysteria about this subject" is quite true.

Godge · 31-05-2011 11:27AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The attempts to slime Norris based on this ancient and already-refuted story are disgusting.

Fortunately, I think these attempts will backfire. I think more voters will think they will look like anti-gay bigotry and back Norris than will believe Norris is some sort of perv and vote against him.

(1) I am not attempting to slime Norris

(2) I am not homophobic

(3) I have met David Norris before, no problems with him. Enjoyed a humourous conversation with him, must be nearly twenty years ago now.

(4) He is not a man afraid to speak his views

(5) Which makes it hard to understand why his defence on the subject relies on the "I was misquoted" or "I am not in favour of penetrative sex with juveniles". It reminds me most of the line by a former President of another country "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" where language is used to disguise the issue.

Again, I ask the question, does David Norris believe that the sexual molestation (in a non-penetrative way) of a 16-year old boy by a 30-year old man to be acceptable behaviour or not? I have seen nothing, either in the stuff from ten years ago or the stuff from today to answer that question.

JonathanAnon · 31-05-2011 11:33AM

tayto lover wrote: »

I would not like to see him subjected to the same sort of sanctimonious hysteria that was levied on Cathal O Searchaigh a few yrears ago.

I think the criticism of O'Searcaigh was justified.. He was passing himself off as being a philanthropist who paid for the books of poor kids, when essentially what he was running was a sex-for-books scheme... He was certainly given enough rope to hang himself by Neasa Ni Chainain, but nothing he could say could contradict the fact that it was exploitation..

NO similar accusations have been made against Norris.. Though I feel Norris may have been similarly naive in discussing such controversial issues with a journalist... And she certainly took a lot of liberties.. paraphrasing, contextualizing the quotes herself, subjectivity.. If David Norris wanted to protect his good name he should have sued her at the time. Surely he was (again) naive to assume that this article would not raise it's ugly head during a presidential campaign...

Either way, I think he IS toast.. I dont see him coming back from this..

optogirl · 31-05-2011 11:34AM

Godge wrote: »

Again, I ask the question, does David Norris believe that the sexual molestation (in a non-penetrative way) of a 16-year old boy by a 30-year old man to be acceptable behaviour or not? I have seen nothing, either in the stuff from ten years ago or the stuff from today to answer that question.

I don't think 'molestation' is what DN is referring to - he is referring to a concensual relationship between an older man and a teenager. I am reminded of the case of Patrick Dunlevy from a few years ago - now I must first say that what Mr Dunlevy did was wrong, ill-judged and idiotic however the relationship was very much consensual. I must also state that the boy in question was 14 and nowhere does DN say that he would advocate a relationship between a grown man and a boy of 14, but the Dunlevy case was an interesting one. I actually felt kind of sorry for the guy although I completely agree that he should have been charged and should have ran a mile as soon as he knew what age the boy was. However "Counsel for Dunleavy told Judge Nolan that this was not a case in which the young boy had been groomed, nor was "there a withdrawal of consent throughout the incidents"

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/actor-guilty-of-sex-with-boy-14-1666682.html

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:44AM

optogirl wrote: »

I am reminded of the case of Patrick Dunlevy from a few years ago - now I must first say that what Mr Dunlevy did was wrong, ill-judged and idiotic however the relationship was very much consensual. I must also state that the boy in question was 14 and nowhere does DN say that he would advocate a relationship between a grown man and a boy of 14....

It is an interesting comparison, however DN did use the word boy, and did advocate permissibility based on consent instead of age. Could somebody please explain how that could reasonably be seen in another context.

Morag · 31-05-2011 11:49AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Pederasty, unlike paedophilia, is a type of gay sexuality. If this comes under attack, the gains made by gays will be rolled back as well. There is no way the gay community can can dissociate itself 100% from pederastry. The entire gay community is itherefore n danger of coming under scrutiny.

It is not a 'gay sexuality', there are plenty of hetro men and women who like
young men and young women. Everytime an aul lad looks at a fresh face cruvy 16/19 year old girl and thinks about banging her that's Pederasty, the same with all the older women who see a fit looking 16/19 year old boy that's Pederasty too.

In fact we are surrounded by Pederastic images, most of the fashion, advertisement and 'pop' music industry(boy bands ect) is based off the attractiveness of young people who are just about post adolescence and depending on what country you are in are also jailbait.

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments