Mollie Breathna wrote: » Watch thishttp://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0711/media-3000355.html# and you decide if he's merely a slimy FF politician or is he actually homophobic. (Not excusing his FF and FG colleagues on Galway City Council who voted to not even allow David Norris speak to them in September but Mary Davis may. Also maybe worth bearing in mind his refusal to attend the Gay Pride - Bród- Parade when he was Mayor.)
Manach wrote: » Good for him, not to be bound by PC cultural elites who would seek to ostracise anyone who would characterise homosexual behaviour in anything but glowing terms.
gambiaman wrote: » Whatever the feeling towards Norris or the FG political machinations to keep him off the ballot paper, it was totally wrong for the FG mayor to use her casting vote to stop the man even speaking to the council. She has since rowed back on that idiotic decision and he will get his chance to address the council in September.http://www.independent.ie/national-news/davis-secure-as-norris-suffers-aras-race-snub-2818582.html
SamuelFox wrote: » I have to disagree - firstly, if FF and FG control Galway City Council, and neither are going to support him, then why should he speak? There is enough going on for the Corporation to deal with without wasting time on a pointless speech from Norris that has no chance of resulting in a nomination. This is just another episode in Norris' attempt to be a martyr. If he fails to get the nomination he will be deprived his rightful entitlement to be President by small minded people and he can dine on witty comments about it until he dies. If he gets the nomination its another example of the brave new Ireland being forged by David Norris, until he fails to get elected and he can dine on witty comments about it until he dies. The reality is that the electoral system we have includes a gatekeeper mechanism to protect the dignity of the office by preventing clowns running. It doesn't always work - Sean Gallagher is an example of that. But we elect local politicians to do certain functions and this is one of them. We can't complain when they decided to exercise their judgement in a way some of us disagree with. Similarly, at Oireachtas level the people who know Norris best have decided not to support him - for example, the independent Senators that have served longest with Norris - Shane Ross (also a TCD man) and Fergal Quinn have both declined to nominate him. There is a lesson in that. In terms of the Mayor of Galway, its an embarrassing climbdown - I don't believe for a minute that she intended to break the FG whip at her first meeting by casting her vote with Labour to allow him speak, and if she was it says a lot about her capability as a Chair that she was unsure what she was voting on in a debate that she herself chaired and presumably called for the vote. Finally, I doubt he will get a chance to address them in Sept - unless the composition of the Council changes in that time the vote will remain the same and Mayor Naughton will have to either stand by her principles or do what is politically expedient, and given her actions to ensure election as Mayor, I know what I'll be betting on.
expectationlost wrote: » both
hotmail.com wrote: » He didn't specify exactly what he disagreed with in Norris' interview, like many anti-Norris people. He just felt 'uncomfortable' about it i.e. code for 'I always hated Norris, too camp and gay for my liking'.Just to clarify, Norris said nothing controversial in his original interview, nothing. But this councillor is clearly gunning for a particular vote in Galway and has got a few headlines that will keep the homophobic Galway voter happy.
hotmail.com wrote: » He didn't specify exactly what he disagreed with in Norris' interview, like many anti-Norris people. He just felt 'uncomfortable' about it i.e. code for 'I always hated Norris, too camp and gay for my liking'. Just to clarify, Norris said nothing controversial in his original interview, nothing. But this councillor is clearly gunning for a particular vote in Galway and has got a few headlines that will keep the homophobic Galway voter happy.
SamuelFox wrote: » I think that attitude is what makes Norris so one-dimensional in so many peoples eyes. I dislike him as a politician, but I’m certainly not homophobic. Attributing any opposition to his campaign to a homophobia acts a chilling effect in the debate, and I find it very distasteful. If I don’t support Mary Davis or Brian Crowley, am I guilty of disability discrimination? If I don’t support Gay Mitchell is it class snobbery? The reality of the situation is that Norris put himself forward as a candidate and should expect to face a robust political process, and his supporters whining about this just further highlights the ego-driven, pompous sense of entitlement that is fuelling his campaign. And just to clarify, his comments were beyond controversial, they were disgusting.
Fergus_Nash wrote: » Maybe you might clarify your statements there too. Have a look at the at the original article before doing so. The end of page two and page three will provide you with the evidence.http://mccamley.org/blog/tag/%22david%20norris%22%20magill%20%22child%20abuse%22%20%22in%20a%20hole%20stop%20digging%22 I await your reply eagerly:D
Fergus_Nash wrote: » Ok so. Seeing as how you are unwilling (scared maybe?) to give us your arguments, I shall. Mr. Norris' comments on paedophilia are not controversial. He was talking about Ancient Greece. The conversation then proceeds back to the present day and Mr. Norris says "The law...should take into account consent rather than age." Now this is controversial. Are we to believe that Mr. Norris accepts that if a ten year old girl consents to sex with a forty year old man, then it should be lawful? Or is he just talking about two 16 year olds? Mr. Norris has yet to clarify these comments and it is only then that this matter can be put to bed. Without clarification, the former situation is very controversial. The following sentence in the piece is a little more than controversial - it borders on the disgusting. Mr. Norris is asked about incest, hesitates and says that "in the case of girls a case could be made for a ban, as a possible resulting pregnancy might be genetically undesirable." Again clarity is needed but this would suggest that Mr. Norris does not totally disagree with incest. I do believe that to be controversial. In response to your question about the link - it is either a blog or Catholic forum site. It clearly gives directions to the Magill inteview. I await your refute with relish.
hotmail.com wrote: » Catholic forum site - says it all. What's your problem with incest? He believes that consent should be the issue when it comes to sex not age. It's a valid point is it not? It's something you don't agree with (clearly) but is it not just a different view that someone has? The 10 year old child example is just hysteria, of course that's not what he meant for feck sake.
Fergus_Nash wrote: » Now just in case you are thinking that my opinions are based on the thoughts of a Catholic forum, you are wrong. It is merely the first place where I could find the whole article on Google. It gives the original article in its entirety. Now in relation to consent I totally agree in the case of two sixteen year olds (I think there was a Romeo and Juliet case) that consent should be taken into account more so than age. But I still get back to my point that Mr. Norris has to clarify his statements. He has continually left himself open to accusations that he might have been talking about a ten year old. During the whole course of the media coverage he has failed to out rightly tell us, the people of Ireland, what age group he was talking about. In fact, let me quote from the article once more - "...or endorse my [Helen Lucy Burke] protest that a child was not capable of informed consent" (my bold and italics). So in fact, maybe he was talking about a ten year old for feck sake. I will not bother answering the incest question but maybe you might tell me what is right about it.
hotmail.com wrote: » If a brother and sister want to have a relationship, is that not their own business?? Norris did clarify his comments by saying over and over again that he condemns peodophila. That's all the clarification you need. Some countries have an age of consent at 13 by the way.
Canvasser wrote: » Crowe is absolutely right not to pander to the gay lobby. Gays are trying to intimidate politicians into letting them do whatever they want. They are as bad as the IRA. Crowe is the only councillor in Galway with any sense.
Canvasser wrote: » My kind? That's an extremely bigoted comment. All I'm asking for is some evidence. Could the OP even post a picture of his train ticket or tell us what time train this was so we could check if Healy Eames was even on it.
