Is David Norris Toast?

Morag · 30-07-2011 03:20PM

Ambersky wrote: »

Sharrow are you defending pederasts?
I am asking that respectfully because I often find myself agreeing with your politics and I really dont understand.

I have no time for sexual predators.
Paedophiles are always there are no excuses,
pederasts are not always it can be more of a grey area.

Wolfe Tone · 30-07-2011 03:21PM

Ambersky wrote: »

I dont understand why there isnt a general consensus that pederasty isnt ok.

Because they like Norris, if anyone else did or said these things they would have long ago been thrown under the bus

Ambersky · 30-07-2011 03:23PM

Sharrow do you think the same issues arise between an adult man with a youth be the youth male or female?

Chucky the tree · 30-07-2011 03:24PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Because they like Norris, if anyone else did or said these things they would have long ago been thrown under the bus

Or maybe we can just remember how we felt at 15 or so?

later12 · 30-07-2011 03:26PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It seems you have some hidden agenda against Norris tbh.

Oh yeah, sure we all do. Anyone whoever criticizes Norris - despite otherwise supporting him on this forum (or on this thread, as I have recently) - simply must have an agenda.

I am more than capable of praising Norris, I frequently do so. However I cannot see how anyone can conceivably support what his resigning staff have alleged - that is to say, using his position to intervene in his lover's conviction (as it transpired) for an indecent act on a minor.

And really, how do I know the minor didn't want it? Do you always ask that question in cases of sexual assault?

congress3 · 30-07-2011 03:28PM

Sharrow wrote: »

A paedophile is a person sexually attracted to children, those who have not gone through puberty.

A pederast is someone who is attracted to young adults, those who have gone through puberty and are physically mature.

Where did you come up with this?
Pederasts are pedophiles, pederasty doesn't take into account whether the person has gone through puberty or not.

Trying to legitimatise and distinguish between the two is wrong and very misleading

anymore · 30-07-2011 03:28PM

I have reread the 2002 Joe Jackson interview - link posted on this thread ( post 4 )and in it is a reference to the break up of Mr Norris's relationship with his former partner : " he muses, which brings us to another great loss in Norris’ life – his former lover, Ezra".
He and David broke up last January after 26 years "
So the relationship began around the late 1970's and ended around 2002. Which presumably means that the alleged 1992 indcident happened during the period the two were in this long term relationship. Is this correct ?

later12 · 30-07-2011 03:28PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Or maybe we can just remember how we felt at 15 or so?

15 - fine. Almost everyone thinks they're sexually mature at 15.

However, I am 24 and I know that I shouldn't go around chatting up teenagers under the age of consent - let alone sleeping with them. I would imagine that to do so as a 40 year old would be even more exasperatingly stupid, and pretty disturbing to boot.

Chucky the tree · 30-07-2011 03:30PM

later10 wrote: »

Oh yeah, sure we all do. Anyone whoever criticizes Norris - despite otherwise supporting him on this forum (or on this thread, as I have recently) - simply must have an agenda.

I am more than capable of praising Norris, I frequently do so. However I cannot see how anyone can conceivably support what his resigning staff have alleged - that is to say, using his position to intervene in his lover's conviction (as it transpired) for an indecent act on a minor.

And really, how do I know the minor didn't want it? Do you always ask that question in cases of sexual assault?

In the case of uderage sex then of course. It's pretty stupid not to ask that question.

later12 · 30-07-2011 03:32PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

In the case of uderage sex then of course. It's pretty stupid not to ask that question.

Including, say, Cloyne? Not all rapes in the diocese of Cloyne - in fact, the distinct minority in most clerical abuse cases - were as a result of physical force. I should think that in cases of indecent assault, where a conviction has been reached, the burden of proof that 'the minor wanted it' should lie with the proponent of that argument.

Bock the Robber · 30-07-2011 03:33PM

A case of Schrodinger's Paedophile?

It seems the lad could be both a boy and a man depending what country he happens to visit.

Ages of consent:

Austria 14
Belgium 16
Bosnia 14
Bulgaria 14
Croatia 14
Cyprus 17
Czech Republic 15
Denmark 15
Estonia 14
Finland 16
France 15
Germany 14
Greece 15
Hungary 14
Iceland 15
Ireland 17
Israel 16
Italy 14
Latvia 16
Liechtenstein 14
Lithuania 16
Luxembourg 16
Malta 18
Netherlands 16
Norway 16
Poland 15
Romania 15
Russia 16
Serbia 14
Slovakia 15
Spain 13
Sweden 15

Chucky the tree · 30-07-2011 03:34PM

later10 wrote: »

Including, say, Cloyne? Not all rapes in the diocese of Cloyne - in fact, the distinct minority in most clerical abuse cases - were as a result of physical force. I should think that in cases of indecent assault, where a conviction has been reached, the burden of proof that 'the minor wanted it' should lie with the proponent of that argument.

I know nothing about Cloyne so can't pass comment on it. I will say there is a big difference between a 17 year old having consentual sex with a 16 year old and a 17 year old forcing a 16 year to have sex. I've no idea how someone can't see any difference in the two.

later12 · 30-07-2011 03:37PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I know nothing about Cloyne so can't pass comment on it. I will say there is a big difference between a 17 year old having consentual sex with a 16 year old and a 17 year old forcing a 16 year to have sex. I've no idea how someone can't see any difference in the two.

That would be fine if we were dealing with 16 and 17 year olds, many countries make provisions for Cinderella cases.

This is not a Cinderella case - Nawi was about 40 at the time of his conviction, when David Norris pleaded for clemency in an official capacity.

Ambersky · 30-07-2011 03:37PM

There is room for debate on the issue of sexual relations between consenting young people of around the same age.

That is a different issue than the issue of sexual relations between older privileged men and younger disadvantaged youths.

Older privileged men like to muddy the waters between the two and make out that they are standing up for the rights of young people to choose who they have sex with.

David Norris has said he does not see the need for any age of consent.

Chucky the tree · 30-07-2011 03:41PM

later10 wrote: »

That would be fine if we were dealing with 16 and 17 year olds, many countries make provisions for Cinderella cases.

This is not a Cinderella case - Nawi was about 40 at the time of his conviction, when David Norris pleaded for clemency in an official capacity.

Does Israel make this provision? Ireland doesn't afaik. Whether you are 17 or 40 you are still sexual assualting someone as you put it. So your big issue isn't the fact that the law was broken, but that it does against your own personel morale view?

Morag · 30-07-2011 03:45PM

later10 wrote: »

This is not a Cinderella case - Nawi was about 40 at the time of his conviction, when David Norris pleaded for clemency in an official capacity.

Was the clemency pleaded for that case or was it do with the charges after he was arrested at protests?

Until the letters are published and the dates and contents are seen, you can not assume they are about the 1992 case.

later12 · 30-07-2011 03:46PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Does Israel make this provision? Ireland doesn't afaik. Whether you are 17 or 40 you are still sexual assualting someone as you put it. So your big issue isn't the fact that the law was broken, but that it does against your own personel morale view?

No, actually if we're leaving ethics aside, Norris abused his position to try and intervene in a criminal case against his lover. That's not on, first of all.

Personal morality? I'm not interested in morality. This is a question of ethics in public office, and I think it was highly unethical of Norris to behave in the way he did, as an elected representative of the state. Perhaps he will explain why he did so in tomorrow's article.

Ambersky · 30-07-2011 03:46PM

It isnt all just about age.
In situations where the older man travels to a country where the youths have very little there is often a power dynamic operating which is also wrong.

Callan57 · 30-07-2011 03:49PM

My understanding from RTE1 at lunchtime is that this story has nothing as such to do with paedophilia or pederastry or the age of consent but with the abuse of Seanad privilege.
Senator Norris used Seanad stationary & obviously his position as a Senator in an effort to influence the internal judicial processes of another state. The resignations from his team are because he failed to disclose this issue to them. I gather The Mail is to print the letter/s tomorrow .... if they stand up then I would imagine it's the end of his presidential bid.

I can't make up my mind is Senator Norris guilty of incredible naiveté or breathtaking hubris.

anymore · 30-07-2011 03:58PM

Callan57 wrote: »

My understanding from RTE1 at lunchtime is that this story has nothing as such to do with paedophilia or pederastry or the age of consent but with the abuse of Seanad privilege.
Senator Norris used Seanad stationary & obviously his position as a Senator in an effort to influence the internal judicial processes of another state. The resignations from his team are because he failed to disclose this issue to them. I gather The Mail is to print the letter/s tomorrow .... if they stand up then I would imagine it's the end of his presidential bid.

I can't make up my mind is Senator Norris guilty of incredible naiveté or breathtaking hubris.

It cant be just about abuse of Senate privilege given the what has been discussed on this and other threads on this subject. This is not a case of a politician making an effort for someone they happen to be acquainted with. It cannot just be looked at in isolation - all the various issues need to be looked at.

Chucky the tree · 30-07-2011 03:59PM

later10 wrote: »

No, actually if we're leaving ethics aside, Norris abused his position to try and intervene in a criminal case against his lover. That's not on, first of all.

Personal morality? I'm not interested in morality. This is a question of ethics in public office, and I think it was highly unethical of Norris to behave in the way he did, as an elected representative of the state. Perhaps he will explain why he did so in tomorrow's article.

If it's simply a case of him using the role of public office that causes you a problem then that's fine, but when I saw you post

later10 wrote: »

So generally you think it would be fine for a man of 40 years to engage in a sexual relationship with a girl studying for her Junior Cert?

and mention as a 24 year old you think it's wrong to have sex with teenages then it seemed you more had a morale problem with it rather then him mis-using him position in office.

conorhal · 30-07-2011 04:04PM

later10 wrote: »

Oh yeah, sure we all do. Anyone whoever criticizes Norris - despite otherwise supporting him on this forum (or on this thread, as I have recently) - simply must have an agenda.

I am more than capable of praising Norris, I frequently do so. However I cannot see how anyone can conceivably support what his resigning staff have alleged - that is to say, using his position to intervene in his lover's conviction (as it transpired) for an indecent act on a minor.

And really, how do I know the minor didn't want it? Do you always ask that question in cases of sexual assault?

Sure there were no shortage of people that came out in support of Poor 'persecuted' Roman Polanski, a man that drugged and buggered a 13yr old girl, so you should hardly be surprised. The left often seem to have something of a blindspot for the actions of those that they determine are 'one of us', and tend to take a 'see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil' approach to the likes of Norris even when the bald truth is staring them in the face. In light of these revelations those that were defending Norris regarding his interview with Macgill, spouting on about how Norris' opinion was a 'misrepresented' in an 'acedemic discussions' about the social mores of the ancient Greeks and it was soooo long ago, must be feeling pretty foolish about burying their heads in the sand that the time when they should have seen the warning signs.

later12 · 30-07-2011 04:07PM

It's not that I think it's acceptable, but that part is reasonably irrelevant to Norris - Norris is not alleged to have any sexual contact with a teenagers. Of course we don't fully know the extent of Norris's relationship with Nawi after the conviction for indecent assault on a minor as well as a drugs conviction, there may be some question as to Norris's judgement in this regard, but it isn't particularly relevant here.

However if you're asking me whether or not I think it is acceptable for 40 year old men to go around engaging in sex with underage teenagers - the answer is no. I don't find that remotely acceptable. But then, Norris didn't do it.

The major issue (for me) here is how Norris used, or abused, his position, to help his lover or friend, as he may have been at the time, who was facing serious criminal charges.

conorhal · 30-07-2011 04:16PM

later10 wrote: »

However if you're asking me whether or not I think it is acceptable for 40 year old men to go around engaging in sex with underage teenagers - the answer is no. I don't find that remotely acceptable. But then, Norris didn't do it.

But you would be happy to support a presidental candidate who was of the opinion that it WAS alright? His Magill interview made that pretty damn clear.

eVeNtInE · 30-07-2011 04:19PM

This post has been deleted.

later12 · 30-07-2011 04:28PM

conorhal wrote: »

But you would be happy to support a presidental candidate who was of the opinion that it WAS alright? His Magill interview made that pretty damn clear.

HLB's Magill article is so disputed at this stage that no, nothing is particularly clear. Norris has said that he was misinterpreted, effectively, and although I think his explanations at the time did not go far enough to end the media storm, I don't think that article proves much.

If Norris does have controversial opinions on consent, then I would be even less willing to vote him into the Presidency. Not for any moral reasons, but because people like David Norris, or Mary Robinson, are the kind of people who display a history of challenging the dominant paradigm. They should not be knowingly voted into shackles like the Presidency. they should be voted into positions where they can comfortably be one of the few people advancing such challenges. I can only hope that Norris, in putting himself forward for the Presidency to begin with, went temporarily insane. Lets just put some mute idiot in that office, again, and forget about them.

All of that aside, Norris did do something tremendously stupid in the Nawi case, i.e. abusing his position. He may also have made some startling personal choices in his relationships, but that is his affair, not ours. I hope DN stays in public life, but I will not be sorry to see him walk away from the Presidency at all.

ebbsy · 30-07-2011 04:38PM

The game is up for Norris. Better for him to pull out now as these stories are damaging the contest.

Hes not toast, hes burnt toast.

Sacksian · 30-07-2011 04:51PM

Apologies if it's been posted already but this blog seems to be the source of the current controversy:

http://thesystemworks.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/my-take-on-the-norris-campaign/

mikom · 30-07-2011 04:54PM

yesboyicecream wrote: »

Apologies if it's been posted already but this blog seems to be the source of the current controversy:

http://thesystemworks.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/my-take-on-the-norris-campaign/

From the "about" section of the blog............ "For you see, I have two major loves: free markets and Zionism.
Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish National Home is under sustained violent and ‘intellectual’ assault from the enemies of all civilisation and human progress."

Sacksian · 30-07-2011 04:58PM

mikom wrote: »

From the "about" section of the blog............ "For you see, I have two major loves: free markets and Zionism.
Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish National Home is under sustained violent and ‘intellectual’ assault from the enemies of all civilisation and human progress."

Yeah, I saw that - I'm not saying it's an unbiased source, but it is apparently why the story is getting legs this week.

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments