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

Nodin wrote: »

Are you stating you are "impartial" on the issue?

Compared to most people, yes I am as it happens, I happen to be a fan of David Norris, a great speaker, entertainer, as someone who knows an awful lot about an awful lot etc. I can also admit (unlike some) that he is as capable as the next person in making a serious error in judgement in conversation. I am not going to jump to the conclusion that the whole thing is a conspiracy agains the man because of some imagined "extreme right wing agenda".

Nodin wrote: »

He dealt with the accusations back in 2002.

..he gave a few more interviews 'clarifying'. It was always bound to crop up again. it would do him no harm, rather than discussing HLB and the 2002 interview, if he made clear again that what happened in ancient Greece is best left to ancient Greece as far as man/boy love went, and what exactly is his position on the age of consent laws as they are right now in this State.

mike65 wrote: »

So then, has this tape turned up?

Nope

RachaelVO wrote: »

Semantics? The meaning of words? Which is what all sentences consist of, it's the study of linguistics and their relationship in an sentence. That would be what every poster in the thread is guilty of?

Not every poster is guilty of trying to cling on to the major distinction between being impartial and not having a coloured view on the issue. That special position hase been reserved for you.

RachaelVO wrote: »

You're insistent he should have demanded a retraction, just because you demand something doesn't mean you're going to get it... I demand the winning lottery numbers!!!! Am I going to get them. NO, you should probably work for HLB, but do try to remember context is ALL important?

Hear that scraping sound? That's the barrel.

RachaelVO wrote: »

He never seen the article before publication, he was read 2 paragraphs over the phone and asked for it to be changed, those changes weren't made.

Were you there? Or is there only room for skullduggery on one person's behalf in this whole situation?

RachaelVO wrote: »

Now there is no way Magill would have yielded to printing a retraction, that would mean they would be admitting it was wrong and out of context, so in all your superiour wisdom please tell us what he could have done or sued magill with..

Given that other journalists have seen fit to describe the piece as slanderous I'd be curious, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to have taken legal action on the basis of defamation by libel under the Defamation Act of 1961 as was at the time of the publication.

RachaelVO wrote: »

What he as referring to, was as a gay man he would have liked some sort of guidance, as a young man growing up in anti gay establishment, during his overall conversation with HLB..

I can understand that when it comes to some of what he said, I can appreciate he may have worded what he intended to convey badly or ambiguously, but what does the above have to do with differentiating between the sexes when it comes to incest for example?

RachaelVO wrote: »

According to him yes. He has also said again and again that he finds pedophilia and incest abhorrent. He's been quoted as having said he finds it abhorrent both before and after the Magill article!

Good for Senator Norris, it's something that should be reaffirmed as often as possible, not only be him but any public figure when occassion calls.

Nodin wrote: »

And you aren't in any way hostile to his potential presidency?

Would I vote for him right now above anyone else I can think of who might be a potential candidate, or choose him as a stand-out candidate for the job, no.

Can I foresee a situation where he is the best candidate actually going forward for the job, yes

Would I be hostile to voting for him or him being elected in those circumstances, no. That clear it up?

Nodin wrote: »

You might take those issues up with whoever professed them.

Ask the question, get the answer.

Nodin wrote: »

Where did norris mention "man/boy" love?

"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."

"I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities.."

http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/

Funnily enough I share a lot of the opinions David shared in that article with regard to the hysteria about the whole thing and the confusion between paedophilia and other classifications.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I suppose his defence of Cathal O'Searcaigh who was practicing Classical Greek values was taken out of context too.

did he publicy defend o searcaigh, or did he just not get involved, which is it,

prinz wrote: »

Not every poster is guilty of trying to cling on to the major distinction between being impartial and not having a coloured view on the issue. That special position hase been reserved for you.

Thanks ever so much, you're reserving a special place all for me! Im touched, really I am.

I never once said I was impartial, however my support of Norris does not colour what I think of the article or vice versa for that matter.

prinz wrote: »

Hear that scraping sound? That's the barrel.

Waiting long to use that phrase? No scraping going on here. I would suspect the only scraping you hear are your knuckles dragging along behing you.

prinz wrote: »

Were you there? Or is there only room for skullduggery on one person's behalf in this whole situation?

Its what he said both then and now, so I've not reason not to believe him!

prinz wrote: »

Given that other journalists have seen fit to describe the piece as slanderous I'd be curious, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to have taken legal action on the basis of defamation by libel under the Defamation Act of 1961 as was at the time of the publication.

From my understanding of libel, this doesn't fit the bill. Libel is considered when you lie knowing you are causing loss of money, reputation etc;

HLB didn't lie just took it out of context, and used her own editorial to make it seedier!

prinz wrote: »

I can understand that when it comes to some of what he said, I can appreciate he may have worded what he intended to convey badly or ambiguously, but what does the above have to do with differentiating between the sexes when it comes to incest for example?

From what he has said since, this was still in relation to the conversation on old greek practises. That incest was in most of it's forms between males (hence in lots of different languages and cultures, anal sex is referred to greek sex). I highly doubt given his stance on abuse and incest he differentiates between the sexes. Like I said he finds it all abhorrent.

prinz wrote: »

Good for Senator Norris, it's something that should be reaffirmed as often as possible, not only be him but any public figure when occassion calls.

Stop the presses, I agree with you!!!! Jesus what is the world coming too!

SeaFields wrote: »

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.

i disagree with helen lucy burke coming out with this, if she could not first back up her claim with the recording, therefore i dont take anything she says as fact

Johnnymcg wrote: »

At present there are no official candidates
Labour Selection Convention will take place on June 19th and they will choose between Fergus Finlay, Michael D Higgins (former TD) and Kathleen O Meara (Former Senator)
FG - No word yet but likely to choose between Mairead McGuinness MEP and Sean Kelly MEP
FF - No word yet but likely to choose Brian Crowley MEP
Other possible candidates - David Norris, Mary Davis, Sean Gallagher, possibly a Sinn Fein candidate

Yep, Senator Norris just may get my vote yet.

RachaelVO wrote: »

Waiting long to use that phrase? No scraping going on here. I would suspect the only scraping you hear are your knuckles dragging along behing you.

Isn't that a personal remark?

RachaelVO wrote: »

From my understanding of libel, this doesn't fit the bill. Libel is considered when you lie knowing you are causing loss of money, reputation etc;

It fits the bill quite well actually. I would say David's reputation was greatly affected myself. Defamation is a strict liability offence, whether HLB or Magill knowingly intended to defame Norris or not is irrelevant. So your understanding is off the mark.

RachaelVO wrote: »

HLB didn't lie just took it out of context, and used her own editorial to make it seedier!

Irrelevant that it didn't contain an outright lie. It can still be defamation by virtue of being twisted out of context.

RachaelVO wrote: »

From what he has said since, this was still in relation to the conversation on old greek practises. That incest was in most of it's forms between males (hence in lots of different languages and cultures, anal sex is referred to greek sex). I highly doubt given his stance on abuse and incest he differentiates between the sexes. Like I said he finds it all abhorrent.!

Okay let's take a look..

He did not appear to endorse any minimum age or endure any protest that a child was not capable of informed consent. "The law in this sphere should take in to account consent rather than age". When I asked about incest, he hesitated, and concluded that in the case of girls a case could be made for a ban, as possible resulting pregnancy might be genetically undesirable...

So in discussing ancient Greece he mentioned what the law in the sphere should take into account? Does that honestly make sense to you? I could be discussing mass murder by the nazis, but if I go on to say 'the law in this sphere should take into account whether jews actually count as people'.... I mean just how does saying what the law (currently) should (in future) take into account tie up with discussing what actually did happen a few thousand years ago?

As for the second issue, yes it does not appear as a direct quote from Senator Norris but does allude to an opinion differentiating between males and females.

Is it just too difficult to consider the possibility that he may possibly have had a bit to drink, or was tired and off-form and spoke out of turn, without due care to his choice of wording etc? I really don't see the logic behind deciding that Norris couldn't possibly have said those things, that it has to be not only out of context (if you can find any for some of the remarks) but part of a "extreme right wing agenda"... (which by the way you have not remotely backed up with anything.)