Is David Norris Toast?

nordisk celt83 · 05-06-2011 05:43PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I invited you to read Norris's words, not Burke's. Why are you going on a tour around all the houses?

Two threads... it's hardly a tour!!! (you're obviously doing it yourself too. Although, I appear not to be quite as obsessed as some)

I'm inviting you to question why should an incredulous source like HLB be believed so easily???

The senator disputed it at the time, he disputes it now, and she continues to highlight that she isn't the most reliable of sources!!!

P. Breathnach · 05-06-2011 05:51PM

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

Two threads... it's hardly a tour!!! (you're obviously doing it yourself too. Although, I appear not to be quite as obsessed as some)

I'm inviting you to question why should an incredulous source like HLB be believed so easily???

The senator disputed it at the time, he disputes it now, and she continues to highlight that she isn't the most reliable of sources!!!

Why do you decline to read and consider what Norris said?

zuroph · 05-06-2011 05:54PM

I've read it, considered it and understand what he was saying.

nordisk celt83 · 05-06-2011 06:22PM

P. Breathnach:

I'm asking you, why you are so quick to believe a poor source, and a non-verified, disputed interview???

In regards to reading the interview again... well, I couldn't be arsed reading the article again tbh... It's rather long-winded, and poorly written as I've already stated!!!

As for quotes directly attributed to the senator, and my views on them...

In my own words:

He is alledged to have said that when he was younger he would have liked to have been introduced to the sexual world by someone older than himself...
That's pretty normal I would've tought... Do teenagers these days not have fantasies about adults/celebs like Katie Price etc???

He's alledged to have suggested that on a spectrum of abuse that being fondled is less damaging than being raped and brutalised...
While I acknowledge both are deeply damaging, I tend to agree with the senator that being raped, brutalised or murdered would be more damaging to an individual than being fondled.

He sugests that there's hysteria about paedophillia, which in many circumstances there is. People being burnt out of houses, people being attacked/beaten, people being wrongly accused etc. So yes, in some situations there is hysteria about paedophillia... is this simply not a fact??

He suggests that in certain circumstances that some people are more damaged by the stigma/publicity associated with abuse than by the abuse itself...
Guess what, I'm sure there are some people who are more damaged by the stigma associated with abuse than the abuse itself. Why are conviction rates/reports for rape, sexual assault and child abuse so low??? Because some people fear the trauma/pain/stigma that revisiting a painful part of their life may bring to them. (of course this isn't the case for everyone.)

As for the seanator's disputed remarks on pederastry, it's open to interpretation, and no one can truly say they know in what context his remarks were made. He was talking about Classical Greece, and not the modern era, and no knows what age groups he was talking about, as it is not stated.

HLB uses words like 'appear' when it comes to incest and age of consent, and all these matters are open to interpretation, and no one really knows what the senator said in this regard as it appears to have been written from the author's own perspective!!!
Also, saying there could be a case for something and not stating an explicit view on something does not mean these views can be directly attributed to your thinking. It appears many are in need of an English dictionary, and the ability to see skewed, nasty journalism when it presents itself!!!

Where's the tape??? Why should we believe the discredited HLB over David Norris???

P. Breathnach · 05-06-2011 09:43PM

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

P. Breathnach:

I'm asking you, why you are so quick to believe a poor source, and a non-verified, disputed interview???
...

I am focusing on Norris's words as quoted in that interview. He has not disputed the quotations attributed to him.

nordisk celt83 · 05-06-2011 10:33PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am focusing on Norris's words as quoted in that interview. He has not disputed the quotations attributed to him.

I think you'll find that repudiating the article 10 years ago, and last week calling it a misrepresentation of his views is a disputation. Also, saying it portrayed him out of context, and saying alterations he asked to be made weren't, is disputing the quotations.

The English language really does appear to be a problem for some, and as my post above states that many of the direct quotes in themselves are not actually problematic, but were nastily portrayed as being something that they were not!!!

P. Breathnach · 05-06-2011 10:48PM

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

I think you'll find that repudiating the article 10 years ago, and last week calling it a misrepresentation of his views is a disputation. Also, saying it portrayed him out of context, and saying alterations he asked to be made weren't, is disputing the quotations.

The English language really does appear to be a problem for some, and as my post above states that many of the direct quotes in themselves are not actually problematic, but were nastily portrayed as being something that they were not!!!

I'm not having a problem with English. I directed you to direct quotations from Norris, quotations he has not disputed, and quotations that you seem to accept as not being problematic. Instead of reading them and saying whether you agree or disagree with my contention that it was Norris who took the discussion into dangerous territory, you fulminate against Burke.

I have another question for you: did Burke misquote Norris?

nordisk celt83 · 05-06-2011 11:10PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have another question for you: did Burke misquote Norris?

I don't know... I wasn't there, and I haven't heard the tape. Have you???

It does raise the point though, why should I take one's word over the other?

To be clear on that point, Norris does dispute the artcle, so it is as simple as taking one person's word over the other. So, why should anyone take HLB's word over that of Norris?

P. Breathnach · 05-06-2011 11:23PM

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

I don't know... I wasn't there, and I haven't heard the tape. Have you???

It does raise the point though, why should I take one's word over the other?

To be clear on that point, Norris does dispute the artcle, so it is as simple as taking one person's word over the other. So, why should anyone take HLB's word over that of Norris?

Norris does not dispute the quotations, so there is no question of taking one person's word over the other.

It seems that you would prefer to disparage Burke than address the issue of what Norris actually said.

nordisk celt83 · 05-06-2011 11:28PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Norris does not dispute the quotations, so there is no question of taking one person's word over the other.

It seems that you would prefer to disparage Burke than address the issue of what Norris actually said.

Norris called the article a misrepresentation, and asked for an alteration to be made to one of his quotations. That is a disputation!!!

I have addressed what Norris said in post 575!!! I have no issue with what is attributed to him generally, but do have a problem with the twisted way in which it was portrayed!!!

P. Breathnach · 05-06-2011 11:55PM

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

Norris called the article a misrepresentation, and asked for an alteration to be made to one of his quotations. That is a disputation!!!

I have addressed what Norris said in post 575!!! I have no issue with what is attributed to him generally, but do have a problem with the twisted way in which it was portrayed!!!

Okay, I get it. You want to avoid the uncomfortable fact that Norris said things that brought trouble on himself.

professore · 06-06-2011 10:53AM

Einhard wrote: »

Semantics. Or nuance. I don't think Norris is sinful or evil. Indeed, I quite the like man, and would have given him my vote. I also don't believe in the concepts of evil or sin. However, if I did believe in them, I could well describe one interpretation of Norris' words as sinful and evil, without reflecting on the man's sexuality. Many of the posts here seem to be trying to equate criticism, or even questioning, of Norris as part of some form of homophobic agenda, and this is but one example. Burke describes Norris' opinions on paedophilia as evil- therefore she thinks homosexuality is evil etc. There is absolutely nothing to back this up. I haven't paid much attention to the article, but I'm quite disturbed by the pervasive attempt to shut down reasoned debate with the homophobic card.

She accuses him of holding these opinions, opinions that many people would find sinful and evil. How exactly is it wrong to express this?

I also don't believe in "sinful" as I am also an atheist. However I do have a set of morals that I try to live by.

I have just read the original article from start to finish and I have to say I agree with you Einhard. I get VERY suspicious when someone is fanatically defended like this in the face of pretty strong evidence. Screaming "homophobe" at any questioning of any aspect of Norris's campaign is a disgraceful tactic - the kind of tactic enemies of Norris would use themselves.

I actually don't have any issue with his older man comments, even though those were ill-advised, since they imply consent of the younger man. The Christian Brother one is a whole other ballgame.

Of course raping a child is not in the same league as a Christian Brother putting his hand in a boy's pocket but the latter act is pretty bad IMHO, as it is a gross abuse of power, and treated far too lightly by Norris in the article. It is the kind of attitude to allow crimes like the one Dominique Strauss-Kahn is accused of to be accepted. By the way if it was a girl he was fondling I would say the exact same thing.

I respect Norris for his honesty, and I believe he does believe it to be no harm, but I disagree with him strongly on this. It actually surprised me as he is one to stand up for the rights of the weakest members of society.

I was amazed at the "Indo" yesterday (Sunday) who had at least 5 articles supporting Norris in this way and none presenting the other side. Normally they present both sides (often badly but that's another issue) of the most ridiculous propositions but here is one that they came out completely biased in one direction where there is a genuine case to be made.

P. Breathnach · 06-06-2011 12:18PM

My position is not far away from professore's, and I suspect that if we teased it out, we might get near to full agreement.

Norris has some admirable or valuable qualities:
- he is more honest than the average politician;
- he has courage, and has made a real contribution to improving our society;
- because of his particular circumstances (openly gay, practising protestant, university teacher) he brings extra dimensions into a political world that tends towards a grey homogeneity.

But, as with anybody, there are also negatives:
- he is garrulous;
- he is vain;
- he is lacking in political nous (that's not entirely a bad thing).

In this controversy, all these negatives feature. His tongue ran away with him during the interview with Burke, and he didn't have the cop-on to see how his words might be taken. His subsequent defence of himself was full of bluster, and he seemed unwilling to admit that he had expressed his ideas very badly. I am irked that somebody whose principal role in life is as an academic should describe what he said in the interview as academic discussion. It wasn't; it was more like foolish prattling by an intelligent man.

I don't condemn him for what he said to Burke. We have all played with strange and often unacceptable ideas (hopefully without taking them too seriously). The mistake was to speak them in an interview and without, apparently, taking enough care about how they were expressed.

Einhard · 06-06-2011 03:14PM

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

It does raise the point though, why should I take one's word over the other?

But that's exactly what you're doing. Taking Norris' word. And then going on the attack against Burke, and accusing those who might genuinely wish to parse his words, and come to their own conclusions as part of some nasty, homophobic smear campaign.

JonathanAnon · 06-06-2011 03:16PM

John Waters talking about his conversations with Helen Lucy Burke at the time the interview was first printed in Magill..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8bOIP1lDik

zuroph · 06-06-2011 03:27PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Norris does not dispute the quotations, so there is no question of taking one person's word over the other.

It seems that you would prefer to disparage Burke than address the issue of what Norris actually said.

actually, he raised one dispute I'm aware of. He says his recollection is that he said "classical Pederasty"... so either she misquoted, or he mis-spoke.

he did address the issue of what Norris said, point by point. the interview does not however give you any insight into how the conversation was led, rather than the story AS TOLD by HLB.

P. Breathnach · 06-06-2011 03:44PM

zuroph wrote: »

actually, he raised one dispute I'm aware of. He says his recollection is that he said "classical Pederasty"... so either she misquoted, or he mis-spoke.

My understanding from what I heard Norris say, was that he mis-spoke and subsequently wished to clarify.

he did address the issue of what Norris said, point by point.

While implying at the same time that he might not have said them!

the interview does not however give you any insight into how the conversation was led, rather than the story AS TOLD by HLB.

Are we talking about the same David Norris here? The loquacious man who has opinions on nearly everything and who is the rent-a-quote journalist's dream? Being led by the nose by a journalist like Burke, who is disparaged in this thread as being merely a restaurant critic?

The bit I am focusing on, and indeed the portion of the piece that represents the greatest problem for Norris, is direct quotation from Norris, not the story as told by Burke.

ebbsy · 06-06-2011 03:50PM

Anybody but Norris.

steelcityblues · 06-06-2011 03:52PM

Norris, unlike many in the profession, does not possess that ever noble virtue 'cunning', which is why he is an easy person for someone like HLB - and now Waters - to discredit at the 'right' time.

Ireland hasn't really changed folks.

Einhard · 06-06-2011 04:33PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

Norris, unlike many in the profession, does not possess that ever noble virtue 'cunning', which is why he is an easy person for someone like HLB - and now Waters - to discredit at the 'right' time.

Ireland hasn't really changed folks.

So now Waters is part of this homophobic smear campaign? I'm sure you'll have lots of evidence to show that he, and Burke, are rabid homophobes? Besides them simply taking issue with what Norris might have said?

steelcityblues · 06-06-2011 04:37PM

Einhard wrote: »

So now Waters is part of this homophobic smear campaign? I'm sure you'll have lots of evidence to show that he, and Burke, are rabid homophobes? Besides them simply taking issue with what Norris might have said?

I didn't use the word homophobe. It is about more than that.

P. Breathnach · 06-06-2011 04:41PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

I didn't use the word homophobe. It is about more than that.

Why might Burke or Waters want to destroy Norris's presidential campaign?

steelcityblues · 06-06-2011 04:45PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why might Burke or Waters want to destroy Norris's presidential campaign?

Because they are vocal social conservatives, and Norris is seen as a leftie liberal. He represents a 'threat'.

Rubik. · 06-06-2011 04:50PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

My understanding from what I heard Norris say, was that he mis-spoke and subsequently wished to clarify.

"Yet it was ‘pederasty’ I said, the magazine got it wrong” counters David.

P. Breathnach · 06-06-2011 04:56PM

Rubik. wrote: »

"Yet it was ‘pederasty’ I said, the magazine got it wrong” counters David.

Source?

zuroph · 06-06-2011 04:58PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why might Burke or Waters want to destroy Norris's presidential campaign?

why does anyone? There's plenty here opposed to him who arent homophobes? the poster never said anything about homophobia, but you jumped on it accusing him of calling HLB and Waters homophobes.

waters is nothing but a bit player in this, all he does is confirm what HLB told him. Nothing else.

zuroph · 06-06-2011 04:59PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Source?

The joe Jackson interviews, did you not read Norris's retort?

Nevertheless, even those who support Norris might question his assertion that there is something to be said for “classic paedophilia.”
“I got a letter from the Professor of Greek in Trinity and he, of course, understands what I was saying. Yet it was ‘pederasty’ I said, the magazine got it wrong” counters David. “But all I’m saying is that when I was seventeen, forty year ago, it was illegal to be gay. People were driven into bushes, public lavatories and that’s all there was for them. So if somebody, a few years older, who is handsome, athletic and so on, came along, the majority of young gay people would think that is a better alternative.”

Rubik. · 06-06-2011 05:00PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Source?

The Joe Jackson interview, linked on the first page of this thread.

kn · 06-06-2011 05:08PM

zuroph wrote: »

The joe Jackson interviews, did you not read Norris's retort?

Just so that everyone understands what 'pederasty' means the definition is sex, including anal penetrative sex, between a man and a boy aged 12-17.

Google it yourselves.

Laisurg · 06-06-2011 05:10PM

David norris gave a talk on homosexuality in my school when i was in 5th year and he seemed like a lovely guy, i think that this old biddy is obviously just prejudice and is trying to bend his words around to destroy his campaign for the presidency.

I think it's absolutely sick what she's trying to do.

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments