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

Sunday June 12 2011

SENATOR David Norris says he is still convinced he will be the next President of Ireland, despite the fact that he has become involved in what he calls "a particularly dirty fight". But he rejected the idea that he is the victim of a conspiracy to sabotage his campaign.

And he says he has decided to stop responding to questions raised by interviews he gave in the past and concentrate on getting the nomination.

"I have to make a value judgement on this and I know it will do me far more harm than good if I just keep on denying, denying, denying.

"Helen Lucy Burke said on the radio that she wanted to stop my candidacy and there is this website that was set up supposedly in my name and is out to undo me," he says. "But I don't know for sure that there is, as some say, a concerted campaign. If there is, who are the people behind it?

"But I do believe there are certain forces in this country that realise somebody who is on the margins, somebody who is Independent and was never part of any political party, could actually become President -- and that has them concerned. Whether they are a lot of individuals, or one individual, the intention is to divert me from my path, but I shall not be diverted. I also believe that people who have extreme religious views have been upset by me.

"And I think there is an attempt to invert the whole situation. What is being said by some of these right-wing commentators is that the liberal agenda is winning and that because I am gay I'm privileged, and that gay people are privileged and that nobody dares to criticise them.

"That's rubbish! That's the same kind of thing as saying it is fashionable to be gay. They should try it sometime, even now, when kids are being bullied out of schools [because they are gay] and teachers are doing nothing about it.

"Look at America. Gutless politicians have allowed the word 'liberal' to become toxic. But if liberal has become toxic in Ireland, then let's remember that the root of the word 'liberal' is the Latin word for freedom -- and this country was founded on the concept of freedom. If we are going to betray those ideals, then this is not the country I love.

"Yet I don't believe we will. But there are people who want to do that and this is the very time to do it, when people's spirits are down, when the economy is down. This is when the right wing flourishes and liberal people are done down, blamed -- but we must not allow that to happen.

"I am happy to be part of the liberal agenda and though I don't know of any concerted conspiracy against me, personally, there is a current attempt to discredit liberalism in this country and it is intellectually dishonest. And I will certainly take a stand against it, 100 per cent, because I believe it is deeply dangerous and threatening."

He added: "I think I'm going to be President. In fact, I bloody well know I am... My best revenge is winning the Presidency."

He claimed that one newspaper, the Daily Mail, had been attacking him "ruthlessly and without pity". He says "they will be seen to be carrying out a vendetta" against him, that part of what's happening is "a circulation war".

"It is an English-based paper and they have to sell newspapers and they will do it ruthlessly and without pity."

"I've been in politics a long time and I know what the fight is like. This fight is particularly dirty and I wasn't expecting it but I don't care if there is a conspiracy, I don't care who is doing all this to me -- ultimately it is the Irish people to whom I must answer.

"People forget there were serious questions raised about Mary Robinson's suitability for the Presidency, but she ruthlessly put it all to one side. She was called a tribal time bomb but she didn't spend time, saying she wasn't. That's how she got through it -- and from that's what I am going to do. As I said earlier, I will not be diverted from my path.

"And I do believe my name will be on the ballot. I have four months to prove myself -- and I shall."

As the Daily Mail might say, let us be quite clear about this: the controversy surrounding David Norris is almost entirely to do with the fact that he is a homosexual.

His critics' defence, that the issues raised are not related to his sexuality, are just that, a mechanism to defend themselves in advance against a charge that they may be homophobic, latent or otherwise.

I imagine most of these commentators do not harbour such views. But I know this, though: Norris would not have been asked about these issues, years ago or now, but for the fact that he is a homosexual. There is no doubt about that, none whatsoever.

Let me put it another way: insofar as I know, other prospective candidates to be President of Ireland have never been asked about the issues raised with Norris.

The other candidates have not been asked because, insofar as I know, they are neither homosexual nor lesbian and, therefore, the media do not seek to canvass their views on matters related to sexuality.

It is only because Norris is a homosexual that the media feel free to ask him about matters related to sexuality; but because other prospective candidates are not homosexual, the media has not, and will not, ask them about such deeply personal matters.

There is a huge contradiction in that.

The only conclusion is this: homosexuality or lesbianism or bi-sexuality are still felt by sections of the public, and the media, to be in some way out-of-step, unusual or perhaps even deviant. How depressing.

What is happening to Norris right now is desperately unfair.

Take Pat Cox: he will be asked questions related to his views on the changing nature of Ireland's relationship with Europe, because, in the public imagination, that is who he is.

Take Mary Davis: she will be asked questions related to the Special Olympics and other such matters because, in the public imagination, that is who she is.

Take Fergus Finlay: he will be asked questions related to matters to do with politics and, also, the rights of children because, in the public imagination, that is who he is.

Cox, Davis and Finlay are fortunate because they are not homosexual.

Therefore, they are on safe, or relatively safe, ground.

Davis and Finlay, in particular, are on positively feelgood ground: do not hit me with a vulnerable child in my arms.

Like it or not, it seems Norris, in the public imagination, is a homosexual, first and foremost: when the public view him, it seems their first thought is "homosexual", their second is "senator" and their third is "Joyce".

As a crusading politician, perhaps he has allowed himself to be so labelled. Therefore, he is now treading a minefield of sexuality when he should not have to tread that minefield -- and nor should anyone else.

He is so treading, perhaps now flailing, because the issue of sexuality is so complicated at the best of times, and, well, we really do have a tendency to further complicate these matters in Ireland.

Let me state my position: when it comes to the issue of sex between consenting adults, I am entirely liberal.

I have never properly met David Norris, and we have not discussed this matter.

But as I understand it from the interviews I have heard and read in the last two weeks, Norris and I are entirely at one on the issue of sex between consenting adults.

The issue has become further complicated, however, because Norris has been asked and, therefore, has felt obliged to share his more nuanced views -- I would say more sophisticated arguments -- on matters which were only raised with him because of his sexuality.

When the issue of sexuality is coupled with politics, as we know, it can be lethal, so lethal as to possibly now derail the Norris campaign for the presidency.

And that would be a great shame because, of all of the candidates so far in the field, Norris is by far the more interesting and, potentially, the best to do what can be a difficult job.

There is a view right now, which I share, that Ireland actually needs what the Daily Mail disparagingly referred to as a "music-hall act", gauche or otherwise, that would be President Norris.

In fact, a Joycean scholar such as Norris would tell you that the great literature of James Joyce, which we hold dear, although few have read it, is steeped in the culture of the music hall, decadently gauche.

Not that there would be anything gauche about a President Norris, as such. He would be, what I might call a cultural president, a president who would splendidly represent that only thing they can not take from us -- our culture, artistic and broader still.

If anything, the manner in which Norris has sought to deal with this controversy, the dignity he has shown, and good humour, highlight a fine judgment in the heat of fire, when it matters, and reinforce the case he is trying to make, that he would, indeed, make a fine President.

I say the controversy is "almost" entirely to do with the fact that Norris is a homosexual because it is not entirely to do with that. It also has to do with the fact that he holds what may be referred to as "liberal" views on matters related to personal responsibility, other than those that are related to sexuality.

But the two are inter-related. That is, it is unlikely that Norris would be examined so closely as to his "liberal" views on, say, the taking of illegal drugs, but for the fact that he is a homosexual.

It seems to me that Norris's views on "illegal" drugs are sought only because homosexuality is still perceived by some to be, if not illegal (thanks to Norris), then somehow "wrong".

After all, neither has Cox, Davis, Finlay, for example, nor any of the other prospective candidates, been asked to share their views on the taking of illegal drugs.

It is grimly depressing, therefore, what is being done to Norris -- and largely irrelevant, too, because his views on these issues will matter not a jot within the constitutional confines of the presidency.

For what it is worth, in recent years I have come to the view that not all "illegal" drugs should be so deemed and that, perhaps this area should be re-examined, as many authorities argue: cannabis and opium, for example, are natural substances, not man-made.

The issues of the age of consent, abortion and prostitution, however, are tangentially related to sexuality; which is, I believe, the only reason David Norris was asked about them years ago, and now again.

Let me stress the point again: he is being asked about these issues only because of his sexuality, that is, because he is a homosexual.

When asked, he made an argument that prostitution should be regulated, and there are authorities who would agree and disagree. It is a debate worth having. By and large, I think, I would tend to agree with him, although I am open to be convinced otherwise.

On abortion -- God, do I really want to go here? -- I tend to disagree with him, although I appreciate the logic and empathy which he brings to his position.

His view on the age of consent is, perhaps, what has done most damage to his campaign: it is also the issue which, I believe, shows his critics to be at their most invidious.

As I understand it, his view of the age of consent should be applied solely to what is called the 'Romeo and Juliet' issue: that is, a young boy and girl who have had sex while one or other is under the age of consent.

Norris argues in favour of the discretion of a judge. I am with him on that too.

The 'Romeo and Juliet' question is entirely separate from the issue of pederasty which, in itself, has nothing to do with the appalling crime of paedophilia.

In relation to pederasty, Norris cites his experience as a young man to approve of the notion of an older gay man being romantically, and presumably, sexually involved with a younger gay man.

The point I would like to make is simple: society does not object to the notion of an older straight man romantically involved with a younger straight woman; nor, for that matter, does it object to an older straight woman -- they have a word for it, 'cougar' -- with a younger straight man.

The issue, therefore, can only be about homosexuality, which takes me back to my original point: the controversy surrounding David Norris is almost entirely to do with the fact that he is a homosexual.

It is worse than even that, however: it seems to me to be unspoken, although inherent in the views of the critics of David Norris that older gay men are somehow predatory towards younger gay men.

We can go further than that to ask if they are really saying that "predatory" older gay men are predisposed to the sexual abuse of young men, perhaps underage, who are vulnerable as to the nature of their own sexuality.

If that is really what they are saying -- and it seems to me it is -- then, really, the controversy surrounding David Norris is grimly depressing indeed.

It is so depressing, in fact, that I would rather stop writing about it now, other than to quote Joyce in Portrait of an Artist and seek to apply it to the religious-right net which has ensnared David Norris:

"When the soul of a man is born in this country there are nets flung at it to hold it back from flight. You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets."

fluorescence wrote: »

I found it painful to listen to the show actually, because they kept shouting over her when she was trying to explain the context for various remarks he made. I hate it when radio hosts can't get their guests to act more respectful and allow one person to finish before making their own point.

Rubik. wrote: »

You obviously didn't hear Dunphy and Waters "discussing" the same topic on the show last week.

Rubik. wrote: »

Are you sure you're not get it mixed up with Coleman at large? I don't remember Dunphy saying that last week.

shannon_tek wrote: »

Ahh ya but even if i vote for the right people they could be the wrong so either way im contributing to nothing...

zuroph wrote: »

if he doesnt want to vote he doesnt want to vote. Its his democratic right.