Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Is David Norris Toast?

1…1415171920…70

Comments

  • #482
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    old hippy wrote: »
    I don't doubt it. In many ways I think the current smear campaign has its roots in traditional fear/ignorance, rather than any particular party. I hope.
    There is a smear campaign, for sure, who dug up this original interview.

    However, it is not necessarily the case that all of us who were concerned about the tone of David Norris's remarks, nor the remarks themselves, had any problem with his sexuality. I think it was understandable that prospective voters might seek clarification.

    Personally I think that David Norris gave a credible clarification overall, even if aspects were not particularly satisfying. While I think the media have handled this well for him, and didn't let it get out of hand, I am not sure that Senator Norris has exactly handled this crisis as well himself.

    Of course the irony of all of this is that if there is one way to shut a politician up, it is to cage him in the Aras. There is only so much stretching that can be done in the Presidency, and the leash is not all that long.

    I personally wouldn't vote for David Norris in a Presidential election, because I think it's a bit like voting for Brian O'Driscoll to work full time as a match referee. I think he is far too valuable elsewhere, where he has strength. David Norris is no wallflower, and as much as he could stretch the Presidency a little, the constitution does, nevertheless, require a wallflower. Lets put Mairead McGuinness in there and then forget about her again for another seven years. I'm sure most people will think she's still in Europe.

    David Norris would be missed. Just look at all the wonderful debates he's started.


  • #483
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Nodin wrote: »
    Theres an element of that. With regards HLB specifically, I think she just doesn't like him - a personal grudge. Certainly theres been no links established with any party, or parties, ranged against norris so far. With Lenihan, the lad who came up with the tape was associated with FG.


    As to Norris - I've misgivings over the whole commonwealth thing meself, but given the good work that man has done, particularily in regard to the Palestinian people and gay rights I wouldn't hold that against him and begrudge him the office.

    Talk of the commonwealth is just that. Nobody would seriously endorse that direction. And you're correct - he has done a helluva lot to hilight the Palestinian cause and gay rights. Big plus factor in my book.


  • #484
    Fuinseog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »
    I just wish Mary Robinson actually spoke like she was from Ballina. Now that would be hilarious.

    us boggers adapt to the ways of the Pale to avoid derision.


  • #485
    Fuinseog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    old hippy wrote: »
    Talk of the commonwealth is just that. Nobody would seriously endorse that direction. And you're correct - he has done a helluva lot to hilight the Palestinian cause and gay rights. Big plus factor in my book.

    gay rights and Palestinian rights are only important for a minority of people in tis country. Most can live long and happy lives without considering either.


  • #486
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    gay rights and Palestinian rights are only important for a minority of people in tis country. Most can live long and happy lives without considering either.
    Long and happy, but not necessarily informed. Ignorance, as the weary old cliché goes, is bliss.

    There are plenty of individuals to speak for the mainstream. People like David Norris and Mary Robinson ring out, every so often, cautioning us like smoke detectors.

    You don't have to listen to them, but if they weren't alarming people of what might seem like minor problems to you, I wonder who else would.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    old hippy wrote: »
    I don't doubt it. In many ways I think the current smear campaign has its roots in traditional fear/ignorance, rather than any particular party. I hope.

    Is it a smear campaign though? I haven't really been paying attention to this whole affair, but I remember reading the article a while back and was quite concerned at what seemed to be implied. On top of that, when the issue first arose, his clarification wasn't particularly satisfactory.

    It's not a big deal for me, and I like Norris, but I resent this notion that some are promulgating, that legitimately challenging gay candidates on matters pertaining to sexuality is somehow homophobic. I'm not suggesting that is what you;re doing, but there is that undercurrent to this whole controversy.


  • #488
    sausage n buns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭sausage n buns


    No I still think that Norris has a good chance of pulling through the election and winning.


  • #489
    BQQ
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭BQQ


    Here is john Waters' recollection of the original article

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0603/1224298323687.html


    If he was taken out of context it would seem he had ample opportunity to correct it before publication.


  • #490
    Paddy De Plasterer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭Paddy De Plasterer


    Norris is finished. John Waters who was editor at the time backs up Lucy Burke's version of events.


  • #491
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »
    Norris is finished. John Waters who was editor at the time backs up Lucy Burke's version of events.

    that norris said what he said. Yes. but it doesnt change the context.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    idluv2shag davidnorris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6 ✭idluv2shag davidnorris


    Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »
    Norris is finished. John Waters who was editor at the time backs up Lucy Burke's version of events.

    Norris aint finished yet, dont mind that Waters chap he hasnt got a clue what he is talking about.


  • #493
    Abitthick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3 ✭Abitthick


    Waters is actually pretty cool. His article today is pretty devastating. I think Dustin the Turkey stands a better chance of being elected at this stage


  • #494
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »
    John Waters who was editor at the time backs up Lucy Burke's version of events.

    Waters is such a wanker:

    "He would need to be crazy, I told her, to say these things in public."

    We all know that what he said was true and honest, but heaven forbid anyone should tell the truth or be honest on the subject of paedophilia!


  • #495
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Waters is such a wanker:

    "He would need to be crazy, I told her, to say these things in public."

    We all know that what he said was true and honest, but heaven forbid anyone should tell the truth or be honest on the subject of paedophilia!

    Care to elaborate on what exactly that truth is?


  • #496
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    gay rights and Palestinian rights are only important for a minority of people in tis country. Most can live long and happy lives without considering either.

    Ignorance is bliss, eh?

    But you're correct. There are many who don't take into consideration the rights of minorities. They are dismissed, ignored and sometimes ridiculed. Which is why people like Norris are crucial to jog our consciences.


  • #497
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Einhard wrote: »
    Care to elaborate on what exactly that truth is?

    The things Waters reports HLB reading to him from her article over the phone as quotes from Norris were true.

    For those too lazy to click through to the Irish Times above:

    One quotation made references to “classic paedophilia” in ancient Greece, Norris asserting that there was “something to be said” for the approach in which a young man was introduced to sexual behaviour by an older man. I also recall something to the effect that he, Norris, would have relished such an entanglement when he was younger.

    This has been thrashed out earlier in the thread, in relation to the context in which Norris made the remark: consideration of his own situation as a youngster in Ireland when all gay sex was illegal.

    In another quotation, he proposed that there was a spectrum of child abuse, with the example of a Christian Brother putting his hand into a boy’s pocket being at the least serious end of that spectrum.

    This is true.

    In another extract, Norris seemed to be saying that sexually abused children might suffer more from the investigation of their abuser than from the abuse.

    This is true.

    The thrust of his argument seemed to be summed up in two phrases that also featured in the Magill article, to the effect that there was “a lot of nonsense” and “complete and utter public hysteria” about paedophilia.

    Also true.


  • #498
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »

    In another extract, Norris seemed to be saying that sexually abused children might suffer more from the investigation of their abuser than from the abuse.

    This is true.



    I agree, to a greater or lesser degree with the rest of your post, but is this really true? Is there anything empirical to back such an assertion up?


  • #499
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Einhard wrote: »
    I agree, to a greater or lesser degree with the rest of your post, but is this really true? Is there anything empirical to back such an assertion up?

    Read the assertion again: sexually abused children might suffer more from the investigation of their abuser than from the abuse.

    Norris phrased it very weakly, as a "might". I really don't see how it can be false.

    Edit: Norris may not actually have said exactly that. This is Waters's recollection of what HLB read out to him from her draft over the phone, so it is third hand 9 year-old recollection only. I don't mean that Norris definitely said that and it's true, I mean that even if that is precisely what Norris said (which I doubt given what Norris has said about his dealings with HLB) it is still true as written.

    Here's what she actually wrote in the article, which Waters published:

    "I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience."

    This is more definite, and quite different from Waters's memory. It is stated rather weakly: "I think...", he's not stating this as a fact. It's also highly qualified: "in some instances", and it also refers to general condemnation of paedophilia, not just investigation of the abuser. Everything I have read about abuse victims says that the shame asociated with abuse is very damaging, and is arguably part of what Norris is talking about here.


  • #500
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    Well as someone who was going to vote for him, I'm afraid I have had to change my mind. It's a shame, as he is otherwise a fantastic candidate.

    My reasons are:

    1. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who has these views, academic or not. Especially the bit about the Christian Brother and the investigation being worse than the crime. What does that suggest? Let's not investigate because the investigation might be worse than the crime? Absolute nonsense.

    2. Someone who is unable to see how inappropriate making these comments, whatever their private views on the matter, shows a distinct lack of understanding for their audience and would be prone to make similar gaffes on other issues.


  • #501
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    Especially the bit about the Christian Brother and the investigation being worse than the crime.

    HLBs article does not quote Norris saying that, as my last post explains. That part about the investigation is just John Waters's recollection of something HLB told him 9 years ago over the phone.
    Someone who is unable to see how inappropriate making these comments, whatever their private views on the matter, shows a distinct lack of understanding for their audience and would be prone to make similar gaffes on other issues.

    Heaven forbid that we elect someone who tells the truth about awkward subjects that we'd all prefer not to think about.


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    Cannibal Ox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭Cannibal Ox


    Einhard wrote: »
    I agree, to a greater or lesser degree with the rest of your post, but is this really true? Is there anything empirical to back such an assertion up?

    It is traumatic. It'd probably be more accurate to describe it is as a continuation of the abuse. I did some admin work for people working with survivors of institutional abuse and the trauma they were put through in terms of the institutional process was unimaginable. After being abused by priests, they were then grilled by lawyers, doctors and psychologists to try to prove that they were lying. Not only does that process bring everything back, but they try to prove it never happened. Seriously unpleasant.

    There's definitely academic and government research into people who suffered sexual assaults during conflict, went through tribunals and were traumatized through their contact with the institutional system. I've no idea if there has been research done in Ireland, but from the little I know I'm pretty certain you'd find a similar situation.


  • #503
    Fuinseog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    BQQ wrote: »
    Here is john Waters' recollection of the original article

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0603/1224298323687.html


    If he was taken out of context it would seem he had ample opportunity to correct it before publication.


    thanks for putting that up. it would seem the only problem Norris has is that he failed to perceive that the public would be against his views on older men grooming young boys for gay sex. It would appear that the Irish public is not mature or educated enough for paedophilia.


  • #504
    Fuinseog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Read the assertion again: sexually abused children might suffer more from the investigation of their abuser than from the abuse.

    Norris phrased it very weakly, as a "might". I really don't see how it can be false.

    Edit: Norris may not actually have said exactly that. This is Waters's recollection of what HLB read out to him from her draft over the phone, so it is third hand 9 year-old recollection only. I don't mean that Norris definitely said that and it's true, I mean that even if that is precisely what Norris said (which I doubt given what Norris has said about his dealings with HLB) it is still true as written.

    Here's what she actually wrote in the article, which Waters published:

    "I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience."

    This is more definite, and quite different from Waters's memory. It is stated rather weakly: "I think...", he's not stating this as a fact. It's also highly qualified: "in some instances", and it also refers to general condemnation of paedophilia, not just investigation of the abuser. Everything I have read about abuse victims says that the shame asociated with abuse is very damaging, and is arguably part of what Norris is talking about here.

    which sounds like 'up the bum no harm done' or when 'rape inevitable, ly back and enjoy it'.
    Child abusers often claimed in their defence that they were 'educating' the children about life.


  • #505
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    Child abusers often claimed in their defence that they were 'educating' the children about life.

    Since this has nothing to do with my post which you quote, I think you may have meant to respond to some other post, maybe in another thread or in an alternate Universe where David Norris doesn't have a beard.


  • #506
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0603/1224298323687.html

    thanks for putting that up. it would seem the only problem Norris has is that he failed to perceive that the public would be against his views on older men grooming young boys for gay sex. It would appear that the Irish public is not mature or educated enough for paedophilia.
    You are forgetting that Norris did ask for changes via HLB.
    Waters entire comments are based entirely on HLB's comments to Waters and bearing in mind she thinks he's sinfull,I'm taking all this with several grains of salt.
    paddy De plasterer wrote:
    John Waters who was editor at the time backs up Lucy Burke's version of events.
    Thats simply untrue.
    He just retells what happened between him and HLB at the time the article was wrote.
    He says Norris did not contact mcgill immediately after publication but he as editor has not said that he tried to contact Norris either.

    We know that Norris a week later sternly disagreed with the article and we know that 9 years later he has repeated this and informed us that HLB must be lying as she only read 2 paragraphs to him which he wanted changed and we know that she says she read the whole article to him and that he was satisfied.

    All that Waters is saying is what happened between him and HLB,it's no comment on the veracity of the article,just on HLB's view on it's veracity...we knew her view already.


  • #507
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    thanks for putting that up. it would seem the only problem Norris has is that he failed to perceive that the public would be against his views on older men grooming young boys for gay sex. It would appear that the Irish public is not mature or educated enough for paedophilia.

    When people start equating being gay with kiddy fiddling, it would appear education is sorely lacking.


  • #508
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    HLBs article does not quote Norris saying that, as my last post explains. That part about the investigation is just John Waters's recollection of something HLB told him 9 years ago over the phone.

    Can anyone find a link to the original article? All I could find was the following: http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/ and this clearly states:

    "In my opinion, the teacher, or Christian Brother, who puts his hand into a boy's pocket during a history lesson, that is one end of the spectrum. but then there is another: there is the person who attacks children of either sex, rapes them, brutalises them, and then murders them. But the way things are presented here it's almost as if they were all exactly the same and I don't think they are. and I have to tell you this -- I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience."
    Heaven forbid that we elect someone who tells the truth about awkward subjects that we'd all prefer not to think about.

    That is not my point at all. Please don't lump me into the gay bashing ultra conservative camp, I'm anything but. In fact I'm pretty sure I posted positive comments in other Norris threads, as I was a big fan.

    Hitler had no problem telling the truth about awkward subjects either. Now I'm not comparing Norris to Hitler, quite the opposite, but ASSUMING the quote above is from the original article, I cannot in good conscience vote for him, regardless of his other excellent qualities. This quote basically says a little child sexual abuse is no harm, and is an opening of floodgates that can be used to justify anything.


  • #509
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    professore wrote: »
    Can anyone find a link to the original article? All I could find was the following: http://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/ and this clearly states:
    Here it is
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72504339&postcount=121


  • #510
    Fuinseog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You are forgetting that Norris did ask for changes via HLB.
    Waters entire comments are based entirely on HLB's comments to Waters and bearing in mind she thinks he's sinfull,I'm taking all this with several grains of salt.

    .


    Norris revealed his true self in the interview , which she has on tape. Then on 'mature reflection' he decides some of his statements were not the wisest and tries to worm his way out.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    professore wrote: »
    This quote basically says a little child sexual abuse is no harm, and is an opening of floodgates that can be used to justify anything.
    You need to go listen to David Norris's interview with Pat Kenny earlier in the week because he absolutely did not say that and has a problem with HLB's interpretational style of writing,making her interpretations of what he says look like he said something he didn't.
    He cleared that up 9 years ago for her to see but she ignored that and for whatever reason is rehashing it today.
    I mean if it was cleared up 9 years ago,why repeat it today if not for malicious purposes?


    Basically the article on it's own is untrustworthy in my opinion.
    Rehashing it today is pathetic given it was dealt with 9 years ago..
    Rehashing it today mar dhea pretending that it's either new now or that all the stuff supposedly said in the "interview" hadn't been clarified/denied 9 years ago

    As John Drennan political correspondent of the independent said on TV3's midweek programme this week,it has all the hallmarks of a hatchet campaign and it looks like someone is behind it but difficult to pinpoint who.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement