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

Annasopra · 09-06-2011 08:25AM

Confab wrote: »

I'm not voting for Norris, but mainly because I'd prefer us to have a president with a real international standing, a reputation as a negotiator and mediator. Norris is a nobody in international terms.

:rolleyes:

That's rubbish - Norris is well known internationally for his ECHR case and founding ILGA -

Biggins · 09-06-2011 08:28AM

Johnnymcg wrote: »

...Norris is well known internationally for his ECHR case and founding ILGA -

I have to say, this is true.

AudreyHepburn · 09-06-2011 09:34AM

http://www.norrisforpresident.ie/campaign_news/letter-to-supporters

Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.

The Senator has posted this letter to his supporters on his website. In it he lays out all his views clearly and concisely.

All of them appear rational and above board to me.

Mr Benevolent · 09-06-2011 09:50AM

Johnnymcg wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That's rubbish - Norris is well known internationally for his ECHR case and founding ILGA -

Doesn't count imo.

prinz · 09-06-2011 10:02AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

All of them appear rational and above board to me.

Except for the age of consent one which he completely fudged IMO.

Edit: Along with some others now that I look at it again.

Biggins · 09-06-2011 10:02AM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If he does not get nominated it is a victory for the Catholic Far Right in this country,very dark forces which i thought had gone away after the abuse scandals.

Aye.

In the past, Senator Norris has described Pope Benedict as a “Nazi”, and in his statement he said that he finds the Pope’s teachings on homosexuality “negative and ill-informed”.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-abhor-child-abuse-but-sexual-consent-is-complex-ndash-norris-2670243.html

I won't call him myself, a big fan of the Rome org!
Thats a plus for me, right there.

Todays poll in the journal.ie - 61% support

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-who-would-get-your-vote-for-president-of-ireland-now-151619-Jun2011/?voted=1

The previous one they did, also mentioned earlier in the thread showed a majority support too.
In fact going from the previous poll, just by those two (and there has been others), his support is increasing.

ejmaztec · 09-06-2011 10:14AM

prinz wrote: »

Except for the age of consent one which he completely fudged IMO.

Edit: Along with some others now that I look at it again.

He seems to be digging a new hole with his "clarification".

prinz · 09-06-2011 10:15AM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If he does not get nominated it is a victory for the Catholic Far Right in this country,very dark forces which i thought had gone away after the abuse scandals.

Yes, because nobody else, could you know, possibly disagree with him...on anything. Ever.

AudreyHepburn · 09-06-2011 10:17AM

prinz wrote: »

Except for the age of consent one which he completely fudged IMO.

Edit: Along with some others now that I look at it again.

All his views are laid out clearly and concisely, I see no fudging tbh.

Biggins · 09-06-2011 10:20AM

Age of consent

In my view, the people best equipped to make these difficult moral and legal
decisions are the judiciary. Legislation based on the principle of consent
empowers the judiciary.
Consent based on age, has resulted in many instances in the inappropriate
criminal prosecution of minors.
This is the approach that I would personally support.

How is that fudging? Seriously?
Please explain and not just thrown the 'fudging' claim out there loosely.

I think the above is very clear, at least to those that can understand it.

prinz · 09-06-2011 10:22AM

ejmaztec wrote: »

He seems to be digging a new hole with his "clarification".

Is it just me or do a lot of his positions on different issues, not actually contain his position at all?

What is your view on prostitution?
My views and opinions on prostitution have always been directed towards the welfare and protection of the women involved and the introduction of whatever means necessary to ensure their safety and well-being

Could mean anything from legalising prostitution completely to throwing more political support behind the likes of Ruhama. Complete fudge.

What is your view on abortion?
The issue of abortion is always a sensitive, personal and emotive issue in our society. I believe that access to information and education is the true champion of reducing the instance of abortion. My hope is that both sides in this difficult moral debate will respect each other’s differences.

Is that for, against, sometimes, minature flags........... Fence sitting fudge.

Age of consent
In my view, the people best equipped to make these difficult moral and legal decisions are the judiciary. Legislation based on the principle of consent empowers the judiciary. This is the approach that I would personally support. Consent based on age, has resulted in many instances in the inappropriate criminal prosecution of minors.

What is it you are actually saying here Senator? Should contract law operate on the same basis? He seems to be saying the age of consent should be disregarded or is it only in cases where the two people involved are close in age? What if one is 40 and one is 16, if the younger party says they consented is that alright then? Does David support the principle of consent for other things? How do you establish whether someone under the age of consent was actually able to fully consent at the time they consented?

Biggins · 09-06-2011 10:28AM

prinz wrote: »

...What is it you are actually saying here Senator? Should contract law operate on the same basis?

He has explained this tirelessly a number of times.

(I paraphrase)
He has said that in cases where someone stands accused of breaking the age of consent - in other words, when a 17 year and 6 month old teen gets involved with someone just over 18 - there is some times the obvious lesser crime being committed in opposition to the older 18 year old going off with a much younger teen/pre-teen!

He has said, in such cases of differentiation and judging of whats more serious and whats not "the people best equipped to make these difficult moral and legal decisions are the judiciary" - not the mob mentality!

What's not hard to understand for gods sake?

In his other replies, he has posted a summation of his views.
He has not fudged anything, he has laid out the basics for which he stands.
God give some people strength and brains to be able to tell the difference. There is some brains lacking here in this thread!

If anyone wants expansion of his views, if they are really interested enough, all they have to do is look up his previous on the record material!
Simple!

kraggy · 09-06-2011 10:29AM

Not living in Ireland at present.

What's it looking like re Michael D. versus Norris? Does Michael D. have any chance?

ejmaztec · 09-06-2011 10:31AM

prinz wrote: »

Is it just me or do a lot of his positions on different issues, not actually contain his position at all?

Could mean anything from legalising prostitution completely to throwing more political support behind the likes of Ruhama. Complete fudge.

Is that for, against, sometimes, minature flags........... Fence sitting fudge.

What is it you are actually saying here Senator? Should contract law operate on the same basis? He seems to be saying the age of consent should be disregarded or is it only in cases where the two people involved are close in age? What if one is 40 and one is 16, if the younger party says they consented is that alright then? Does David support the principle of consent for other things? How do you establish whether someone under the age of consent was actually able to fully consent at the time they consented?

It seems to me that Norris has opinions but doesn't want to let people know what they really are, and this isn't doing him any favours.

prinz · 09-06-2011 10:33AM

Biggins wrote: »

He has explained this tirelessly a number of times.
(I paraphrase)He has said that in cases where someone stands accused of breaking the age of consent - in other words, when a 17 year and 6 month old teen gets involved with someone just over 18 - there is some times the obvious lesser crime being committed in opposition to the older 18 year old going off with a much younger teen/pre-teen!

So he is saying we should do away with an age of consent altogether and judge every single case individually. Or is he saying we keep the age of consent but just approach each case differently depending on the ages/or age gap involved. Would it be legal for a 20 year old to have sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, but not ok for a 24 year old to do the same thing? Where are the lines drawn?

Biggins wrote: »

He has said, in such cases of differentiation and judging of whats more serious and whats not "the people best equipped to make these difficult moral and legal decisions are the judiciary" What's not hard to understand for gods sake?

So in other words you shag away and take your chances with the court? Wouldn't that be even more confusing that a black and white law?

Mark200 · 09-06-2011 10:34AM

prinz wrote: »

What is it you are actually saying here Senator? Should contract law operate on the same basis? He seems to be saying the age of consent should be disregarded or is it only in cases where the two people involved are close in age? What if one is 40 and one is 16, if the younger party says they consented is that alright then? Does David support the principle of consent for other things? How do you establish whether someone under the age of consent was actually able to fully consent at the time they consented?

Well to me it's clear from his quote that he thinks that the judiciary should be the primary decider of consent rather than an arbitrary age. It's not really a complicated concept.

prinz · 09-06-2011 10:37AM

Mark200 wrote: »

Well to me it's clear from his quote that he thinks that the judiciary should be the primary decider of consent rather than an arbitrary age. It's not really a complicated concept.

So in other words you might have committed a crime or you might not have depending on what judge you happen to be up in front of? Yeah I can't see any downside to that system at all. A roll in the hay becomes a role of the dice like never before.

That's not to say I disagree with discretion when it comes to sentencing etc. That is where the problem should be addressed. Not scrapping the age of consent altogether, which is just opening a massive can of worms.

ejmaztec · 09-06-2011 10:39AM

Mark200 wrote: »

Well to me it's clear from his quote that he thinks that the judiciary should be the primary decider of consent rather than an arbitrary age. It's not really a complicated concept.

There would be no consistency amongst the judiciary without a yard-stick like age to go by. Cases would be appealed and counter-appealed until the whole system implodes.

Biggins · 09-06-2011 10:43AM

prinz wrote: »

So he is saying we should do away with an age of consent altogether and judge every single case individually.

Where exactly has he said that it should be done away with?
WHERE - please show us!
Please don't go down the path of Sesna and an unwillingness to see whats staring others in the face with understanding!

Thats an interpretation (a wrong one) - an opinion that is wrong and has been explained to the point of death, many times in clarification by him alone.

prinz wrote: »

...Or is he saying we keep the age of consent but just approach each case differently depending on the ages/or age gap involved.

YES.
And again I quote: "the people best equipped to make these difficult moral and legal decisions are the judiciary"
Not the mobs often raised up in mob mentality by sensationalist press!

So in other words you shag away and take your chances with the court? Wouldn't that be even more confusing that a black and white law?

No law is resolute, its a constant evolving thing. The best we can hope for is that its applied fairly - with each judgement weighted and handed down according to each individual case.
The law is there to show/indicate the state guidelines.
How far and to what seriousness each of those laws is broken, is left up to the judiciary to decide upon - and guess what!
Norris agrees with this! O' the horror!

Biggins · 09-06-2011 10:50AM

ejmaztec wrote: »

There would be no consistency amongst the judiciary without a yard-stick like age to go by. Cases would be appealed and counter-appealed until the whole system implodes.

The Irish court structure (one based on a previous English one) and its process of counter-appeals and having cases re-examined, is clearly laid out and defined since the foundation of the Irish state. Cases can only go so far and examined so much, up to the highest court in the land if necessary - then it stops.
It hasn't imploded yet and I don't think it will do so in my lifetime!
(Thats an opinion however)

prinz · 09-06-2011 10:53AM

Biggins wrote: »

Where exactly has he said that it should be done away with? WHERE - please show us!
Please don't go down the path of Sesna and an unwillingness to see whats staring others in the face with understanding!!

So there should be an actual age of consent. It just shouldn't be used? It seems Mr Norris supports legislation based on the principle of consent, as opposed to the age of consent as said..

Legislation based on the principle of consent empowers the judiciary. This is the approach that I would personally support. Consent based on age, has resulted in many instances in the inappropriate criminal prosecution of minors.

Now you can't have both an age of consent, and then ignore it to apply the principle of consent. You can't have two people with the same circumstances up in front of two different judges and one walks away and the other one convicted because one judge thought 19 and 2 months and 16 was ok, but the other judge thought 19 and 1 month and 16 was a no-no. In the end you are just going to end up with more or less the same system, arbitrary cut offs.

Biggins wrote: »

And again I quote: "the people best equipped to make these difficult moral and legal decisions are the judiciary"
Not the mobs often raised up in mob mentality by sensationalist press!!

...and you don't see any major weakness to that at all?

Biggins wrote: »

No law is resolute, its a constant evolving thing. The best we can hope for is that its applied fairly - with each judgement weighted and handed down according to each individual case.

The best way to apply something fairly across the board is to have a law in black and white. Using the above argument you could do away with all written laws altogether.

Biggins wrote: »

The law is there to show/indicate the state guidelines.
How far and to what seriousness each of those laws is broken, is left up to the judiciary to decide upon - and guess what!
Norris agrees with this! O' the horror!

The DPP already fills that role Biggins and chooses when to proceed and when not to proceed with a prosecution based on the facts of the case. The judge doesn't.

Basically what you are saying is we should have a minimum drinking age in the pub, but barmen should serve people under it anyway and then if something goes wrong a judge will decide if they should have served them or not? Of course he could support for more judicial discretion in these cases but then again that wouldn't require a shift away from the age of consent towards a 'principle of consent'.

Biggins · 09-06-2011 11:07AM

prinz wrote: »

So there should be an actual age of consent. It just shouldn't be used? It seems Mr Norris supports legislation based on the principle of consent, as opposed to the age of consent as said..

who says it shouldn't be used?
Here we go again... stuff being thrown out there if is to say this is what is being espoused!
Like the previous "WHERE" question that has gone unanswered, I also ask: please show exactly where he now supposedly says the age of concent shouldn't be used?

Mr Noriss by my reading of his words has said that in such cases of visible clearer differentiation in regards seriousness in the breaking of the law, its for the judges to decide to what INDIVIDUAL level should punishment be handed down.
I cannot understand how some just don't get that.
Its simple and its make sense!

prinz wrote: »

Now you can't have both an age of consent, and then ignore it to apply the principle of consent.

A judge/court can however decide the severity of each case depending on how close each case is to the letter of the law - for the law is still there to be looked upon for a defining line!
Whats hard to understand about that too? Seriously?

prinz wrote: »

The best way to apply something fairly across the board is to have a law in black and white. Using the above argument you could do away with all written laws altogether.

Lets be realistic, There is no just black and white in this world.
The best any state can do, is lay down legal guidelines and judge accordingly - separately with each case - as to how close or far way from those guidelines, is the breaking of them and what should be done accordingly in punishment, if any is needed.
And again, Norris supports the established court system and states the judiciary should judge and apply the law accordingly!
(Or should we just lets mobs apply laws now!)

prinz wrote: »

The DPP already fills that role Biggins and chooses when to proceed and when not to proceed with a prosecution based on the facts of the case. The judge doesn't.

The DPP looks at a case and says 1. is there a clear law broken? 2. Is there enough evidence to bring a case.
...Then he hands the case over to the courts to FURTHER examine the finer detail of such cases and bring about a judgement that is varied and applicable to each case depending on the differentiating details of such cases.

prinz wrote: »

Basically what you are saying is we should have a minimum drinking age in the pub, but barmen should serve people under it anyway and then if something goes wrong a judge will decide if they should have served them or not? Of course he could support for more judicial discretion in these cases but then again that wouldn't require a shift away from the age of consent towards a 'principle of consent'.

He hasn't asked/called for a change on the law.
He has made the point that should be obvious to us all that just once in a while there are areas that require non-absolutes in when it comes always applying the severest of sentencing as laid down in state guidelines.

prinz · 09-06-2011 11:19AM

Biggins wrote: »

who says it shouldn't be used?
Here we go again... stuff being thrown out there if is to say this is what is being espoused
Like the previous "WHERE" question that has gone unanswered, I also ask: please show exactly where he now supposedly says the age of concent shouldn't be used?

Eh where he said legislation on the area should be centred around the principle of consent rather than the age of consent. Should they both be used?

Biggins wrote: »

Mr Noriss by my reading of his words has said that in such cases of visible clearer differentiation in regards seriousness in the breaking of the law, its for the judges to decide to what INDIVIDUAL level should punishment be handed down.

Discretionary sentencing. Eh exactly the situation as it exists now then.

Biggins wrote: »

I cannot understand how some just don't get that.
Its simple and its make sense!

No it doesn't make any sense. You are saying there should be an age of consent, but the judiciary should use their judgement when bringing a case and discretion in sentencing......... HEY guess what... that's what happens now! So why the need to change the focus of the law?

Biggins wrote: »

A judge/court can however decide the severity of each case depending on how close each case is to the letter of the law - for the law is still there to be looked upon for a defining line! Whats hard to understand about that too? Seriously?

So basically we have a concrete law there to be looked at, but the judge on the day decides whether or not to actually use it?

Biggins wrote: »

And again, Norris supports the established court system and states the judiciary should judge and apply the law accordingly!
(Or should we just lets mobs apply laws now!)

The law is applied accordingly. It's there for you, and me and little Mary, and Paddy down the road. Where the hell has mob rule been suggested by the way?

Biggins wrote: »

The DPP looks at a case and says 1. is there a clear law broken....

...and yet there is no black and white, thus there is no clear law to be broken.

Mark200 · 09-06-2011 11:21AM

prinz wrote: »

So in other words you might have committed a crime or you might not have depending on what judge you happen to be up in front of? Yeah I can't see any downside to that system at all. A roll in the hay becomes a role of the dice like never before.

Well that's really not what I said at all. But first of all, I assume they'd be in front of a jury, not a judge.

Second of all, what you described is actually reality in many instances. For example, if a guy was to have sex with an intoxicated woman the jury would have to decide whether or not that woman was too drunk to give consent.

Anyway, I think Norris was talking about it in terms of sentencing since he has said things in relation to the degree of severity of sex crimes.

Mark200 · 09-06-2011 11:23AM

prinz wrote: »

...and yet there is no black and white, thus there is no clear law to be broken.

Well reality isn't black and white. The law can't account for every possibly case. Hence the need for a judge and jury.

prinz · 09-06-2011 11:24AM

Biggins wrote: »

He hasn't asked/called for a change on the law..

We have legislation in the area based on ages of consent. Norris supports legislation based on the principle of consent, not the age...

Legislation based on the principle of consent empowers the judiciary. This is the approach that I would personally support. Consent based on age, has resulted in many instances in the inappropriate criminal prosecution of minors.

To get to that stage requires a change in the law.

Biggins wrote: »

He has made the point that should be obvious to us all that just once in a while there are areas that require non-absolutes in when it comes always applying the severest of sentencing as laid down in state guidelines.

But sure the judges don't always apply the severest of sentencing...

ejmaztec · 09-06-2011 11:26AM

Biggins wrote: »

The Irish court structure (one based on a previous English one) and its process of counter-appeals and having cases re-examined, is clearly laid out and defined since the foundation of the Irish state. Cases can only go so far and examined so much, up to the highest court in the land if necessary - then it stops.
It hasn't imploded yet and I don't think it will do so in my lifetime!
(Thats an opinion however)

The problem would only arise if the age of consent were dumped in favour of a case-by-case basis.

Downlinz · 09-06-2011 11:32AM

I have a couple of questions on Norris, here might be a relevant place to ask them.

1) Is he an atheist? If he is does our constitution not prevent him becoming president?

2) I read an article about him before where it appeared he endorsed Ireland joining the commonwealth. I'd feel strongly against that, is it true and if he took office would he be pushing anglo agendas like this?

3) Why did he never run for the dail or associate himself with any political party?

4) He wasn't born in Ireland, is that a problem in the constitution becoming president as it is in the USA?

Biggins · 09-06-2011 11:36AM

prinz wrote: »

Eh where he said legislation on the area should be centred around the principle of consent rather than the age of consent. Should they both be used?

Why not? Both are defined in law.
If a person says "no" - thats it, end of story. You force yourself upon a person under age or not, your breaking the law and a judge will decide your penalty depending on the severity of your actions.

prinz wrote: »

Discretionary sentencing. Eh exactly the situation as it exists now then.

Yes and Norris supports that as far as I can tell.
He has just reminded the public why such discretionary sentencing applies and in what cases sometimes.

prinz wrote: »

No it doesn't make any sense. You are saying there should be an age of consent, but the judiciary should use their judgement when bringing a case and discretion in sentencing......... HEY guess what... that's what happens now! So why the need to change the focus of the law?

So that judges further examine/see that some case are not as clear cut as sometimes the state just makes them out to be.
Thats clear to me anyway.

prinz wrote: »

...So basically we have a concrete law there to be looked at, but the judge on the day decides whether or not to actually use it?

Not NOT to use it - but to a better quality of judgement.

prinz wrote: »

The law is applied accordingly. It's there for you, and me and little Mary, and Paddy down the road. Where the hell has mob rule been suggested by the way?

It was asked earlier "Would it be legal for a 20 year old to have sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, but not ok for a 24 year old to do the same thing? Where are the lines drawn?"
Well it would be a a judge to decide. I further added that it shouldn't be let be decided by just media/mob mentality.

prinz wrote: »

...and yet there is no black and white, thus there is no clear law to be broken.

There are many laws broken. Its the judging of some grey areas that need to be better handled.
Norris has just reminded us all of some of those areas that might need to be further examined, accounted for and perhaps even further legislated for too.

prinz · 09-06-2011 11:43AM

Downlinz wrote: »

I have a couple of questions on Norris, here might be a relevant place to ask them.
1) Is he an atheist? If he is does our constitution not prevent him becoming president?

No, he isn't.

Downlinz wrote: »

2) I read an article about him before where it appeared he endorsed Ireland joining the commonwealth. I'd feel strongly against that, is it true and if he took office would he be pushing anglo agendas like this??

He didn't.

Downlinz wrote: »

3) Why did he never run for the dail or associate himself with any political party???

What difference does that make? Perhaps he didn't feel close enough to any party?

Downlinz wrote: »

4) He wasn't born in Ireland, is that a problem in the constitution becoming president as it is in the USA?

No, it isn't.

Biggins wrote: »

Why not? Both are defined in law.
If a person says "no" - thats it, end of story. You force yourself upon a person under age or not, your breaking the law and a judge will decide your penalty depending on the severity of your actions.

Statutory rape Biggins. Statutory. Statutory. Consent doesn't come into it. So you would have to change the laws we have. You can't have an age of consent, and then decide in each case when it applies and when it doesn't.

Biggins wrote: »

Well it would be a a judge to decide. I further added that it shouldn't be let be decided by just media/mob mentality..

Great for you. Luckily enough nobody proposed that it be decided by mob rule or mentality.

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

Comments