Is David Norris Toast?

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Perhaps you should read texts more carefully before jumping to such kneejerk conclusions. Read the sentence preceding the one you have boldfaced and you will see - I hope - that I say there are many reasons why people in Ireland dislike David Norris. Homophobia and the fact that he is a Protestant - and it is you, not I who use the word "hating" - are only two of them.

OK, I accept you didn't directly use the word "hate" but the word "dislike" was used in two consecutive sentences in relation to protestants. You also used the word homophobia which is defined as "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality" in at least one example:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia

So it is not unreasonable for me to have used the word "hate" in the context of repeated use of the word "dislike" and another word that is defined as a hatred.

Secondly, the reason why I drew attention to your post was that this thread is full of responses from David Norris defenders which accuse other directly or indirectly of homophobia and now Protestant-dislike.

At the same time, nobody has been able to answer the question whether David Norris is in favour of a 40-year old man educating a 15/16-year old boy/girl sexually. I believe that is wrong and that is the question that David Norris needs to answer unequivocally in order to dismiss the doubts.

Given the smoke and mirror defences being employed by his fans which seem to revolve around the "hit me with the baby protestant/intellectual/gay/campaigner in my arms", it seems to me that there is no real defence.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Norris: "In the interview I said I cannot understand how anyone would consider it appropriate to have sex with children""

So that's a "no".

When counterbalanced with his views on the age of consent, there is lack of clarity as to what he means by a child. It is a small point, but as someone with teenage daughters, it a point that interests me, the legitimacy of sexual relations between 40-year olds and 15-year olds.

Norris' views on this are unclear.

Godge wrote: »

When counterbalanced with his views on the age of consent, there is lack of clarity as to what he means by a child. It is a small point, but as someone with teenage daughters, it a point that interests me, the legitimacy of sexual relations between 40-year olds and 15-year olds.

Norris' views on this are unclear.

As a parent, the more I have thought about this, the less happy i am about this situation also. It needs specific clarification. And i am not overly impressed about those who waffle on about kids maturing at different ages. I dont care how mature a 15/16 year old is, a 40/50 approaching them with sex in mind is always, at the very least perverse. And i mean that reardless of whether it is hetrosexual or homosexual and whether the older person is some unknown or some famous person.

I have a question about Mr Norris is alleged to have said or not said.
The following below is an excerpt from the Joe jackson interview quoted at the beginning of this thread ;

"..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..."
Is the fuss about a guy a few years older approaching a teen around 17, as seems to be the case from the Joejackson interview quote and if so, how did the discussion of pederasty and the ancient greeks come about ?
Obivously the scenario of one person a few years older than another making the first move is played out all the time, so no big fuss there .

Ellis Dee wrote: »

The bit about "hit me now with the child in me arms". Brings back memories. :):)

Not to me as I don't know what you are talking about.

Armelodie wrote: »

Norris is toast...
the media have accepted this as they're moving on focusing on the rather dull FG 'dilemma'. When he started out his campaign he was seen as the 'darling' close to peoples hearts appearing on the late late etc, now I reckon people just associate him with a funny smell...It seems he did actually say all that stuff and was asked by John Waters who was an editor at the time if he wanted to retract any of it and he said nay....toast toast toast

The media don't seem to have any appetite to pursue Norris on the subject, and neither does any of the other declared candidates.

There is a basic rule in media management - if you are the centre of a major controversy, remember the media loses interest in about 10 days. So minimise your contact with the media for about 10 days. When you re-appear again, the media will have moved on, and so will most readers/listeners.

It looks as if the story has died. It is getting little traction anymore. Journalists who keep trying to raise it are running into a 'that's old news' reaction from op-editors and feature editors.

Thats the real world of the media. Notice how the media has completely lost interest in the nuclear story in Japan? How Libya is rarely in the news anymore? How Bahrein is rarely in the news anymore? The same rule applies. The editors believe the public have a limited interest in a story. After about 10 days the public gets bored with it. If you start the news with it, they find a lot of viewers/listeners will respond with "not this again!" and switch channels. It is sometimes known as the TEGO effect. (TEGO = The Eyes Glaze Over) As soon as you start getting TEGO among the viewers/listeners/readers a story if effectively dead. It takes a whole new angle to resurrect it.

The Norris story, like the Japan nuclear story, etc has hit that TEGO effect moment

If anything it seems as though this whole saga has only increased support for Norris. In fact it was mentioned on Vincent Browne the other night that the Sunday Independent seem to be backing Norris all the way.

Before this stuff came about, Norris had only the support of 9 members of the Oireachtas, this has now increased to 15 (including himself), only five short of the Nomination. It's interesting how the nay sayers like yourself seem to have written him off, when he is actually closer to a nomination than any other Independent Candidate.

The fact is that its quite evident that this whole story is simply a smear campaign by Right Wing Christian Conservative/Homophobes (much the same thing), who simply do not want to see a panzy in the park.

This idea of blurring the lines between Homosexuality and Paedophilia is the favourite choice of weapon for the homophobes. The Catholic Church for example holds Homosexuality along the same lines as Bestiality, Incest, Paedophilia and every other kind of sexual perversion. Even going as far as blaming Homosexuality for the outbreak of Child Abuse within the church and not celibacy (and of course celibacy is no more a cause than anything else)

Norris is quite a talented and skilled politician, and has not got an abusive bone in his body.

So in response to your post. Norris is ''toast toast toast'', you are wrong wrong wrong

anymore wrote: »

As a parent, the more I have thought about this, the less happy i am about this situation also. It needs specific clarification. And i am not overly impressed about those who waffle on about kids maturing at different ages. I dont care how mature a 15/16 year old is, a 40/50 approaching them with sex in mind is always, at the very least perverse. And i mean that reardless of whether it is hetrosexual or homosexual and whether the older person is some unknown or some famous person.

I think its important to actually look at what was dug up about his statement of The Age Of Consent. Norris did not at any point endorse the idea of a 40 year old man approaching a 15 year old girl. This is morally wrong and no-one would disagree with you there.

This whole discussion over the Age Of Consent has been going on for centuries. In Ireland at one stage it was set at 12, outrageous these days you would agree.
Consensual Age is their to protect our children. However this becomes this becomes tricky in a courtroom when the situation involves teenagers quite close in age.
Think about it. If you had a 17 year old son (I don't know if you have), and he had sex with a girl of say 16 and nine months, the girls parents, outraged that their daughter was sexually active, have every right to drag your son to court and have him charged with Statutory Rape. This became famous in the media recently known as the Romeo and Juliet case. Is this right?

Age of consent varies all over the world. In France its 15, Germany 14, hell in Spain its 13, which is ridiculous.

Norris along with other presidential candidate, Michael D Higgins, long campaigned in the Senate for the issues of Consensual Sex to be addressed as it is failing to protect minors being wrongfully prosecuted. Not to long ago legislation as introduced by the Dail so that in these cases the Judge can use Discretion (when they are so close in age), to decide whether a crime has been committed. Personally, I think that is right.

This was Norris' only position about age of consent.

As someone who has lived in numerous different parts of the world at different times of my life, I think we Irish have a tendancy not discuss the taboo subjects i.e access to illegal drugs etc. We simply shut things out and never talk about them, when they need to be at least discussed. We are lagging behind the rest of Europe in these matters. We don't have to agree, however its vital that we discuss!

As for the other stuff raised in the older article in Phoenix mag, I do think Norris was talking about his own personal experience as a young gay man. Ah ha I have found you a qutoe ;-)

'' I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life - yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that."..

I think this was blown completely out of proportion. I remember myself at the age of 15 thinking about the prospect of an older woman lets says ''taking me under her wing'', would I have said no? absolutely not ;-). In fact at that age I dont think any of us would have cared even what they looked like.
Does my own similar memory make ME a paedophile? Absolutely not.

To finish, I not a typical Norris supporter, although would class myself left-wing liberal, however have found my support growing for him over the past number of weeks.
Ive seen a smear campaign emerge against Norris by Christian Conservatives for reasons ive pointed out in another post.

Ive known of David Norris for a while and he has been a long campaigner for the Protection Of Children and Women in particular against abuse of all kinds. When you are the only one with the balls to stand up and talk about this kind of issue in Legislation, it leaves you open to a lot of Vitriol.

I believe he should do well.

IrishPolitik wrote: »

The media don't seem to have any appetite to pursue Norris on the subject, and neither does any of the other declared candidates.

There is a basic rule in media management - if you are the centre of a major controversy, remember the media loses interest in about 10 days. So minimise your contact with the media for about 10 days. When you re-appear again, the media will have moved on, and so will most readers/listeners.

It looks as if the story has died. It is getting little traction anymore. Journalists who keep trying to raise it are running into a 'that's old news' reaction from op-editors and feature editors.

Thats the real world of the media. Notice how the media has completely lost interest in the nuclear story in Japan? How Libya is rarely in the news anymore? How Bahrein is rarely in the news anymore? The same rule applies. The editors believe the public have a limited interest in a story. After about 10 days the public gets bored with it. If you start the news with it, they find a lot of viewers/listeners will respond with "not this again!" and switch channels. It is sometimes known as the TEGO effect. (TEGO = The Eyes Glaze Over) As soon as you start getting TEGO among the viewers/listeners/readers a story if effectively dead. It takes a whole new angle to resurrect it.

The Norris story, like the Japan nuclear story, etc has hit that TEGO effect moment

If anything it seems as though this whole saga has only increased support for Norris. In fact it was mentioned on Vincent Browne the other night that the Sunday Independent seem to be backing Norris all the way.

Before this stuff came about, Norris had only the support of 9 members of the Oireachtas, this has now increased to 15 (including himself), only five short of the Nomination. It's interesting how the nay sayers like yourself seem to have written him off, when he is actually closer to a nomination than any other Independent Candidate.

The fact is that its quite evident that this whole story is simply a smear campaign by Right Wing Christian Conservative/Homophobes (much the same thing), who simply do not want to see a panzy in the park.

This idea of blurring the lines between Homosexuality and Paedophilia is the favourite choice of weapon for the homophobes. The Catholic Church for example holds Homosexuality along the same lines as Bestiality, Incest, Paedophilia and every other kind of sexual perversion. Even going as far as blaming Homosexuality for the outbreak of Child Abuse within the church and not celibacy (and of course celibacy is no more a cause than anything else)

Norris is quite a talented and skilled politician, and has not got an abusive bone in his body.

So in response to your post. Norris is ''toast toast toast'', you are wrong wrong wrong

Funnily enough I totally agree with you on the TEGO theory but I do reckon that the damage has been done and the seed of 'paedophilia' has been planted in peoples minds now. When it comes to allegations most people rarely want to do the indepth analysis about what he said she said etc. A 'catchy' headline in the daily mail is enough proof, despite the fact that the substance of an article is nill.

IrishPolitik wrote: »

This idea of blurring the lines between Homosexuality and Paedophilia is the favourite choice of weapon for the homophobes.

This is what he said...(I've added bold for emphasis) ..."when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life - yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that."...


It is a little ambiguous as to what age he is referring to ,, but in the minds eye there is a simple equation that remains in peoples thoughts

young + sex + mature man = (A) homosexuality or (B) sex with a minor

What do you think most people who would skim the article assume... I reckon it's be (B)...

forgiven... maybe a little
but forgotten definitely no way

That guy is toast

Although most of the other candidates look like limp pieces of soggy bread though, so he mighn't poll too bad.

Armelodie wrote: »

Funnily enough I totally agree with you on the TEGO theory but I do reckon that the damage has been done and the seed of 'paedophilia' has been planted in peoples minds now. When it comes to allegations most people rarely want to do the indepth analysis about what he said she said etc. A 'catchy' headline in the daily mail is enough proof, despite the fact that the substance of an article is nill.



This is what he said...(I've added bold for emphasis) ..."when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life - yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that."...


It is a little ambiguous as to what age he is referring to ,, but in the minds eye there is a simple equation that remains in peoples thoughts

young + sex + mature man = (A) homosexuality or (B) sex with a minor

What do you think most people who would skim the article assume... I reckon it's be (B)...

forgiven... maybe a little
but forgotten definitely no way

That guy is toast

Although most of the other candidates look like limp pieces of soggy bread though, so he mighn't poll too bad.

OK, you were driving at a decent point there but your use of the Bold in his quote completely ruined it.

Firstly you are right in the sense that people will simply flick through an article and only take in certain aspects, that's what we use Headlines for.

However the critical thing, is one's reaction. Lyndon Johnson the 32nd president of the US, famously coined the phrase ''we know its not true, of course its not true, but say it anyway and make him deny it'', in other words, you can accuse anybody you like of anything you like and then wait to see their denials. Obviously certain accusations are more effective depending on the person targeted.
For instance, ''when did you stop beating your wife? I never beat my wife'' the headline will read ''John Denies Beating Wife''. Statistics have shown that most people will not remember the contents of the article, only something about John Beating His Wife and John Denying It.

In this case, Norris has not denied making these comments. That would have been the most foolish thing for him to do. His argument here is context.

The comments themselves are relatively harmless within themselves.

You use of bold's above is so completely off the mark. In fact you only drew you attention to parts of the words, not even the whole word. That's not exactly how it works.

Bolding the words young, mature man and sex, achieves nothing!

Let me put it like this, here is the same quote in my own words:

"when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature woman taking me under her wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life - yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that."...

does that make me paedophile? a predator to young girls? Absolutely not !

Ask yourself the same question. Would you have turned it down? Like **** you would . And dont say you never thought about it when you were youner because we all did :cool:.

Norris was talking about his own experience as a young gay man, he's gay so he thought about men. I'm not, so I thought about women. Its as simple as that. That's the only difference.


The Daily Mail did not actually have any of these quotes, because they didnt have the article, what they did have was another one he did with them last year. When all this came about they jumped on the bandwagon.
The article has not achieved what the hoped it would.

Basically, Norris has won the battle (and rightly so). Whether he wins the war, remains to be seen. The issue will need to be addressed again, but there are a lot of other factors in his favour following this controversy. He's dealt with this exceptionally well, the rest is up to him.

And I would like to re-iterate. Support has grown for Norris. John Halligan TD is the 15th TD to announce public support for Norris.

I know you wont agree, but everyone in the media knows that this whole thing stinks of homophobia.

ebbsy wrote: »

Mitchell 2/1
Higgins 9/4

Its between these two.

Norris 9/2
Doyle 25/1

No chance in hell.

Betting odds can prove nothing but the flow of money.

Mitchell hasnt even got a nomination. Yet apparantly the favourite to win.

Tell you what, go down to the bookies tomorrow and put your wages on a horse that's not even in the race.

Smart Move :eek:

anymore wrote: »

The problem is that Mr Norris is not speaking as a young man; he is in fact a much older man and the danger is that other older men, men who are not as civilised and well bred as Mr Norris, may very well take comfort from hearing or reading a well know person, and politician to booth speaking in this manner, and it may simply confirm their own delusional beliefs that young men/women or teenagers actually would welcome thier predatory sexual advances.
The other claim that simply needs to be challenged here is that evry young teenage boy would welcome the come on from older women. The reality is that many many young teenage boys would simply feel uncomfortable at the prospect of an older woman hauling them into bed. Lets differentiate between masturbatory fantasies and the cold light of day, shall we ?
And as for older men making predatatory advances on some young teenage boy minding his own business - take my word for it, it is not a pleasant experience.
Again I must stress that I accept entirely that Mr Norris is himself a good and decent man. The problem is that there are an awful lot of men out there who are not.

There so many things wrong with this post, im simply to exhausted to respond