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

Einhard wrote: »

That's a strange way to look at it. Norris claims that he's being grievously libelled, and you believe that the only reason he hasn't chosen to defend his name and reputation through the courts, is because he's an honourable gent. Call me a cynic, but isn't possible that he hasn't gone down that route, because he's not confident of victory?

Eihard you're a cynic (ya did ask)

I don't think it's a strange way of looking at it. Ireland has become more "sue orientated" than the states. He's already said he hasn't because she is a woman of limited means, not to mention the fact that she's an elderly woman, which is true. She has already done a huge amount of damage to her credibility and to her own reputation, not to mention his, and I don't think (even though I'm a norris supporter), that going to court will undo any of the damage she has caused, I would imagine he knows this too. With these tapes that HLB has so conveniently lost it's his word against hers.

He's more interested in restoring his reputation and no court case will restore it, only him defending himself will do it. It's a great shame all his fights for equality for everyone just falls by the wayside, and that his legacy of equality of justice for eveyone has been dismissed by one womans malicious ramblings and editorials!

RachaelVO wrote: »

... one womans malicious ramblings and editorials!

You don't think being a "Norris supporter" has coloured your opinion of the Magill article? Do you have proof that the attributed quotes are but malicious ramblings?

RachaelVO wrote: »

I wouldn't say it coloured my opinion, no..

Hardly impartial in fairness..

RachaelVO wrote: »

Having read some of HLBs work, I can't criticise it for it's style of writing, but I would it's content. Her passive aggressive judgemental ramblings are usually nothing but hot air and bias. In relation to David Norris she has stirred up a hornets nest and everything she said on Duffy was nothing but sh1t stirring, and now she hasn't got the tapes to back up her statements. I find this to be the most telling thing of all.

Personally what I find the most telling of all is that Norris took action against neither HLB nor Magill at the time of publication. Of course something like this would come up again if Norris ran for president. You think nobody except HLB knew about that article? Or that nobody else would have mentioned it?

flash1080 wrote: »

That's one of the problems, there'll be a lot of ignorant fools who'll vote for him purely because of his sexuality, ignoring whether he's actually suited to the job or not.

Which is one of the great ironies of the situation. The same people who will vote for him purely because of his sexuality will inevitably look down their noses at, ridicule and insult those who don't vote for him on very the same basis.

Nodin wrote: »

I doubt many are going to vote for somebody on the basis that they are gay. A larger (though still small) group may vote for a gay man purely because of the effect it would have on the less enlightened citizens of the island, whoever they might be.

So they would vote for a gay man because he's gay.

RachaelVO wrote: »

I never said I was impartial, I said my opinion wasn't coloured!

Eh, ok.

RachaelVO wrote: »

What action could he take?

Demanded an apology? Demanded a retraction? It could well be that the attributed quotes were out of context, but even at that Norris should have known better. Do we really need a president who has to run around clarifying previous comments etc?

RachaelVO wrote: »

He could go after HLB as she has spoken about it on national radio and brought it all up again, without any proof. What would he achieve?

She has the proof, it was published at the time. It's not as if she fabricated the entire thing in the last week. If there was no published article then you'd have a point.

RachaelVO wrote: »

She has smeared his campaign and his name for some extreme right wing agenda!

I see. Any other examples of HLB and her "extreme right wing agenda"?

prinz wrote: »

Demanded an apology? Demanded a retraction?

She has the proof, it was published at the time. It's not as if she fabricated the entire thing in the last week. If there was no published article then you'd have a point.

I don't think that you understand the concept of something being taken out of context.

For example you could have something on the tape where Norris says that the ancient Greeks thought it appropriate to have underaged sex. He is asked whether this was acceptable & could of replied "Yes it was for the Greeks at that time".

The journalist could then write "Norris was asked whether he thought that underaged sex was acceptable". He replied "Yes it was"

The words are the same but the meaning is totally different

RachaelVO wrote: »

Easily confused????

No. You are either impartial are you aren't. Everything else is semantics, 'oh my opinion isn't coloured

RachaelVO wrote: »

Like a 3 year old demanding sweeties, cos that's why they'd of done it.

That's your contribution? Lol. Sad.

RachaelVO wrote: »

It's not proof of anything it's an editorial, of what she thought, not what he said, so its irrelevant now without the tapes. Everything he said was taken out of context, and this is the second time David Norris has gone to great pains to say it about the same thing! His side hasn't changed!

Well not exactly because it included direct quotations from the man himself which he could easily have had corrected in Magill.

Discodog wrote: »

I don't think that you understand the concept of something being taken out of context. For example you could have something on the tape where Norris says that the ancient Greeks thought it appropriate to have underaged sex. He is asked whether this was acceptable & could of replied "Yes it was for the Greeks at that time".
The journalist could then write "Norris was asked whether he thought that underaged sex was acceptable". He replied "Yes it was" The words are the same but the meaning is totally different

Unfortunately Norris didn't restrict himself to musings on the past. He referred to pederasty in the past (fair enough it happened) and then went on to say "there is something to be said for that"... is there really anything to be said in today's world for that? Seriously? If he had discussed slavery and finished off with 'there is something to be said for slavery' would it still be ok? Or ethnic cleansing for example?

The article also referred to his current position on the current understanding of the age of consent and incest legislation..etc. Was he still referring to ancient Greece when he argued that only a case for banning incest involving females was appropriate?

prinz wrote: »

Unfortunately Norris didn't restrict himself to musings on the past. He referred to pederasty in the past (fair enough it happened) and then went on to say "there is something to be said for that". Was he still referring to ancient Greece when he argued that only a case for banning incest involving females was appropriate?

Yet again what was the context ?. We don't know what he was referring to because the journalist has very conveniently lost a tape. She gets a dynamite interview, that could of resulted in legal action, but doesn't keep the tape safe :rolleyes:.