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

Biggins · 09-06-2011 11:45AM

ejmaztec wrote: »

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

I don't see/read Noriss asking for the age of concent to be dumped anywhere.
I think this is a misconception being put about by some of his non-fans.
One in particular here.

He has suggested that sometimes the two might coincide and not just be a clear cut case that a full sentencing in jail terms does have to be applied.
(It all boils to do the particular case details)

kincsem · 09-06-2011 11:45AM

He's a Dub, so yes.

Benny_Cake · 09-06-2011 11:45AM

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?

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?

1 - He describes himself as a devout Christian, and a member of the Church of Ireland: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-abhor-child-abuse-but-sexual-consent-is-complex-ndash-norris-2670243.html. Not sure how he'd be blocked from becoming President if he was an athiest, an athiest might have some personal issues with the oath however.

2 - See here: http://www.norrisforpresident.ie/askdavid/ask-david-views-on-1916-and-the-commonwealth

3 - Not sure - can't see how not having been in the Dail would be seen as such a bad thing though!

4 - All that is required is for the candidate to be an Irish citizen of 35 years of age or more.

prinz · 09-06-2011 11:48AM

Biggins wrote: »

He has suggested that sometimes the two might coincide and not just be a clear cut case that a full sentencing in jail terms does have to be applied.
(It all boils to do the particular case details)

So basically he suggested the system that actually applies as it is right now?

Biggins · 09-06-2011 11:54AM

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.

No its don't - in most cases.
However of the young person is a day or two, a month or two just below that limit - should the other person be lashed with a full long term sentence as equal with someone that abuses the age limit to a much greater extent?
(Rhetorical question)
Norris asks that such asks be further be assessed and suggests that such cases be given better state legal guidelines.
...At least that my interpretation of what he's trying to say.

prinz wrote: »

So basically he suggested the system that actually applies as it is right now?

As far as I can read, yes, only he suggests further areas/topics that might need to be further accounted for and/or taken into account, to allow greater fairness in the applying of court law.

P.S.
Good debate by the way - glad to see some of us (on both sides of this debate) can deal rationally with facts and statements and ask rational/appropriate questions.

prinz · 09-06-2011 12:00PM

Biggins wrote: »

As far as I can read, yes, only he suggests further areas/topics that might need to be further accounted for and/or taken into account, to allow greater fairness in the applying of court law.

So we introduce the defence of consent, for people of all ages. She was only 12 but she consented at the time Judge I swear it....

Rubik. · 09-06-2011 12:01PM

prinz wrote: »

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

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

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

What Norris said to the mail - "I believe in the a principle of consent...there is 13 and 14 year olds having sex all over the place apparently. I don't think thats a good idea. But I don't think sending them to jail is a good idea either."

I really don't see anthing wrong with this statement. A couple of years ago we had the case of a 15 year old boy having consentual sex with 14 year old girl. The boy was convicted and could have faced a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison but the girl couldn't be because the prospect of getting pregnant was deemed to be enough of a deterrent. This wasn't based on any antiquated law, it was Criminal Law Offences Act 2006.

Biggins · 09-06-2011 12:06PM

prinz wrote: »

So we introduce the defence of consent, for people of all ages. She was only 12 but she consented at the time Judge I swear it....

And as thats a worse case - a 12 year old and not a 171/2 year old - greater penalties are (and should be in my opinion) be applied.
The consent of the 17 and half year old might hold greater influence if that person (upon interview in court) is seems to be a responsible person, one that comes across as well aware of their situation and is found to be able to use better judgement as to their own actions.

prinz · 09-06-2011 12:07PM

Biggins wrote: »

No its don't - in most cases.
However of the young person is a day or two, a month or two just below that limit - should the other person be lashed with a full long term sentence as equal with someone that abuses the age limit to a much greater extent.

There is a maximum sentence. There is no minimum sentence.

Of course there is a difference in 10 days and 10 years age gap or whatever, but then all you're doing is moving the limit around like a moveable feast. Somebody argues they were below the limit by two months, the next by three, the next by four, the next by a year...... eventually that line of argument has to be capped somewhere.

I'd agree that in certain circumstances a simple caution or whatever would be reasonable, and a defence of consent would be a way of getting that, but I wouldn't agree at all with a general defence of consent available for everyone.

Biggins · 09-06-2011 12:11PM

prinz wrote: »

...I wouldn't agree at all with a general defence of consent available for everyone.

Neither would I but as Mr Norris has pointed out, in some rare cases where there is a closeness to the legal limit, there might be a calling for better discression when it comes to penalties (if any).
Thats all.

Don Juan DeMagoo · 09-06-2011 01:14PM

I would vote for him, if he can get nominated. But it is looking more and more unlikely as there are more and more candidates coming forward.

Refresh my memory, in 2004 how many of these fine Irish figures contested the presidential elections?
But on hearing that Norris is running for the office a whole platoon of fine Irish people are putting themselves forward. This along with numerous shockingly COUGH unbiased COUGH news articles. Followed by the numerous Irish media big heads saying the following line nearly verbatim " I have nothing but respect for Senator Norris BUT is this the guy we want as our President bla bla bla"

We alas are a terribly conservative people, so a lot of people who are presently saying they would vote for Norris, at the end of the day these same said people would vote for the safe bet.

So I reckon Higgins will get in on a landslide. He will do his cúpla focal or maybe even a poem or two as gaeilge to sooth the nation. But more importantly he is safe. The great fear of the irish is to be embarrassed on the global stage. I honestly would like to see Noris as president merely for his quick wit and spontaneity he would bring to the office. Picking up paper to read what was done/said when he went to some diplomatic sensitive place

.

Sure he can't be worse than the american president Bush. Like for god sake what is the worst thing he can do ...... declare war on a rabid squirrel in the pheonix park? Shag Sarkozy?
People need to grab a hold of themselves and stop being so worried of what other people think of us.... We are Irish damnit, so start acting like it <insert joke here>

Spread · 09-06-2011 01:32PM

Have just put 100 smackeroonies on Mary Davis @ 16/1 with Stan James. The bearded one's star is in on the wane - out to third favourite now @ 3/1
OTHERS:
Pat Cox 2/1
Michael D 11/4
Mairead McGuinness 12/1
Fergus Finlay 16/1
Martin McAleese 16/1
Gay Mitchell 18/1
Brian Crowley 20/1
Jackie Healy-Rae 100/1
Eddie Hobbs 150/1

These are best prices. The last two are not recommended for Widows & Orphans

rugbyman · 09-06-2011 01:36PM

Spread, is there no price for David ?

Rugbyman

rugbyman · 09-06-2011 01:45PM

sorry, you had referred tohim as the bearded one.

I would strongly consider voting for him, my wife and my son will vote for him.

rugbyman

AudreyHepburn · 09-06-2011 04:03PM

Biggins wrote: »

I don't see/read Noriss asking for the age of concent to be dumped anywhere.
I think this is a misconception being put about by some of his non-fans.
One in particular here.

He has suggested that sometimes the two might coincide and not just be a clear cut case that a full sentencing in jail terms does have to be applied.
(It all boils to do the particular case details)

I agree with this assesment.

I got the impression, and from the quoted email it seems I was correct, he feels that while two teenagers willingly engaging in sexual behaviour may not be a good thing, he doesn't feel it is a jailable offence or any form of rape.

I would tend to agree with him there. Two teens messing around is not a major issue for me so long as they take precautions and as long as they are mature enough to understand all the aspects of physical relationships.

wonderfulname · 09-06-2011 04:54PM

Norris was on Q102 a few minutes ago, on the topic of consent he said he has no issues with the age of consent itself because it is equal but he believes judges should be aloud more say in cases. He asked how any mother of a 16 year old boy going out with a girl of 15 years and 10 months would feel on the issue. He used his own position of having been effectively a criminal for the majority of his life just for existing in this country (paraphrasing).

Its pretty evident where he stands, he, as most, doesn't think young lovers should be criminalised for something quite natural, and thinks the way to settle this issue is giving the judiciary more power to distinguish between these cases and actual crime. Makes sense to me.

Spread · 09-06-2011 05:24PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Norris was on Q102 a few minutes ago, on the topic of consent he said he has no issues with the age of consent itself because it is equal but he believes judges should be aloud more say in cases. He asked how any mother of a 16 year old boy going out with a girl of 15 years and 10 months would feel on the issue. He used his own position of having been effectively a criminal for the majority of his life just for existing in this country (paraphrasing).

Its pretty evident where he stands, he, as most, doesn't think young lovers should be criminalised for something quite natural, and thinks the way to settle this issue is giving the judiciary more power to distinguish between these cases and actual crime. Makes sense to me.

So for ten or so years of his life he was an incorrigible criminal. During these recidivistic years did he once, as a good and upright citizen, try and curb his activities? I think we should be told.

wonderfulname · 09-06-2011 05:31PM

Spread wrote: »

So for ten or so years of his life he was an incorrigible criminal. During these recidivistic years did he once, as a good and upright citizen, try and curb his activities? I think we should be told.

Eh actually he was referring to the buggery laws that were in place until 1993, the man's 67, that's a bit more than 10 years. Those laws were disgustingly discriminatory. Suggesting he "curb his activities" is quite bloody insulting, but I'll assume you knew not what you spoke of and keep myself from launching a verbal assault.

Spread · 09-06-2011 05:35PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Eh actually he was referring to the buggery laws that were in place until 1993, the man's 67, that's a bit more than 10 years. Those laws were disgustingly discriminatory. Suggesting he "curb his activities" is quite bloody insulting, but I'll assume you knew not what you spoke of and keep myself from launching a verbal assault.

Sorry, I'll rephrase that. "For about 25 years more or less .................". Happy?

efb · 09-06-2011 05:36PM

Spread wrote: »

So for ten or so years of his life he was an incorrigible criminal. During these recidivistic years did he once, as a good and upright citizen, try and curb his activities? I think we should be told.

The European Court of Human Rights would have overturned any charges.

wonderfulname · 09-06-2011 05:37PM

So you stand by the rest of it? And suddenly it all makes such sense...

Spread · 09-06-2011 05:42PM

efb wrote: »

The European Court of Human Rights would have overturned any charges.

OK then, what took him so long? He likes centre stage and he would have got it a lot earlier. Perhaps he was waiting for the wind of change to come behind him. Just like the fudging and fence-sitting in his recent statement.

mikom · 09-06-2011 06:01PM

Spread wrote: »

So for ten or so years of his life he was an incorrigible criminal. During these recidivistic years did he once, as a good and upright citizen, try and curb his activities? I think we should be told.

I think what two consenting adults get up to in their own homes should be of no concern to the law or the public at large.
That law was a load of bollox and should have been broken at every opportunity.

sesna · 09-06-2011 06:07PM

It seems Norris's views on the age of consent are inextricably linked with his views on pederasty. Change of the former through removal of ages or lowering ages would effectively legalise pederasty between adults and teenage boys.

Spread · 09-06-2011 06:09PM

mikom wrote: »

I think what two consenting adults get up to in their own homes should be of no concern to the law or the public at large.
That law was a load of bollox and should have been broken at every opportunity.

Regardless, it was the law. Your take on it is a la carte. How many members of boards are rushing off to Strasbourg to get the laws on homegrown rewritten. It may be a silly law ..... but it is the law.

mariaf24 · 09-06-2011 06:09PM

I had to admire him there on the six 1, he proudly said he is a gay man. I think he would be a breath of fresh air to Ireland and a role model for many.

Biggins · 09-06-2011 06:13PM

sesna wrote: »

It seems Norris's views on the age of consent IN MY OPINION are inextricably linked with his views on pederasty. Change of the former through removal of ages or lowering ages would effectively legalise pederasty between adults and teenage boys.

O' yahoo, here we go again.
Frankly its my opinion that your talking a load of unsubstantiated, rubbish yet again,

zuroph · 09-06-2011 06:13PM

Spread wrote: »

Regardless, it was the law. Your take on it is a la carte. How many members of boards are rushing off to Strasbourg to get the laws on homegrown rewritten. It may be a silly law ..... but it is the law.

when i read your first post on it, I thought it was tongue in cheek, now I'm not sure.

Yes, he was a criminal. I have no problem with that, and neither should anyone else, as the law was unfair.

Spread · 09-06-2011 06:13PM

mariaf24 wrote: »

I had to admire him there on the six 1, he proudly said he is a gay man. I think he would be a breath of fresh air to Ireland and a role model for many.

How many more times is he going to proudly say that he is homosexual? Big swinging mickies or what. I think he could lay off that cant for now and address the bigger issues - like answering straight questions. By the way, the second last word in the last sentence is not a pun

zuroph · 09-06-2011 06:15PM

Biggins wrote: »

O' yahoo, here we go again.
Frankly its my opinion that your talking a load of unsubstantiated, rubbish yet again,

just put him on ignore, or at least stop quoting him, he shows up on my page when you quote him! The broken record just started skipping again.

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

Comments