Is David Norris Toast?

anymore · 30-07-2011 05:26PM

later10 wrote: »

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.

Just what is disputed about the HLB article ? It appears that Norris, despite the upset that is on display in the interview with him in the Indo article,did not make any legal representations to the paper or author, is that correct ?

later12 · 30-07-2011 06:15PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Can you link to the details of the trial/case in 1992 where the age of the young person is mention?

I can't find it, have you found it?

Cos in 1992 the age of consent for homosexuals in Israel was 18,(it was changed to 16 in 2000) so until you can point to the age of the victim, you need to stop banding about the age of 15.

copacetic wrote: »

Cheers, so all the facts people are posting are based on reading the sun today? No wonder they were careful to avoid saying where they got their information from.

The very fact it is on the front page of the sun means it is less likely to be true than if it wasn't.

This is being reported across other media outlets, including RTE, who have said that the offence was against a 15 year old.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisd.html

Mr Yizhak, who was Mr Norris' partner for many years, had been convicted of the statutory rape of a fifteen year-old boy and was awaiting sentence at the time.

later12 · 30-07-2011 06:20PM

anymore wrote: »

Just what is disputed about the HLB article ? It appears that Norris, despite the upset that is on display in the interview with him in the Indo article,did not make any legal representations to the paper or author, is that correct ?

He did engage with his solicitors on the matter, according to his Pat Kenny interview, yes. I have no idea where the case is now, or whether it will go further.

If you listen back to his PK interview, you will find that DN accuses HLB of heavily editorialising and misrepresenting him. I don't think that's a credible retort, at times, but like I said, he does dispute the article pretty strongly. So I'm not sure what use it can be to us here.

later12 · 30-07-2011 06:22PM

yesboyicecream wrote: »

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.

But clearly somebody is leaking documents from the Israeli embassy, if they are about to be reproduced in the Mail. Surely this must be originating from the Israeli embassy side, perhaps in Dublin? How many people outside of diplomatic channels could have known that Norris made representations for Ezra Nawi?

Nawi's criminal sexual past was known, even though it was not publicised here in Ireland. It wasn't a secret. What was not known, and is crucial, is how David Norris intervened. I think that while DN has some serious questions to answer on abuse of his position, so too does the Israeli embassy.

Gael23 · 30-07-2011 06:26PM

This will be of intrest to people here,
http://www.thejournal.ie/leaked-seanad-letters-show-norris-sought-clemency-for-former-partner-report-190021-Jul2011/

Bock the Robber · 30-07-2011 06:27PM

later10 wrote: »

I think that while DN has some serious questions to answer on abuse of his position, so too does the Israeli embassy.

That's the real issue. Since the Israelis have had this letter for 19 years, why did they choose this moment to release it?

Undergod · 30-07-2011 06:34PM

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/

However, he continued to offer him the assistance an Irish Senator with strong Human Rights Industry

This is the point where I stop taking this blog seriously.

But yes, this is pretty shocking all round and looks like it's curtains for Norris.

hotmail.com · 30-07-2011 06:37PM

How many of the posters on here had consentual sexual relations before they were legally allowed to?

later12 · 30-07-2011 06:45PM

Sexual relations themselves are not the big issue here. Nobody accuses Norris of doing anything untoward in sexual terms.

The people who are trying to defend Norris by brushing aside 40 year old men choosing to have sex with 15 year olds are doing Norris no favours. I think it's totally wrong, but largely irrelevant to Norris. The really serious accusation is abuse of position.

Although, as another post has alluded to, from the Twitter

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/c1vq2s

“We will not get into the business of discussing what is or is not in tomorrow’s Irish Mail On Sunday: the only way to find out is by buying it. We have always reported this story, as every story, without fear or favour. However we can say that what Elaine Byrne said was categorically untrue in every respect: and had she or anyone asked us, we would have told them so'.

Now the only controversial thing that Elaine Byrne, a thoroughly credible source, has said was that Norris made a representation for his lover using official parliamentary resources or channels. If what she said was "categorically untrue in every respect" then this has not been the case. Yet Elaine Byrne's source was one of the individuals who resigned - whom she spoke to directly.

So is this just a case of the Mail not wanting everybody else to rain on their parade, or what?

Bock the Robber · 30-07-2011 06:47PM

Undergod wrote: »

This is the point where I stop taking this blog seriously.

That guy has trolled every website mentioning Israel. I got heartily sick of him and kicked him off, but I think he considers himself one of Israel's cyber-warriors, with a mission to prevent rational examination of Israeli policies.

hotmail.com · 30-07-2011 06:52PM

later10 wrote: »

Sexual relations themselves are not the big issue here. Nobody accuses Norris of doing anything untoward in sexual terms.

The people who are trying to defend Norris by brushing aside 40 year old men choosing to have sex with 15 year olds are doing Norris no favours. I think it's totally wrong, but largely irrelevant to Norris. The really serious accusation is abuse of position.

Although, as another post has alluded to, from the Twitter

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/c1vq2s

Now the only controversial thing that Elaine Byrne, a thoroughly credible source, has said was that Norris made a representation for his lover using official parliamentary resources or channels. If what she said was "categorically untrue in every respect" then this has not been the case. Yet Elaine Byrne's source was one of the individuals who resigned - whom she spoke to directly.

So is this just a case of the Mail not wanting everybody else to rain on their parade, or what?

A lot of people are annoyed with his suggestion in regard to the age of consent. So it's relevant.

Presumably because he hasn't denied the story, it's probably true, that said we should wait to see what he says later on in the Sunday papers. The abuse of power is a serious one alright.

later12 · 30-07-2011 06:56PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

A lot of people are annoyed with his suggestion in regard to the age of consent.

Oh yes. Me too. I find it incredibly irritating that people are trying to defend Ezra Nawi, a 40 year old middle class Israeli, who sexually assaulted a 15 year old Palestinian from a wartorn, backward society, and passing it off as though it were remotely acceptable for grown 40 year old men to behave in such a way.

Nevertheless, it isn't relevant as to whether or not Norris has done something wrong.

Bock the Robber · 30-07-2011 06:58PM

later10 wrote: »

Oh yes. a 15 year old Palestinian from a wartorn, backward society.

War-torn, yes. Oppressed, yes.

Backward, certainly not.

hotmail.com · 30-07-2011 07:01PM

later10 wrote: »

Oh yes. Me too. I find it incredibly irritating that people are trying to defend Ezra Nawi, a 40 year old middle class Israeli, who sexually assaulted a 15 year old Palestinian from a wartorn, backward society, and passing it off as though it were remotely acceptable for grown 40 year old men to behave in such a way.

Nevertheless, it isn't relevant as to whether or not Norris has done something wrong.

Consent...The issue is consent. Rape and/or sexual assault is different.

Undergod · 30-07-2011 07:07PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Consent...The issue is consent. Rape and/or sexual assault is different.

Is rape not entirely about consent?

hotmail.com · 30-07-2011 07:10PM

Undergod wrote: »

Is rape not entirely about consent?

Yes. If a 15 year old has sex with an 17 year old and it is consentual, then I believe that's ok.

However if a 15 year old has sex with a 17 year old and the 15 year old hasn't consented to the sex, then that is rape. I don't believe that is ok.

edited!

efb · 30-07-2011 07:11PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yes. If a 15 year old has sex with an 17 year old and it is consentual, then I believe that's ok.

However if an 15 year has sex with a 17 year and the 16 year hasn't consented to the sex, then that is rape. I don't believe that is ok.

Huh?

Undergod · 30-07-2011 07:15PM

So... how is it different?

hotmail.com · 30-07-2011 07:22PM

Undergod wrote: »

So... how is it different?

The 15 year old hasn't consented.

later12 · 30-07-2011 07:27PM

A 15 year old may not legally consent - stat rape.

_________________________________________

In other news, David, this was an official representation, your toast is sadly burned

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisd.html

A new controversy surrounding Mr Norris is believed to centre on a letter he sent to an Israeli court, seeking clemency for his former partner, Ezra Yizhak.

Mr Yizhak, who was Mr Norris' partner for many years, had been convicted of the statutory rape of a fifteen year-old boy and was awaiting sentence at the time.

The contents of the letter from Senator David Norris to an Israeli court, pleading for clemency for his former partner, have been leaked to the Sunday Independent newspaper in Dublin.

In the eight page letter to the court in Jerusalem, written on Seanad notepaper, Senator Norris says he and Mr Yizhak have known each other since 1975 and they had been regular visitors to each other's homes in Dublin and Jerusalem.

Senator Norris describes Mr Yizhak as a trustworthy, good and moral person for whom the 'present difficulty' is quite uncharacteristic.

David Norris sat on the foreign affairs committee at this time.

padd b1975 · 30-07-2011 07:27PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

The 15 year old hasn't consented.

In the eyes of the law is a 15 year old deemed capable of giving consent either way?

hotmail.com · 30-07-2011 07:32PM

later10 wrote: »

A 15 year old may not legally consent - stat rape.

_________________________________________

In other news, David, this was an official representation, your toast is sadly burned

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisd.html

David Norris sat on the foreign affairs committee at this time.

I'm sure you're aware that laws can change...

hotmail.com · 30-07-2011 07:35PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

In the eyes of the law is a 15 year old deemed capable of giving consent either way?

Currently no. The age of consent in the Republic of Ireland is 17 for both genders and either orientation. In the North it is 16.

But how many on this site for example began their sexual lives before the age of 17...

later12 · 30-07-2011 07:38PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm sure you're aware that laws can change...

Jesus give it up will you, it was a 15 year old and a 40 year old, it's clearly statutory rape, 15 year olds cannot consent to such sexual relations. There is something to be said for minor-differential cases, but this is not such a case. This is a 15 year old Palestinian from a very troubled, wartorn society and a 40 year old man. I don't care why you think it's acceptable - it isn't the main story and I really don't know why you are trying to make it so.

Norris intervened in a serious criminal case, for a friend, using official channels. That is why he needs to resign from seeking candidacy imo.

I really couldn't care less for Ezra Nawi and defences of his sexual taste in this case.

hotmail.com · 30-07-2011 07:42PM

later10 wrote: »

Jesus give it up will you, it was a 15 year old and a 40 year old, it's clearly statutory rape, 15 year olds cannot consent to such sexual relations. There is something to be said for cinderella cases, but this is not a cinderella case. This is a 15 year old Palestinian from a very troubled, wartorn society and a 40 year old man. I don't care why you think it's acceptable - it isn't the main story and I really don't know why you are trying to make it so.

Norris intervened in a serious criminal case, for a friend, using official channels. That is why he needs to resign from seeking candidacy imo.

I really couldn't care less for Ezra Nawi and defences of his sexual taste in this case.

Starting to sound like Norris there.

Anyway, no I won't give it up. 15 and 16 year olds have sexual relations. Get over it.

As for the 40 year old man example, perhaps they're should be a tiered consent which happens in some countries.

The point I'm trying to convey is that 15 and 16 year olds can by and large give consent to have sexual relations. Many of them will tonight during the teen discos.

later12 · 30-07-2011 07:45PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

The point I'm trying to convey is that 15 and 16 year olds can by and large give consent to have sexual relations. Many of them will tonight during the teen discos.

Yah. With each other. not with 40 year old adults, where there is a serious assymetry of development. How on Earth are you still defending this, and why?

Btw, it appears that this 15 year old in this case was not happy about the sexual act, since in his letter Norris mentioned offering money to the victim.

hotmail.com · 30-07-2011 07:54PM

later10 wrote: »

Yah. With each other. not with 40 year old adults, where there is a serious assymetry of development. How on Earth are you still defending this, and why?

Btw, it appears that this 15 year old in this case was not happy about the sexual act, since in his letter Norris mentioned offering money to the victim.

Em when have I defended the act?

Bock the Robber · 30-07-2011 07:59PM

All my innocence gone like a glass slipper shattering under a carriage wheel.

You mean the Prince was banging Cinderella? Filthy swine. And also an abuse of power considering the difference in their financial circumstances.

anymore · 30-07-2011 08:06PM

later10 wrote: »

He did engage with his solicitors on the matter, according to his Pat Kenny interview, yes. I have no idea where the case is now, or whether it will go further.

If you listen back to his PK interview, you will find that DN accuses HLB of heavily editorialising and misrepresenting him. I don't think that's a credible retort, at times, but like I said, he does dispute the article pretty strongly. So I'm not sure what use it can be to us here.

Well the original article was in 2002, I think, 9 years ago so I assume any action now would be statute barred. If HLB contacted Liveleine and discussed the matter again, then presumably she felt she was happy that she could stand over her article. I am not clear what exactly he is disputing - I understand he feels one particular word was totally incorrebt, other than that, I am not sure ?
As for engaging with his solicitor, what does that mean ?

later12 · 30-07-2011 08:06PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Em when have I defended the act?

Oh no, excuse me, you've just been banging on repeatedly like a stuck record about how 15 year olds should be able to have sex with 15 year olds over the past 15 pages since this morning. Who cares? We're not talking about 15 year olds having sex with 15 year olds - that is an entirely different debate like. Do you know how to start threads yet?

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments