Is David Norris Toast?

Wolfe Tone · 31-05-2011 10:47PM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its interesting that most of the people slagging off Norris in this thread are from ....well lets just say they're from the republican persuasion.

Coincidence?

Ah I see, anyone who takes issue must be homophobic AND a hardline republican.

Paulie Walnuts · 31-05-2011 10:57PM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its interesting that most of the people slagging off Norris in this thread are from ....well lets just say they're from the republican persuasion.

Coincidence?

...and it begins. If someone happens to have a valid point just slag them off. You should've equated them with Nazi's, more hard hitting you know. Moron.

beeftotheheels · 31-05-2011 11:07PM

later10 wrote: »

But today, we seek to preserve and develop childhood free from the sexual gratification of adults. Yes, we are outraged when such interference occurs, seeing it as an attack on innocence. And yes, perhaps this causes the child's remembered perception of the event to be aggravated, or to grow into something unspeakably nefarious. That may be an unfortunate by-product, I am not sure what the reasonable alternative might be.

But it should not be that it is an attack on some arbitrary definition of innocence, it should be that it can cause harm. The 15 year old sleeping with her 35 year old married teacher is at risk of significant harm, we don't have the same issue with the 17 year old with a 15 3/4 year old girlfriend (who go on to get married and live happily ever after). It is not ideal that they are having sex but we don't see the same risk of harm to that girl.

Because, to my mind, the need for laws on this is to do with harm then we should be having conversations as to ways to mitigate the risk of harm to children, even if that involves the consideration of intellectual flights of fancy which will fall foul of practical considerations.

We cannot see the the increased harm to the child as an incidental by-product, it is the protection of the child which should underpin the law.

If we look now at the victims of child sex abuse at the hands of the church a lot of the harm was caused through isolation, through shame, through guilt. And years later, too late in many cases, as adults these people finally have a voice, they finally realize that they were not alone, and more importantly that they were not in any way to blame.

So changing society's perceptions can be as important as changing the law when it comes to mitigating the harm. To this end, talking about it helps.

The man categorically stated that he is against the sexual, physical or emotional abuse of children. That is enough for me.

But I would not deny him the right to discuss this, or to encourage us to discuss this to see if there are ways, legal or otherwise, that we can protect children both from abuse, but also from the worst consequences of that abuse. We've already seen that the ostrich approach to this is unhelpful.

oppenheimer1 · 31-05-2011 11:16PM

Steve Superking wrote: »

A couple of points.....

Senator Norris is quoted in the HLB interview as stating, "there is a lot of nonsense about paedophilia...."

But he then goes on to cite reported attacks on (a) a Child Specialist MD, (a paediatrician, who was obliged to flee her home due to the protestations of an uninformed and frankly violent mob, and (b) a Chriopodist, (a pedicurist or podiatrist perhaps) who lost his life in an arson attack upon his home by a similar mob....

Might incidents such as these have been the "nonsense" to which the Senator was referring?

On the subject of the adult/child relations in ancient Greece, it seems to me quite clear that Mr. Norris was indulging in an academic 'flight of fancy' if you will, exploring an ancient and accepted tradition of the classical world through the prism of both modern morals and his own adolescent experience. Many of us have done something similar at dinner parties or in the pub. Mr. Norris was speaking to a journalist who he probably assumed was familiar with the concept of a free-form exploratory discussion.

(Incidentally, at NO POINT during the I/V did the Senator suggest that there might be a physical, hands on, sexual element in such a relationship.)

(As an aside, although childless myself, I have been asked questions of a sexual nature by nephews and my niece who feel embarrassed to ask their parents such questions. After answering as best I can, I would then advise my sister and her husband of the subject of their children's curiousity. Thus the parents are aware of their children's concerns, but don't inform the kids that their uncle has passed on their questions. But parents need to know. Quite human and natural, I feel.)

"There is a whole spectrum... From the teacher or Christian Brother who puts his hand into a child's pocket (to) the person who attacks children of either sex (and) brutalises them..."

Here it seems to me quite obvious that the Senator is talking about the various shades of grey in a BLACK spectrum. He's not condoning the first action in any way, merely making the point that there are degrees of abuse even within the horrific idea of child sexual abuse.

Is there a difference between a frustrated but perfectly normal young mother who in a fit of pique reaches out and slaps a naughty toddler upon the bottom, and a genuinely disturbed individual who systematically tortures a similar innocent over a period of months to the point of death?

On the question of the legal age of sexual consent the Senator states that, "The law in this sphere should take into account consent rather than age..."

As has been stated by other posters, I'm assuming that what he meant by this was that two consenting late-teenagers should not be subject to prosecution if both are having consensual sex, even if one of the parties was below the legal age. At the time of the interview, a publicised court case of this type led to a young man being charged with rape. Ridiculous.

On the subject of the Senator's comments about incest.... Well, there aren't any.... The interviewer uses no direct quotes from Mr. Norris, merely offering her opinion on the views she believes him to have expressed on the subject.

(Why didn't she include these verbatim quotes?)

But she doesn't, although she does offer her take on what he said. In a court of law, that's called hearsay.... And it is inadmissible as evidence.

In conclusion, there are forces at work within the political machine that don't trust Senator Norris. Always an independent and a free thinker, Norris represents a threat to the powers that be, (those same powers, incidentally, that have brought this country to its knees) and cannot be groomed, gagged or bribed. He is that most unusual political animal, an honest politician.

Honesty is frequently absent guest at the political party. They can't trust honesty. You never know where it will lead.

Ask yourselves, who benefits by this vitriolic and well timed attack upon Norris?

Because it isn't you or me........

Thank you for reading.

xx SF

What an interesting "first post":rolleyes:

K-9 · 31-05-2011 11:16PM

You can't have a discussion about paedophilia anywhere. There was a recent thread on Humanities and it's pointless, it will get side tracked. It's a straw man paradise.

This reminds me of Clarke's rape comments. I think he was too generalistic but could see his point. Ill advised but understood his point.

There's a few small but loud agendas against Norris, reminds me of Lisbon 1.

UDAWINNER · 31-05-2011 11:21PM

A lot of tripe will turn up because he is openly gay. Sad, its 2011.

superelliptic · 31-05-2011 11:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

...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.

You hit the nail on the head there. What gets mine is that they keep referring to HLB as a "Journalist". I have a serious problem with that. The last word in the world that I would use to describe a writer for the gutter press is "Journalist".

I would say more, but this mans blog post said it better before I got the chance :pac::

http://hughgreen.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/david-norris-and-irelands-sordid-media-culture/

Bottle_of_Smoke · 31-05-2011 11:40PM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its interesting that most of the people slagging off Norris in this thread are from ....well lets just say they're from the republican persuasion.

Coincidence?

Cool Story Sir.

Its a pretty small amount posting against him. I doubt you would have made that comment if Wolfe Tone wasn't critical of him.

If you're making that kind of generalisation its also really worth noting republican sympathising posters supportive of him outnumber those who are critical.

Paulie Walnuts · 31-05-2011 11:53PM

While it is possible that there are dark forces conspiring to wreck Norris' election bid, i'm not sure it's because he's gay.

Just because someone doesn't support him for president it doesn't mean they must be homophobic. I'm sure that there are some knuckledraggers out there who won't support him because he's gay but I have a suspicion that there are people out there that would do the opposite i.e. vote for him because he's gay (oh look at how progressive and free minded we are in Ireland, we have a gay president.). One rationale is just as bad as the other.

Sponge Bob · 01-06-2011 12:07AM

1. He is the one to beat so he will attract all the dirt for now.
2. Burke says she cannot find the tape, she also claims the house flooded.
3. As the one to beat he will attract all the dirt from Labour FG and FF who are good at throwing dirt.
4. Who the **** is helen lucy burke, never heard of her.....honest.

Judgement Day · 01-06-2011 12:09AM

superelliptic wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head there. What gets mine is that they keep referring to HLB as a "Journalist". I have a serious problem with that. The last word in the world that I would use to describe a writer for the gutter press is "Journalist".

I would say more, but this mans blog post said it better before I got the chance :pac::

http://hughgreen.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/david-norris-and-irelands-sordid-media-culture/

As I've said previously I'm not a fan of HLB but to describe Magill or the Sunday Tribune, two of the publications that she wrote for, as the gutter press is a bit fanciful. :rolleyes:

later12 · 01-06-2011 12:20AM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

But it should not be that it is an attack on some arbitrary definition of innocence, it should be that it can cause harm. The 15 year old sleeping with her 35 year old married teacher is at risk of significant harm, we don't have the same issue with the 17 year old with a 15 3/4 year old girlfriend (who go on to get married and live happily ever after). It is not ideal that they are having sex but we don't see the same risk of harm to that girl.

Well, I agree, but I really do not consider it to be what Senator Norris was talking about with HL Burke in Chapter One.

If it had been his intention to speak about minor age differentials straddling the consent border, it would have been quite simple for the Senator to speak about this in a clear and straightforward manner. Not only did he refrain from doing so (apparently - it does not directly come up in the article), he does not - currently - offer this rationale as being the inspiration for his comments. He offers a number of reasonable enough explanations, but not that one.

I think the issue surrounding the age of consent for consensual sex between minors or those who are close in age, but whose ages are on opposing sides of the boundary is an important issue. But I am not immediately convinced that it belongs here. And in fact the reputation of Senator Norris, in a legislative sense, is well established in this area and is to be praised. I believe his efforts with regard to the age of consent (or at least relevant legislation that David Norris has been key in advancing) has come in for praise from the judiciary in the past.

We cannot see the the increased harm to the child as an incidental by-product, it is the protection of the child which should underpin the law.

Well lets not use the term incidental by-product, perhaps the lesser harm might be more appropriate.

If we use the sexual interference with the child or adolescent (in the classical Athenian style) - consensual or not - as the starting point. perhaps we can work from there.
Now the question appears to boil down to letting the sexual relations continue so as to preserve the boy from shame. To my mind, this would only be a practical consideration were there established some societal approval upon pedaristic behaviour, and if it were perceived to have some social worth.

This is not the current nor dominant paradigm, although it was almost certainly so in premodern societies like Greece.
Now one might advance the argument that Norris was speaking only in a highly hypothetical context of a by-gone age, yet taken in light of his comments about there being ''a lot of nonsense about paedophilia'' and his comments about a consent approach that was not age based, and his comments about the Christian brother who put his hand in a boy's pocket, he seems to directly link these issues. That was an irresponsible link to make, in my opinion. I think it was also insensitive and unwise to pass such comments to a journalist who was bound to relay them. I think the whole thing showed a lack of consideration on Norris's part.

Now possibly HL Burke is slightly prudish, and with all prudish people the temptation to provoke (or at least to stretch their logic) is just a little too tempting. But if that were the case, or if David Norris had meant it in a devil's advocate sort of way, I wish he would just come out and say so and move on. By describing this as an academic conversation on a historical issue which is unrelated to his opinions on human sexuality, David Norris is doing our intelligence and his intelligence a dis-service.

I wish to re-iterate that there is no question, on my part at least, that David Norris is a bad man or a sympathiser of paedophiles - let alone one himself. That is not the issue. The issue, to my mind, is that he said something daft and uncharacteristically insensitive, probably without having given it a lot of thought.

In my opinion, DN now needs to do what most politicians do terribly, but which I am guessing he could pull off successfully - apologise and retract.

later12 · 01-06-2011 12:30AM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its interesting that most of the people slagging off Norris in this thread are from ....well lets just say they're from the republican persuasion.

I presume you mean nationalist. True I am guessing that Wolfe Tone is also, like myself, a republican, which means we dont dig Queens - the royal kind.

For the record though, I am not a nationalist, nor a homophobe. I am a Prod who has been dragged more times to the George than he has been dragged to Coppers (both are equally horrible) and who has the fine British people to thank for his education. Please give up with the silly generalisations.

There are legitimate points being made on both sides of this discourse by more reasonable people, and your base generalisations, like others made throughout this thread, are not helping anybody.

zuroph · 01-06-2011 12:35AM

Later10, regardless of our differing opinions on aspects of this, I must congratulate you on your willingness and ability to debate it so well, something a lot of people on both sides are sadly lacking.

beeftotheheels · 01-06-2011 12:44AM

I would misquote Zoltaire (since it seems to sum it up so nicely) but I can't, I wish I still thought that that he uttered those immortal words!

Given I take issue with the fact that we don't talk about some of this I cannot stand that anyone would try to dismiss those of opposing views who stand up and make their points, who apply reason and logic and engage (even if I disagree with them).

Now getting close to quoting that other frenchman (who committed to paper the immortal "L'enfer, c'est les autres")

Steve Superking · 01-06-2011 12:47AM

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

While it is possible that there are dark forces conspiring to wreck Norris' election bid, i'm not sure it's because he's gay.

Just because someone doesn't support him for president it doesn't mean they must be homophobic. I'm sure that there are some knuckledraggers out there who won't support him because he's gay but I have a suspicion that there are people out there that would do the opposite i.e. vote for him because he's gay (oh look at how progressive and free minded we are in Ireland, we have a gay president.). One rationale is just as bad as the other.

His sexual orientation IS not, SHOULD not and MUST not be an issue during what I hope will be his election.

I agree with your contention that those people who won't vote for him simply because he's a gay man are still living in the dark ages.... I'd wonder if there really are people who'd vote for him JUST because he's homosexual.... I hope not, he's got a lot more to offer....

And he'd better have.... 'Cos if he gets elected he's not gonna get laid for at least four years..... Well, c'mon.... Even he wouldn't DARE!!!!

Seriously though, Norris's sexual history is not and has never been particularly spectacular.... (If it was we'd be hearing about it now.) In everything he's ever done he's been a committed public servant, God love him.....

We deserve a man of his eloquence, intelligence, honesty, yes, innocence and assuredness; a man who might perhaps use the office of President to actually do something useful for the people who have voted him in....

These are changing times..... We are bored, frustrated and unhappy with the political system that stagnates and bores us. In our most recent General Election we voted for change and seem to have been delivered simply more of the same.....

Norris, despite the house, the sparkling academic career and the accent, is more OF the Irish people than any of our elected apparatchniks ever even WANT to be.....

If we elect Norris IT WILL FRIGHTEN THE ****E out of the political elite!

NONE of them want him in....

If we vote for Norris it means we have started to pay attention... And They HATE that.....

His sexuality has (rightly) nothing to do with it.

His convictions, his intelligence, and his open honesty do.

xx SF

xx SF

mikom · 01-06-2011 01:06AM

Is David Norris Toast?
Nah, not bread-like at all........... I picture him more as a pink wafer biscuit.

oppenheimer1 · 01-06-2011 01:10AM

Steve Superking wrote: »

His sexual orientation IS not, SHOULD not and MUST not be an issue during what I hope will be his election.

I agree with your contention that those people who won't vote for him simply because he's a gay man are still living in the dark ages.... I'd wonder if there really are people who'd vote for him JUST because he's homosexual.... I hope not, he's got a lot more to offer....

And he'd better have.... 'Cos if he gets elected he's not gonna get laid for at least four years..... Well, c'mon.... Even he wouldn't DARE!!!!

Seriously though, Norris's sexual history is not and has never been particularly spectacular.... (If it was we'd be hearing about it now.) In everything he's ever done he's been a committed public servant, God love him.....

We deserve a man of his eloquence, intelligence, honesty, yes, innocence and assuredness; a man who might perhaps use the office of President to actually do something useful for the people who have voted him in....

These are changing times..... We are bored, frustrated and unhappy with the political system that stagnates and bores us. In our most recent General Election we voted for change and seem to have been delivered simply more of the same.....

Norris, despite the house, the sparkling academic career and the accent, is more OF the Irish people than any of our elected apparatchniks ever even WANT to be.....

If we elect Norris IT WILL FRIGHTEN THE ****E out of the political elite!

NONE of them want him in....

If we vote for Norris it means we have started to pay attention... And They HATE that.....

His sexuality has (rightly) nothing to do with it.

His convictions, his intelligence, and his open honesty do.

xx SF

xx SF

What a load of claptrap! Norris is the political elite and voting him in won't change anything because the president is constrained by the government. Yes sexuality should have nothing to do with it, but he does have the baggage of being a gay rights activist.

btw his acedemic career wasn't glittering. Yes he was a foundation Scholar but I don't think he rose above the position of lecturer. To be expected as he had to devote time to his public service in the Seanad.

Innocence:rolleyes: The innocent don't last long in politics, certainly you can't have a career a long as he has without losing it. The facade is amazing though.

Fair play though, I didn't think you'd log in with the alt account again.

Ken. · 01-06-2011 01:15AM

I'll still vote for him if he's on the ballot.

Steve Superking · 01-06-2011 01:17AM

mikom wrote: »

Is David Norris Toast?
Nah, not bread-like at all........... I picture him more as a pink wafer biscuit.

How funny you are, and what an addition to what has been a considered discussion....

Your first girlfriend is going to leave you within weeks..... WHAT AM I SAYING?????

There's not a woman in Ireland who'd date such an idiot.....

(Three posts and I'm fightin'.... But C'MON!!!!!!)

Gay Men, Pink Wafers.... (If you're waiting for Dylan Moran to pick up the phone and ask you to write stuff..... Well you're in for a bit of a wait, Funnyman......)

(Do people like this EXIST????? Why bother to post something that instantly defines you as STUPIDER than everyone else on the thread?)

xx SF

mikom · 01-06-2011 01:28AM

Steve Superking wrote: »

There's not a woman in Ireland who'd date such an idiot.....

(Three posts and I'm fightin'.... But C'MON!!!!!!)

Gay Men, Pink Wafers.... (If you're waiting for Dylan Moran to pick up the phone and ask you to write stuff..... Well you're in for a bit of a wait, Funnyman......)

(Do people like this EXIST????? Why bother to post something that instantly defines you as STUPIDER than everyone else on the thread?)

Ah now, you didn't call me an idiot, did you?

beeftotheheels · 01-06-2011 01:29AM

later10 wrote: »

In my opinion, DN now needs to do what most politicians do terribly, but which I am guessing he could pull off successfully - apologise and retract.

I chopped out most of your post in the interest of shortening my reply so forgive me for attempting to paraphrase - and obviously haul me up on any inaccuracies. The above I cannot disagree with.

1. Age differentials in the application of age of consent laws. I agree that he was not specifically talking about this, but any debate around "age of consent" or prioritizing "consent" over "age" has to take this into account. Especially when dealing with a man for whom "consent" to sexual activity was denied for most of his life. I can see why he might put "consent" on a pedestal, but that is as much the fault of the Irish people who denied him the ability to consent to sex as it is his. The point remains valid that where there is consent, there is a reduction in the element of abuse. Consent is not the bee all and end all, children by definition can and do make mistakes and I have no problem with us trying to protect them from the consequences of those. Consent can and must be tested in a court of law when it comes to rape so I have no problem with us biasing the scales on this when dealing with minors. But if the laws are there to protect the child, then the impact of the crime on the child ought to be considered.

2. The irresponsible link. I agree that from what we have seen of the original interview seems to make such irresponsible links. But I would maintain that that is capable of two possible interpretations. The first is support for paedophilia, the second is support for prioritizing the mitigation of any impact on a child. You take the former view whilst I take the latter view. He contrasts growing up in conservative Ireland where he thought that he was the only gay boy in the State with ancient Greece where he would not only have felt accepted, but would have known that he was not alone. I can see that the notion of ancient Greek pederasty would strike any heterosexual male as abusive, yet can you not acknowledge how it might strike a homosexual male of Mr Norris's vintage as being infinitely better that the world that he grew up in (on an academic level)? As far as I can see he didn't actually propose introducing it as an Irish model, He didn't suggest that he'd be interested in being "the older gentleman" he simply said that as a gay teen (without a father figure) he thought that he might have enjoyed it compared to the teenage years that he actually had.

So the distinction between this and e.g. Enda Kenny or Michael Noonan announcing tomorrow that he had a huge crush on his fifth year Irish teacher is not so obvious to me. Kids have hormones, we try to protect them by law (by judging the older party and not the child), but those laws should seek to protect the child. David Norris grew up under laws which not only did not protect him, they criminalized his behavior, they isolated him, they increased his suffering.

I have to say, much as I view him as a Trinners ninny most of the time, I love that he believes us all capable of debating this. I love that the man, despite the better part of a lifetime of discrimination, still believes in democracy. I love that the teacher in him still wants us to discuss this.

Having set the basic ground rules of "No child abuse" (as he has) I think it would help us as a nation to actually debate this stuff.

zuroph · 01-06-2011 01:29AM

Steve Superking wrote: »

How funny you are, and what an addition to what has been a considered discussion....

Your first girlfriend is going to leave you within weeks..... WHAT AM I SAYING?????

There's not a woman in Ireland who'd date such an idiot.....

(Three posts and I'm fightin'.... But C'MON!!!!!!)

Gay Men, Pink Wafers.... (If you're waiting for Dylan Moran to pick up the phone and ask you to write stuff..... Well you're in for a bit of a wait, Funnyman......)

(Do people like this EXIST????? Why bother to post something that instantly defines you as STUPIDER than everyone else on the thread?)

xx SF

first post was good, second post was OTT, this post is pathetic, and one I feel you'll regret come morning.

Steve Superking · 01-06-2011 02:02AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What a load of claptrap! Norris is the political elite and voting him in won't change anything because the president is constrained by the government. Yes sexuality should have nothing to do with it, but he does have the baggage of being a gay rights activist.

btw his acedemic career wasn't glittering. Yes he was a foundation Scholar but I don't think he rose above the position of lecturer. To be expected as he had to devote time to his public service in the Seanad.

Innocence:rolleyes: The innocent don't last long in politics, certainly you can't have a career a long as he has without losing it. The facade is amazing though.

Fair play though, I didn't think you'd log in with the alt account again.

Thank you, (sincerely) for your response..... (BTW I only have ONE account, I've only just signed up!)

Norris IS NOT part of a political elite by virtue of the fact that he is not a member of any of the political parties/dynasties that (attempt) to govern our country....

While I realize that the presidential office is indeed a non-legislative position I do believe that as a nominal head-of-state the President does have a responsibility to represent the voice and will of the people. I think Norris might carry this off quite well....

Why should him being a gay-rights activist, (among his many other activities) be seen as 'baggage'? He is not now, and indeed perhaps never was, a 'one-issue' candidate, having been an active campaigner on many other issues including education and human rights...

His "innocence" if you will, is my interpretation on how he is willing to discuss issues openly while admitting he doesn't necessarily have a perfect answer to the issues being discussed, always holding his own view but willing to listen to a different argument. How different to most politicians that is, and how much closer to the attitude of a frequently puzzled electorate...

Despite his eccentricities, I think Mr. Norris would make a fine President and would offer a real voice for Ireland on a world stage...

I thank you for your comment and I hope I'm right in thinking that you meant no offence by your carefully worded response.

xx SF

Steve Superking · 01-06-2011 02:23AM

zuroph wrote: »

first post was good, second post was OTT, this post is pathetic, and one I feel you'll regret come morning.

I'll defend this....

A "Gay Man/Pink Wafer" remark simply cheapens the many considered responses on a contentious, intelligent and obviously active thread......

My own venal response to the poster was born out of frustration and, yes, anger at what I thought to be a silly, unhelpful remark....

I got angry.....

I'm sorry if I offended, really.....

xx SF

davidv · 01-06-2011 04:04AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

...over 30 years ago.

Here's a funny one:

The most famous Irish chef is a young man called Conrad Gallagher. When a colleague of mine, Helen Lucy Burke, had the pleasure of dining at his flagship restaurant, Peacock Alley, Gallagher decided to spare her the nuisance of writing it up by issuing a solicitor's letter in which it was alleged that, on the night in question, 'Helen Lucy Burke ... appeared to be intoxicated, made little sense to talk to, in addition to slurring her words, and also made unnecessary disparaging remarks to Mr Gallagher's staff, eg, "Can you wrap this up, I want to feed it to my blind pussy?"'

this nag certainly has form! to think that anybody pays any attention to her is incredible. in fact,she is incredible! i heard her on liveline and when i realised, that her mention of thailand was a sleazy slur (a very deliberate and later disowned slur), I recognised immediately that this was a hatchet job.this woman is not honourable enough to have an agenda.I dont believe she is particularly homophobic.She is just a woman with a grudge. She had a spat with Norris 9 years ago, she lost and now sees a opportunity for revenge. a woman scorned etc....and a classic case of passive aggressive behaviour. As for her original article,she has every right to practice other forms of journalism but has to rise above the "I found..I thought..."mode that is normally used for serving up skewered chef.

Zubeneschamali · 01-06-2011 08:54AM

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

I have a suspicion that there are people out there that would do the opposite i.e. vote for him because he's gay (oh look at how progressive and free minded we are in Ireland, we have a gay president.). One rationale is just as bad as the other.

If Norris is nominated, I'll vote for him because he's gay (although I am not). I'll be proud to, and delighted if he wins.

Just because he's openly gay.

I used to vote for Alan Shatter (when I lived in his constituency) ahead of his FG colleagues. Just because he's Jewish.

Last election, I voted for a woman ahead of her party colleagues, just because she's a woman.

Working to reverse entrenched discrimination is not itself discriminatory.

mikom · 01-06-2011 09:27AM

Steve Superking wrote: »

I'll defend this....

A "Gay Man/Pink Wafer" remark simply cheapens the many considered responses on a contentious, intelligent and obviously active thread......

My own venal response to the poster was born out of frustration and, yes, anger at what I thought to be a silly, unhelpful remark....

I got angry.....

I'm sorry if I offended, really.....

xx SF

For the record myself and my partner of seven years will be voting Davey boy should he get a nomination.
His sense of humour is just one of the compelling reasons we will be leaning towards him.
Toodles.

It wasn't me! · 01-06-2011 10:04AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Working to reverse entrenched discrimination is not itself discriminatory.

That is an absolute pile of bullwank. So-called "positive" discrimination is of course still discrimination. It's also immensely disparaging to the recipients of it. "Your policies and record of sterling behaviour in your particular area? Your history of campaigning on issues I find important? The reflection of my own views in your policies? Nono, nothing like that. Just keep banging guys/being Jewish/having a vagina and I'll keep voting for you." How monumentally condescending that is.

door · 01-06-2011 10:24AM

The problem here is the difference between intelligent educated people and deliberately stupid uneducated people. The conversation about Ancient Greece was an academic discussion. Stupid people dont understand what that means and take from it what they want in order to fling misguided mud at Norris. Personally I feel this fundamental smeer campaign should actually help him win.

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments