Is David Norris Toast?

Fuinseog · 01-06-2011 01:56PM

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think he had an inkling of a Presidential election back then and the comments are taken out of context. I think the O'Searcaigh comments were very naive, but I think he knew the guy and didn't believe the allegations.

Then you have the Commonwealth stuff thrown at him. You've right wing Christian fundamentalist types and extreme Republicans trying to get the boot in. They maybe small in numbers but they are full of their self importance and make loads of noise, as seen in Lisbon 1.

I do not believe Commonwealth is an issue. It was also advocated by FF minister O Cuiv.

O Searcaigh did not deny the allegations but tried in some warped way to justify what he did. Personally I do not approve of straight men having sex with minors but O Searcaigh and Norris cannot really condemn it, which the straight community find disturbing.

I am not sure if you are calling me aright wing christian and republican. hard to be both.

phantom_lord · 01-06-2011 01:58PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

Would Norris be a gay president representative of the gay community or a president reprensentative of all, who happens to be gay? Many believe the former would be the case.

They'd be wrong. He himself said it will be the latter.

old hippy · 01-06-2011 01:58PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

Personally I do not approve of straight men having sex with minors .

I don't think anyone here approves of anyone having sex with minors.

Fuinseog · 01-06-2011 02:00PM

spikeprint wrote: »

There are only two types of gays? I'm guessing you prefer the in the closet gays, so you don't have to see them.

The pope was a Nazi, and he is the fuhrer of the catholic church, a wily band of men that used to get away with all kind of shenanigans.

you want people to be homo friendly yet gays are anti Catholic and completely intolerant of anyone who does not share their views.

This is what awaits if Norris becomes president.

old hippy · 01-06-2011 02:03PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

you want people to be homo friendly yet gays are anti Catholic and completely intolerant of anyone who does not share their views.

This is what awaits if Norris becomes president.

Gays are anti-catholic? More bull. I suppose all the gays who go to church are hypocrites, then?

You seem to know a lot about what gays think - did you enroll in mind reading classes?

optogirl · 01-06-2011 02:03PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

you want people to be homo friendly yet gays are anti Catholic and completely intolerant of anyone who does not share their views.

This is what awaits if Norris becomes president.

would 'their views' be that irrespective of sexuality we are all entitled to the same human rights? All gay people do not share the same views. Also - homesexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is.

later12 · 01-06-2011 02:05PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Equally, I accept that Helen Lucy Burke was entitled to say that she found some of his views on sexual matters deeply troubling.

I think that is a fair point. I feel a little guilty criticisng HL Burke in all of this since on the face of it many of us would find some of the comments unsettling. How many people, if David Norris's name had been blacked out, would have defended the article and whoever had uttered those words?

I think that any suggestion that David Norris is a paedophile sympathiser is ridiculous. However, being aware that some of our well respected public figures in the past have had all such accusations swept aside in light of their (usually religious) pre-eminence, I think we are compelled do insist on a clarification and a retraction from the man himself. I dislike the automatic assumption that David Norris was misquoted (although it was the first thought for most of us, I am sure) and the defenses that arose on here before the man had even spoken himself.

I also dislike the insinuation that the woman who raised these concerns is a homophobe. Again, such attemopts to hurt the reputation of those who spoke out is an all too familiar feature of our recent history.

HL Burke might have many reasons for bringing this to our attention - but lets just clarify that it was an anti David Norris, homophobic website which originally republished her article. She merely appeared on radio, according to herself, to set the record straight on what was being accused of being a homophobic piece of writing. This controversy did not start when HL Burke rang Liveline, it was dug up by others prior to that. The woman was merely defending her article, which, in fairness, also paid tribute to Senator Norris.

Zubeneschamali · 01-06-2011 02:08PM

old hippy wrote: »

did you enroll in mind reading classes?

I read the homosexual agenda, but I didn't stay for the meeting. :pac:

Nodin · 01-06-2011 02:20PM

meglome wrote: »

What's with the Sinn Fein supporters putting the boot in? Are Sinn Fein running a candidate? I'm a bit suspicious.

....could we all 'go away' with the implications about SF and Republicans in general on this thread? TY.

Nodin · 01-06-2011 02:21PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

you want people to be homo friendly yet gays are anti Catholic and completely intolerant of anyone who does not share their views.

This is what awaits if Norris becomes president.

I was unaware that homosexuality was the determining factor in religous views.

Paulie Walnuts · 01-06-2011 03:19PM

later10 wrote: »

How many people, if David Norris's name had been blacked out, would have defended the article and whoever had uttered those words?

Very true, or what if it was an Irish bishop or some such clergyman that made these comments in the course of an academic conversation? There would be a s**tstorm of epic proportions.

BlaasForRafa · 01-06-2011 03:58PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

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

I never once mentioned homophobic....guilty conscience perhaps?

Also I said MOST of those slagging him off seem to be from the hardline republican persuasion...not ALL

spikeprint · 01-06-2011 04:08PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

you want people to be homo friendly yet gays are anti Catholic and completely intolerant of anyone who does not share their views.

This is what awaits if Norris becomes president.

I'm not gay or homophobic. But I am anti catholic! I suspect you believe that if Norris is made president we can all welcome a future where we're forced to wear pink tutu's while burning efigys of christ.

Can some one get this guy a Delorean, they're missing him in the 18th century.

sensibleken · 01-06-2011 04:50PM

old hippy wrote: »

I don't think anyone here approves of anyone having sex with minors.

welsh people? oh sorry i read that as miners

sensibleken · 01-06-2011 04:52PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

you want people to be homo friendly yet gays are anti Catholic and completely intolerant of anyone who does not share their views.

This is what awaits if Norris becomes president.

you do know gay people have individual opinions right? just like staright people? Its a sexual orientation not a philosophy.

Paulie Walnuts · 01-06-2011 05:10PM

This thread has gone way off point here. It seems that the issue keeps coming back to homosexuality and it seems to be the "Pro-Norris" people who keep making a big deal out of it despite saying homosexuality is irrelevant. It is completely irrelevant and just because a person doesn't think Norris would be a good choice for president mean they are:
(a) homophobic
(b) homophobic but pretending they're not
(c) buying the accusation that Norris condones pedophilia
(d) a republican
(e) a religious nut
In fairness Norris is not the most obvious of choices for president but there seems to be an attitude that if you don't support him it must be because of his sexual orientation. For me it's got nothing to do with that, it's the fact the he's a smug, up his own arse elitist.

dvpower · 01-06-2011 05:24PM

later10 wrote: »

I think we are compelled do insist on a clarification and a retraction from the man himself. I dislike the automatic assumption that David Norris was misquoted (although it was the first thought for most of us, I am sure) and the defenses that arose on here before the man had even spoken himself.

He did clarify his view, firstly a few days after the article was first published, again on a posting on his website and again yesterday on the radio with Pat Kenny.

Even for people who weren't aware of these clarifications/rebuttals, it would be fair enough for anyone who knows David Norris to evaluate these allegations against what they know of him.
If someone was to claim that the Pope said that he was a regular condom user, people wouldn't need a statement from the pope to clarify it; they would be naturally very suspicious of the claim.

meglome · 01-06-2011 05:51PM

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

This thread has gone way off point here. It seems that the issue keeps coming back to homosexuality and it seems to be the "Pro-Norris" people who keep making a big deal out of it despite saying homosexuality is irrelevant. It is completely irrelevant and just because a person doesn't think Norris would be a good choice for president mean they are:
(a) homophobic
(b) homophobic but pretending they're not
(c) buying the accusation that Norris condones pedophilia
(d) a republican
(e) a religious nut
In fairness Norris is not the most obvious of choices for president but there seems to be an attitude that if you don't support him it must be because of his sexual orientation. For me it's got nothing to do with that, it's the fact the he's a smug, up his own arse elitist.

So you're not homophobic etc you just hate people who are very educated?

spikeprint · 01-06-2011 05:55PM

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

This thread has gone way off point here. It seems that the issue keeps coming back to homosexuality and it seems to be the "Pro-Norris" people who keep making a big deal out of it despite saying homosexuality is irrelevant. It is completely irrelevant and just because a person doesn't think Norris would be a good choice for president mean they are:
(a) homophobic
(b) homophobic but pretending they're not
(c) buying the accusation that Norris condones pedophilia
(d) a republican
(e) a religious nut
In fairness Norris is not the most obvious of choices for president but there seems to be an attitude that if you don't support him it must be because of his sexual orientation. For me it's got nothing to do with that, it's the fact the he's a smug, up his own arse elitist.

You do realise that this thread is about allegations against DN. Not about his other attributes or faults. Of course it will come back to his homosexuality, because that is what the original article was about. So don't be surprised when people mention it.

Also, there is some homophobic comments being thrown around, by homophobes. Therefore they deserve reply.

Godge · 01-06-2011 06:06PM

spikeprint wrote: »

You do realise that this thread is about allegations against DN. Not about his other attributes or faults. Of course it will come back to his homosexuality, because that is what the original article was about. So don't be surprised when people mention it.

Also, there is some homophobic comments being thrown around, by homophobes. Therefore they deserve reply.

Yes, there were quite a few homophobic comments, should have got bans but that's for the mods.

But not all of the posters were homophobic and some raised genuine concerns. For my part, the apparent trivialisation of low-level sexual abuse of minors is a big concern and in this regard I am certainly concerned about some of the defence of pederastry that has been promulgated on this thread (especially the poster who repeatedly linked defence of pederastry as equivalent to defence of gay sexuality).

On the other side, there were some disgraceful attempts to label those who criticised Norris' views as homophobic, republican, catholic etc.

It is actually quite interesting to read the balanced debate on a similar thread in the LGBT forum (thread of the day). Views in favour and against Norris and a calm rational debate that avoids name-calling.

Mr. Loverman · 01-06-2011 06:41PM

It is absolutely obvious he was not condoning child abuse.

This reeks of "WE TOLD YOU THE GAYS ARE EVIL".

later12 · 01-06-2011 06:51PM

dvpower wrote: »

He did clarify his view, firstly a few days after the article was first published, again on a posting on his website and again yesterday on the radio with Pat Kenny.

Yes he did clarify his view. I was just referring to those who were defending David Norris and spinning these comments as homophobic lies before David Norris came out himself to clarify his views.

I am satisfied that David Norris is not does not harbour a secret suitcase of opinion from which he occasionally release snippets to restaurant critics.

But do I think he could have gone further and retracted some of the individual comments that he made, or could have been more clear?
Yes

Do I think this issue has been totally clarified in the minds of the electorate?
No

Do I think that will cost him the Presidency?
I hope not, it would be a shame, but it remains a possibility.

I hope the campaigners on the Norris side take some heart from the fact that Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese have survived questions on their character in Presidential campaigns during the past. But they should at least be aware that such character demolitions have worked as well - Brian Lenihan Snr was proof of that. And they should learn to respond better to controversies in future and to stake them in the heart -- this one may not yet be dead.

Paulie Walnuts · 01-06-2011 07:23PM

meglome wrote: »

So you're not homophobic etc you just hate people who are very educated?

Yes, that is it. That's weird how did you do that? I hate people that are "very educated" like yourself. You must have brain power akin to a farm animal or even a zoo animal.

meglome · 01-06-2011 08:19PM

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

Yes, that is it. That's weird how did you do that? I hate people that are "very educated" like yourself. You must have brain power akin to a farm animal or even a zoo animal.

hehe thanks. I was just speculating as to why you seem so anti David Norris. My own background would be far removed from his but I didn't think someone being an intellectual was a reason not to vote for them. We've been used to voting for wide boys and see where that's got us.

Maybe you didn't need to also send abuse by PM... just saying.

spikeprint · 01-06-2011 08:22PM

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

Yes, that is it. That's weird how did you do that? I hate people that are "very educated" like yourself. You must have brain power akin to a farm animal or even a zoo animal.

I heard that David Norris condones sex between farm and zoo animals. Those gays, they disgust me.

spikeprint · 01-06-2011 08:25PM

Godge wrote: »

Yes, there were quite a few homophobic comments, should have got bans but that's for the mods.

But not all of the posters were homophobic and some raised genuine concerns. For my part, the apparent trivialisation of low-level sexual abuse of minors is a big concern and in this regard I am certainly concerned about some of the defence of pederastry that has been promulgated on this thread (especially the poster who repeatedly linked defence of pederastry as equivalent to defence of gay sexuality).

Context is a wonderful thing, something Norris's statements seem to be without. There is such a taboo around sexual abuse that the topic cannot and will never be discussed in a civilised manner. Yes, its abhorrent, but what we are currently doing does little to stem it. People need to pull their heads out of the sand.

Wolfe Tone · 01-06-2011 08:39PM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I never once mentioned homophobic....guilty conscience perhaps?

Also I said MOST of those slagging him off seem to be from the hardline republican persuasion...not ALL

I guess you didnt read the thread then eh?

If you had have you will see that a number of republicans support Norris.

Silentcorner · 01-06-2011 09:33PM

If your explaining your losing....class 1.01 political survival....for that reason alone he shouldn't cost the taxpayer massive money over a presidential term..you do expect more from a career politician..

I was on the fence when it came to Norris, on the one hand he could be a refreshing change, on the other he is capable of embarrasing us ( a la the recent media storm ) I don't think the shackles of a presidency would suit him, it would perhaps diminish him....shame...

Abitthick · 02-06-2011 04:35AM

If Norris Criteria was used in the residential redress board institute then it's possible that 80% of the cases would have been dismissed

Zubeneschamali · 02-06-2011 08:41AM

later10 wrote: »

Do I think this issue has been totally clarified in the minds of the electorate?

Of course not, that's the whole point of a mud-slinging tactic like this. The more the target talks about it, the more mud flies around and the dirtier things get.

If Norris wants to clarify it fully, he has to come on and talk about paedophilia, pedaresty, him as a gay youth back when all homosexuality a was strictly illegal and so on.

He has to do this repeatedly, until the whole electorate understands. By which point his opponents work is done, and Norris has been pigeon-holed as a gay candidate who talks non-stop about gay issues, with some dodgy stuff about child sex in his history somewhere.

Which is the whole idea.

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments