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

Min · 30-07-2011 02:09PM

aas wrote: »

And what is the age of consent? By your black and white system, should two sexually active 15 year olds move from Spain to Malta, they're moving from leading perfectly moral lives to becoming child-abusing monsters. If a homosexual has sex while living in Iran is he suddenly morally repugnant to you? Will you keep me in your good books if I perform FGM on my daughter so long as I do it in Nigeria?
You're assuming morals and law are one and the same, and they are not.

If you go to a country you have to respect their laws if you don't want to get in trouble, Norris's partner didn't respect the law and got in trouble.
If one wants to look for trouble then I don't want to hear them crying over it when they are responsible for it.

Biggins · 30-07-2011 02:09PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Norris in my opinion is FAR from a good man

Well at least you honourably state that its your opinion - and not like others, try to state opinion as fact.

aas · 30-07-2011 02:09PM

carlos D wrote: »

Yeah,because Norris has unneccessarily harped on about the philosophical benefits of pedastry,honest to God,whether you like him or not,you can't honestly think that a man who is running to be President of a country with all the problems that we have now should be talking about pedastry if he wants to be elected.He's totally out of touch.

Well that's the thing, he wasn't. It was a comment from an interview several years ago. It seems to be everyone else that wants to talk about it.

OMD · 30-07-2011 02:10PM

aas wrote: »

And what is the age of consent? By your black and white system, should two sexually active 15 year olds move from Spain to Malta, they're moving from leading perfectly moral lives to becoming child-abusing monsters. If a homosexual has sex while living in Iran is he suddenly morally repugnant to you? Will you keep me in your good books if I perform FGM on my daughter so long as I do it in Nigeria?
You're assuming morals and law are one and the same, and they are not.

The age of consent to some extent is irrelevant. A man (or woman) in their 40s having sex with a fifteen year old is wrong irrespective of the law.

30-07-2011 02:10PM

efb wrote: »

If this is proven to be true, it is a deal breaker for me. It is wrong and he shouldnt have done it.

No doubt some will use this as a stick to beat homosexuality with.

The only people I have heard mention the homosexual 'factor' are the people who are pre-empting the homophobia

mikemac · 30-07-2011 02:10PM

Such appalling judgment

Between this and calling for Fairytale of Kathmandu not to be aired until a government committee could examine it.

"I call for its exhibition to be postponed until a full investigation by those qualified in the analysis of film has established the truth or falsehood of the techniques used in its production and the conclusions reached in it. The correct forum for such an investigation is the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources."

Another friend of his in trouble so better muzzle RTÉ

Sure we may as well shut down Primetime if everything RTÉ plans must be vetted by the government first

carlos D · 30-07-2011 02:11PM

aas wrote: »

Well that's the thing, he wasn't. It was a comment from an interview several years ago. It seems to be everyone else that wants to talk about it.

He went on Morning Ireland and couldn't wait to talk about it,he should've just kept quiet.Little things like this,one after another are why he isn't suitable.People were too busy talking about witch hunts and smear campaigns to see something like this coming.

Morag · 30-07-2011 02:12PM

Absurdum wrote: »

Norris' silence is deafening.

He's finished imo.

He's an interview about this coming out in one of tomorrows papers.
The usual conditions re any exclusive would preclude a statement gazumping that.

Pompey Magnus · 30-07-2011 02:12PM

Biggins wrote: »

Well at least you honourably state that its your opinion - and not like others, try to state opinion as fact.

But you asserted your opposite opinion as fact...Is it okay to do one but not the other?

aas · 30-07-2011 02:15PM

Min wrote: »

If you go to a country you have to respect their laws if you don't want to get in trouble, Norris's partner didn't respect the law and got in trouble.
If one wants to look for trouble then I don't want to hear them crying over it when they are responsible for it.

So homosexuals in Iran are 'looking for trouble'? Please keep in mind exactly where this strand of the discussion began - Norris' response to a question on the age of consent. You've gone from asserting that it's a black and white issue to deciding that you're a moral relativist and we can't comment on the laws of other countries. Your views are incompatible.

OMD wrote: »

The age of consent to some extent is irrelevant. A man (or woman) in their 40s having sex with a fifteen year old is wrong irrespective of the law.

I'm glad you agree that the age of consent is irrelevant.

Lady Chatterton · 30-07-2011 02:17PM

Norris' silence is deafening, he seems to go into hiding when there is any controversy.

Here is a report from today's Indo that may be of interest.

Norris Aras bid in turmoil as campaign members quit

By FIONNAN SHEEHAN, LOUISE HOGAN AND INDEPENDENT.IE REPORTERS

Saturday July 30 2011

INDEPENDENT Senator David Norris's presidential bid was in crisis today as more campaign members quit. It is the second, and potentially much more serious blow to the senator's campaign following the furore over his controversial views on paedophilia and sexuality.

The Trinity senator did not attend the first formal presidential candidate debate of the campaign in Donegal yesterday.

Mr Norris's director of communications, Jane Cregan, has left the campaign, it has emerged. "I am no longer working for the David Norris for President campaign," a message on her phone stated last night.

Mr Norris's director of elections, Liam McCabe, did not respond to repeated calls.

Today journalist Una Mullallytweeted that she was no longer working for the campaign in light of new information and the campaign's youth co-ordinator Orlaith Foley tweeted that she had also resigned from the Norris campaign.

The senator also refused to answer questions at his home on North Great George's Street in Dublin city centre.

He exited the house and went into the house next door, passing reporters and refusing to comment.

The resignations follow claims about a court case in Israel involving Mr Norris’s former partner, Ezra Yizhak Nawi, who was convicted of having sex with an underage Palestinian youth in 1992. In more recent years Mr Nawi has clashed with the Israeli authorities for his political activities on behalf of Palestinians.

The former lovers have stayed close friends and continue to meet regularly and are in frequent contact.

According to reports today Mr Nawi said he wanted to speak to Mr Norris about the matter before speaking to the media.

In the notes to his one-man show, Do You Hear What I’m Seeing? , in Clontarf Castle in 2007 Mr Norris referred to the work Mr Nawi was doing for human rights in Palestine and said he was very proud of his former partner.

Four other candidates in the presidential election, Fine Gael's Gay Mitchell, Labour's Michael D Higgins and Independents Mary Davis and Sean Gallagher, all attended a debate, which took place at MacGill Summer School in Glenties, Co Donegal. Mr Norris was not due to attend and had indicated to organisers a fortnight ago that he was unavailable.

Despite topping the opinion polls to date, Mr Norris has struggled to secure a nomination for the presidential election.

To get on the ticket, he needs to get a nomination from 20 TDs and senators or four councils.

Thus far, he has only secured a nomination from one local authority and his campaign team appears to have virtually given up on securing a place via that route.

After four months of campaigning, some 15 Oireachtas members have promised to sign his nomination papers.

Mr Norris has secured the support of Independent TDs Finian McGrath, Maureen O'Sullivan, Catherine Murphy, Mick Wallace, Stephen Donnelly, Thomas Pringle, John Halligan and Luke 'Ming' Flanagan. He also has the support of senators John Crown, Sean Barrett, Mary Ann O'Brien, and Marie Louise O'Donnell.

If he fails to secure 20 signatures from the Independent ranks, Mr Norris will be reliant upon Fianna Fail or Sinn Fein to get on the ticket.

- FIONNAN SHEEHAN, LOUISE HOGAN AND INDEPENDENT.IE REPORTER

Biggins · 30-07-2011 02:20PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

But you asserted your opposite opinion as fact...Is it okay to do one but not the other?

No, I stated relevant facts of the case as they occured in as much detail that we know of presently.

For example also (which many here are only too willing to apparently gloss over - I wonder why!)

* A lover (at the time) was charged. Now every person in the modern world is considered "innocent until proven guilty" - and under that ethos, Norris asked that details of the case be further examined. Yes?
* So under Israel law, the man was found culpable of a crime? what did Norris do? Hint: did he stay in a relationship with a person found guilty - or did he do the right thing and separate from a person found guilty?

Seriously - looking as the case (as much as we know presently - or allowed know by a country that has a convicted man also seen as a non-advocate of their state methods) as it actually occurred in real timeline, please show where anyone would do anything less if they were in Norris's predicament at the time!

30-07-2011 02:20PM

aas wrote: »

Min wrote: »

If you go to a country you have to respect their laws if you don't want to get in trouble, Norris's partner didn't respect the law and got in trouble.
If one wants to look for trouble then I don't want to hear them crying over it when they are responsible for it.

So homosexuals in Iran are 'looking for trouble'? Please keep in mind exactly where this strand of the discussion began - Norris' response to a question on the age of consent. .

Again, this turns into a 'if you dont agree with Norris, you hate gays.

They are not the same subject.

OMD · 30-07-2011 02:22PM

aas wrote: »

[

OMD wrote: »

The age of consent to some extent is irrelevant. A man (or woman) in their 40s having sex with a fifteen year old is wrong irrespective of the law.

I'm glad you agree that the age of consent is irrelevant.

Yes. So he was wrong and David Norris should not try to defend it. Irrespective of the law David Norris should make a statement that middle aged people should not have sex with children. This is now the second time he seems to support sex with minors. He now needs to make it clear where he stands. Is it morally repugnant or is it acceptable? Norris's view appears to be that it is acceptable or has he been misconstrued twice now?

aas · 30-07-2011 02:24PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, this turns into a 'if you dont agree with Norris, you hate gays.

They are not the same subject.

Change 'homosexual in Iran' to 'women driving in India', etc. It has nothing to do with homosexuality and all to do with Min's notion of accepting a nation's laws as the moral way to behave in that country.

Biggins · 30-07-2011 02:26PM

OMD wrote:

This is now the second time he seems to support sex with minors. He now needs to make it clear where he stands. Is it morally repugnant or is it acceptable? Norris's view appears to be that it is acceptable or has he been misconstrued twice now?

Again to be fair, he has already stated many times where he stands on such issues.
...And what "seems" and what "appears" should be seen as opinion of the viewer looking on, not as fact fully imposed on the person themselves without proven basis.

Min · 30-07-2011 02:26PM

aas wrote: »

So homosexuals in Iran are 'looking for trouble'? Please keep in mind exactly where this strand of the discussion began - Norris' response to a question on the age of consent. You've gone from asserting that it's a black and white issue to deciding that you're a moral relativist and we can't comment on the laws of other countries. Your views are incompatible.

Since when did this become a discussion about homosexuals in Iran? Is this to divert from David Norris still being close friends with a man who in his 40's had underage sex with a 15 year old.
Please, who is the moral relativist here, it is you as you see no problem with it.
Would you like a 40 year having sex with your 15 year old son or daughter and there is the risk of spreading disease as he was sleeping around with Norris and other underage boys by all accounts.

Teclo · 30-07-2011 02:28PM

efb wrote: »

If this is proven to be true, it is a deal breaker for me. It is wrong and he shouldnt have done it.

No doubt some will use this as a stick to beat homosexuality with.

Nah, we are a very mature people, I mean has anyone looked on clerical abuse as an opportunity to beat the church? :rolleyes:

later12 · 30-07-2011 02:30PM

Biggins wrote: »

* Did he actually use his position? Did he actually state "I am a political Irish representative" (or words to that effect) at the time?
* Did he actually interfere (and where has this been proven? Evidence?) or did he ask for certain aspects to be examined?

Eh, yes... he used official Oireachtas paper to do so. This has been leaked by the Israeli side, I presume the letters will be reproduced soon.

later12 · 30-07-2011 02:32PM

Biggins wrote: »

* So under Israel law, the man was found culpable of a crime? what did Norris do? Hint: did he stay in a relationship with a person found guilty - or did he do the right thing and separate from a person found guilty?

Norris was still dating Ezra Nawi around the year 2000, the conviction (prior to which Norris made official representations for Nawi) was 1992.

This is clear as water. Norris's campaign is not tenable. His membership of the Seanad is questionable at this stage.

OMD · 30-07-2011 02:33PM

Biggins wrote: »

OMD wrote:

This is now the second time he seems to support sex with minors. He now needs to make it clear where he stands. Is it morally repugnant or is it acceptable? Norris's view appears to be that it is acceptable or has he been misconstrued twice now?

Again to be fair, he has already stated many times where he stands on such issues.
...And what "seems" and what "appears" should be seen as opinion of the viewer looking on, not as fact fully imposed on the person themselves without proven basis.

That is not clear. He has never said he is against sex with minors at or just under the age of consent.

aas · 30-07-2011 02:33PM

OMD wrote: »

Yes. So he was wrong and David Norris should not try to defend it. Irrespective of the law David Norris should make a statement that middle aged people should not have sex with children. This is now the second time he seems to support sex with minors. He now needs to make it clear where he stands. Is it morally repugnant or is it acceptable? Norris's view appears to be that it is acceptable or has he been misconstrued twice now?

He's clarified repeatedly that he doesn't support the notion of adults having sex with children, which is why just one page ago we have a user complaining that all he talks about it pederasty.

Min wrote: »

Since when did this become a discussion about homosexuals in Iran? Is this to divert from David Norris still being close friends with a man who in his 40's had underage sex with a 15 year old.
Please, who is the moral relativist here, it is you as you see no problem with it.
Would you like a 40 year having sex with your 15 year old son or daughter and there is the risk of spreading disease as he was sleeping around with Norris and other underage boys by all accounts.

Please stop moving the goalposts. You said that he was wrong to identify age of consent laws as a fuzzy issue. I have pointed out that your logic in defending your judgment leads to absurd notions of morality. Now you're backtracking and trying to change the subject entirely.

7sr2z3fely84g5 · 30-07-2011 02:34PM

alex73 wrote: »

Not sure who true it is, but his campaign managers seem to have abandoned him.

Think its for a different matter,in news today-
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisd.html

A number of politicians who have pledged to support Senator David Norris's presidential campaign have called on him to clarify the events that have led to a number of resignations from his campaign team.
It is understood their departures centre around a 1992 conviction of Senator Norris's then partner for having sex with an underage Palestinian youth.
Mr Norris's Director of Communications has left the campaign.
A voice message on Jane Cregan's mobile phone states: 'I no longer work for the David Norris for President campaign.'
It is understood another key member of the campaign has also resigned.

So far, 15 Oireachtas members have said they will sign Senator Norris's nomination papers for the October election. He needs five more to ensure his place in the race.
Among his backers, senators Marie-Louise O'Donnell and John Crown have today said they want more information about the 1992 case and how it relates to the presidential campaign.
Wexford Independent TD Mick Wallace has said as things stand, he still supports Senator Norris and similar sentiments were echoed by Independent TD Thomas Pringle and Senator Sean Barret.
Independent TDs Luke 'Ming' Flanagan and Finian McGrath have said they have no comment at this stage.
It also understood that Fianna Fáil senators will not be offering their support to ensure Mr Norris gets on the ticket.
There had been speculation that they could facilitate the senator, but it has emerged that the group of FF senators met last week to discuss the matter and the view of the majority was not to lend Senator Norris their support.

Min · 30-07-2011 02:34PM

Biggins wrote: »

Again to be fair, he has already stated many times where he stands on such issues.
...And what "seems" and what "appears" should be seen as opinion of the viewer looking on, not as fact fully imposed on the person themselves without proven basis.

Would you vote for David Norris no matter what comes out about him and it being true?

Though his campaign is probably finished now anyway.

Biggins · 30-07-2011 02:35PM

later10 wrote: »

Eh, yes... he used official Oireachtas paper to do so. This has been leaked by the Israeli side, I presume the letters will be reproduced soon.

IF - IF that is proven, then I will state that he did wrong at the time then in that regard.
No ifs or buts.
If its not the case - and I genuinely ask, where has it been mention that he did this? - then he did nothing more or less than any other person might do, at the time, in real time.

I would also point out that he wouldn't be the first politician to make a mistake (regardless to what degree) so maybe the first totally innocent, never made a mistake politician can throw the first rock at him!

Min wrote: »

Would you vote for David Norris no matter what comes out about him and it being true?.

I would honesly judge how I would vote when I hear fuller details of the case, from both attackers and the defendant himself.
As it is, looking at the matter right now only going on what some parts of the press are stating (and I never immediately trust 100% any media), I still would vote for him on the above principle mentioned above (and now below)!

I would also point out that he wouldn't be the first politician to make a mistake (regardless to what degree) so maybe the first totally innocent, never made a mistake politician can throw the first rock at him!

Min wrote: »

...Though his campaign is probably finished now anyway.

...In your opinion...

aas · 30-07-2011 02:36PM

OMD wrote: »

That is not clear. He has never said he is against sex with minors at or just under the age of consent.

"In the interview I said I cannot understand how anyone would consider it appropriate to have sex with children". Source: http://joejacksonjournalist.com/2010/09/06/david-norris-the-joe-jackson-interview/

Absurdum · 30-07-2011 02:37PM

Biggins wrote: »

No, I stated relevant facts of the case as they occured in as much detail that we know of presently.

For example also (which many here are only too willing to apparently gloss over - I wonder why!)

* A lover (at the time) was charged. Now every person in the modern world is considered "innocent until proven guilty" - and under that ethos, Norris asked that details of the case be further examined. Yes?
* So under Israel law, the man was found culpable of a crime? what did Norris do? Hint: did he stay in a relationship with a person found guilty - or did he do the right thing and separate from a person found guilty?

Seriously - looking as the case (as much as we know presently - or allowed know by a country that has a convicted man also seen as a non-advocate of their state methods) as it actually occurred in real timeline, please show where anyone would do anything less if they were in Norris's predicament at the time!

Norris appealed for clemency - the assumption there being that he accepts that his boyfriend was guilty of the crime he had been tried for. If Israel somehow framed him then it wouldn't be clemency that Norris was appealing for - he would be campaigning for his release on the grounds that no crime ever happened.

In any case, Norris had no business using Seanad-headed paper to make such an appeal.

dr.bollocko · 30-07-2011 02:40PM

merge.

Biggins · 30-07-2011 02:45PM

Absurdum wrote: »

...In any case, Norris had no business using Seanad-headed paper to make such an appeal.

While there is merit to some degree in what you say, it should also be mentioned that often politicians write to other countries legal/state heads, using their official paper to ask for clemency for certain people.
America did it in the case of many a Chinese pro-democracy advocate.
Britain's politicians does it in many a case of people they view as being treated unjustly.
...and so on...

Where Norris might have gone wrong in this one case, is to allow personal and political life to insert itself into a case that should have been done better - but we can only judge that with now hindsight.

...And again, show me a politician that has never made a single mistake!

Should we all rush to condemn a person entirely, his/her whole life for the sake of a single mistake using paper with an inserted letterhead?
A tad too far over reaching by some in their attempts to knock him for their own reasons?

aas · 30-07-2011 02:46PM

Biggins wrote: »

While there is merit to some degree in what you say, it should also be mentioned that often politicians write to other countries legal/state heads, using their official paper to ask for clemency for certain people.
America did it in the case of many a Chinese pro-democracy advocate.
Britain's politicians does it in many a case of people they view as being treated unjustly.
...and so on...

Where Norris might have gone wrong in this one case, is to allow personal and political life to insert itself into a case that should have been done better - but we can only judge that with now hindsight.

It should never been done when there's a personal relationship between the two parties, it shows poor judgment.

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

Comments