Is David Norris Toast?

DB21 · 31-07-2011 11:59PM

Well well well, Newstalk today certainly showed their bias and cowardice. Senator Norris still has my vote should he run. What his ex-lover did is no reflection on Sen. Norris, no matter what the cowards and dinosaurs in the media would have us believe. Should Sen. Norris not make it to the election, I will abstain from voting. It is time for a clear independent voice in the Arás, not one muddied and mired by the pathetic party politics that has run this great nation into the ground and made us a financial laughing stock.

Happyman42 · 01-08-2011 12:07AM

DB21 wrote: »

Well well well, Newstalk today certainly showed their bias and cowardice. Senator Norris still has my vote should he run. What his ex-lover did is no reflection on Sen. Norris, no matter what the cowards and dinosaurs in the media would have us believe. Should Sen. Norris not make it to the election, I will abstain from voting. It is time for a clear independent voice in the Arás, not one muddied and mired by the pathetic party politics that has run this great nation into the ground and made us a financial laughing stock.

He will not be allowed to air his 'clear and independent voice'.
As to being muddied and mired by the pathetic party politics...he has revealed himself to being just the same.
When it comes to gaining personally from his office he showed no compunction in abusing said office.

Roanmore · 01-08-2011 12:08AM

DB21 wrote: »

Well well well, Newstalk today certainly showed their bias and cowardice. Senator Norris still has my vote should he run. What his ex-lover did is no reflection on Sen. Norris, no matter what the cowards and dinosaurs in the media would have us believe. Should Sen. Norris not make it to the election, I will abstain from voting. It is time for a clear independent voice in the Arás, not one muddied and mired by the pathetic party politics that has run this great nation into the ground and made us a financial laughing stock.

Do you think it's not democratic that he hasn't been allowed go for nomination?

oppenheimer1 · 01-08-2011 12:16AM

DB21 wrote: »

Well well well, Newstalk today certainly showed their bias and cowardice. Senator Norris still has my vote should he run. What his ex-lover did is no reflection on Sen. Norris, no matter what the cowards and dinosaurs in the media would have us believe. Should Sen. Norris not make it to the election, I will abstain from voting. It is time for a clear independent voice in the Arás, not one muddied and mired by the pathetic party politics that has run this great nation into the ground and made us a financial laughing stock.

You misunderstand the scandal on the most fundamental level them. No one is blaming Norris for the behaviour of Nawi. The scandal is about the Senator using his position to curry favour for a personal friend. A friend who was convicted of a serious sexual offence. He did this through using official Seanad notepaper.

It raises questions about a potential abuse of office as well as his own views on what he considers an appropriate relationship for older men to have with younger boys. This was never about transferring the blame for Nawi's offence or guilt by association onto Norris.

Pompey Magnus · 01-08-2011 12:19AM

PomBear wrote: »

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=9021

Wonder if/when this will make headlines

Gay Mitchell didn't ask for him to be released early because he is friends with him. He only requested that he be punished for his crime in a manner befitting a civilised society. Completely different.

Pompey Magnus · 01-08-2011 12:22AM

DB21 wrote: »

It is time for a clear independent voice in the Arás, not one muddied and mired by the pathetic party politics that has run this great nation into the ground and made us a financial laughing stock.

Is this the pathetic party politics in which politicians used their office and public status to influence favours for their personal friends? Yeah, David Norris really is way above such corrupt behaviour...

Happyman42 · 01-08-2011 12:22AM

MadsL wrote: »

From supporters FB page

Somebody just outed Michael D on that page

Maeve Quinn I still plan on voting for David Norris. I never did not vote in an election before. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, in a time, a long time ago, when representatives did write to people, using their headed paper and power, and I don't think for a minute that David Norris thought it was ok at the time to abuse a 15 year old child. I love children. I hate abuse. It brings tears to my eyes. I'm giving him benefit of the doubt because I do not want to vote for anyone else and I heard the labour candidate threw himself at two young men years ago and he's married. He needs to come out. David never hid his sexuality. I don't believe for one minute that Senator Norris condones child abuse.

Sir Oxman · 01-08-2011 12:24AM

Oops!

Roanmore · 01-08-2011 12:28AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Somebody just outed Michael D on that page

That just stinks of the "I don't believe he did it but I'd love to see the guy deny it" type of politics. The same type Sen Norris' supporters are giving out about but seem happy to indulge now that their man is in trouble.

Harry Angstrom · 01-08-2011 01:41AM

MadsL wrote: »

He may not get a run at all. He seems to have come under unprecedented levels of scrutiny and opposition to him having a crack at the presidency.

"unprecedented levels of scrutiny" I think not.

Perhaps you're forgetting the level of scrutiny that Adi Roche came under during the 1997 Presidential campaign, much of it totally unwarranted? :rolleyes:

If you ask me, the D4 media have been very easy on David Norris. It seems to me that it was verboten to scrutinise him lest one be branded a "homophobe". It was his trump card. It was along the lines of "If you don't vote for David Norris then you're a homophobe and you don't want to have a gay man in Aras An Uachtarain". Even now, both he and his supporters are trying to spin this whole business as some kind of personal vendetta against him. :rolleyes:

Roanmore · 01-08-2011 01:52AM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

"unprecedented levels of scrutiny" I think not.

Perhaps you're forgetting the level of scrutiny that Adi Roche came under during the 1997 Presidential campaign, much of it totally unwarranted? :rolleyes:

I alluded to this earlier, her brother was dishounourably discharged from the army nearly 30 years ago before and people were trying to pin it on her which was a fecking disgrace.

However I was also trying to make the point that if Adi Roche had gone for election as a TD or MEP this would have come out earlier and not been an issue in her campaign for President. This is the reason I thing Mitchell and Higgins won't have any major skeletons come out of the closet. I can't imagine Mary Davis having any either but you'd never know (hope not).

joshrogan · 01-08-2011 01:52AM

It's all but over now for Norris, but what will be do with himself now post-(presumably failed) presidential campaign? His reputation is in tatter's to say the least in this country anyway. I think he will focus all his energy to campaign for gay rights and bring an end to his political career.

Pompey Magnus · 01-08-2011 01:57AM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

"unprecedented levels of scrutiny" I think not.

Perhaps you're forgetting the level of scrutiny that Adi Roche came under during the 1997 Presidential campaign, much of it totally unwarranted? :rolleyes:

If you ask me, the D4 media have been very easy on David Norris. It seems to me that it was verboten to scrutinise him lest one be branded a "homophobe". It was his trump card. It was along the lines of "If you don't vote for David Norris then you're a homophobe and you don't want to have a gay man in Aras An Uachtarain". Even now, both he and his supporters are trying to spin this whole business as some kind of personal vendetta against him. :rolleyes:

Yes but everyone knows the media is the last great bastion in Irish society of homophobes :pac:, the only explanation for why the front runner in the campaign had extra attention put on him can only be explained by an anti-gay conspiracy...there is no other possible reason.

Roanmore · 01-08-2011 02:02AM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Yes but everyone knows the media is the last great bastion in Irish society of homophobes :pac:, the only explanation for why the front runner in the campaign had extra attention put on him can only be explained by an anti-gay conspiracy...there is no other possible reason.

WHAT? David Norris has had the media on his side for ages, now something goes wrong in his campaign which is entirely of his own making and all sudden everbody is a homophobe, you should be ashamed of yourself for making such an allegation.

Sorry, just realised you were being sarcastic, apologies.

Debthree · 01-08-2011 02:02AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You misunderstand the scandal on the most fundamental level them. No one is blaming Norris for the behaviour of Nawi. The scandal is about the Senator using his position to curry favour for a personal friend. A friend who was convicted of a serious sexual offence. He did this through using official Seanad notepaper.

Well said. I've been a supported of Norris for a long time but this last information is just too much to bear. He abused his position but he also supported a heinous crime. It's a real shame and makes me very sad.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 01-08-2011 11:18AM

Debthree wrote: »

Well said. I've been a supported of Norris for a long time but this last information is just too much to bear. He abused his position but he also supported a heinous crime. It's a real shame and makes me very sad.

why is it heinous? it is certainly a crime, as it was against the law, but many European countries have a legal age between 13-15. Are these 'heinous' countries?

madtheory · 01-08-2011 11:28AM

Does anyone know where can we read the actual letter? Just so we can be sure it is not being misrepresented.

I've searched Isreali emabassy site. Irish Mail on Sunday don't have it on their site, was it published in the newspaper yesterday?

Sir Oxman · 01-08-2011 11:32AM

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisletter.pdf

anymore · 01-08-2011 11:53AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

why is it heinous? it is certainly a crime, as it was against the law, but many European countries have a legal age between 13-15. Are these 'heinous' countries?

Do you really need to have it explained why sodomising a 15 year old boy is so awful ?

madtheory · 01-08-2011 11:54AM

Thanks gambiaman, I found it. Seems to me he is basically asking for a fair trial, and presenting a reasoned argument.

@anymore, I think you are very grossly over simplifying the facts in the case. If you read the letter you will see that there is evidence that it was a police setup. There are many other issues with the way evidence was or was not presented, in favour of the prosecution. It is not a simple matter at all, please inform yourself before you make rash unfounded implications about people you know nothing about.

Inform yourself and make your own decision. IMO the media are on nobody's side but their own- they will do whatever it takes to shift copy.

anymore · 01-08-2011 11:56AM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Yes but everyone knows the media is the last great bastion in Irish society of homophobes :pac:, the only explanation for why the front runner in the campaign had extra attention put on him can only be explained by an anti-gay conspiracy...there is no other possible reason.

The fact that David Norris has spent the last twenty years courting the irish media and broadcasting his opinion and any and evrything his brain deems worthy of his attention is quite irrelevant.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 01-08-2011 12:05PM

anymore wrote: »

Do you really need to have it explained why sodomising a 15 year old boy is so awful ?

I prefer to avoid Abrahamic hysterics, thanks. What say you of countries whose legal age of sexual consent is 15? Is Ireland's legal age of 17 the 'perfect' age? If not, should it be higher? Why? A non-arbitrary reason, thanks.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 01-08-2011 12:07PM

madtheory wrote: »

Thanks gambiaman, I found it. Seems to me he is basically asking for a fair trial, and presenting a reasoned argument.

@anymore, I think you are very grossly over simplifying the facts in the case. If you read the letter you will see that there is evidence that it was a police setup. There are many other issues with the way evidence was or was not presented, in favour of the prosecution. It is not a simple matter at all, please inform yourself before you make rash unfounded implications about people you know nothing about.

Inform yourself and make your own decision. IMO the media are on nobody's side but their own- they will do whatever it takes to shift copy.

No, I believe emotive posting with little or no knowledge of the topic is the order of the day, for this thread.

anymore · 01-08-2011 12:10PM

madtheory wrote: »

Thanks gambiaman, I found it. Seems to me he is basically asking for a fair trial, and presenting a reasoned argument.

@anymore, I think you are very grossly over simplifying the facts in the case. If you read the letter you will see that there is evidence that it was a police setup. There are many other issues with the way evidence was or was not presented, in favour of the prosecution. It is not a simple matter at all, please inform yourself before you make rash unfounded implications about people you know nothing about.

Inform yourself and make your own decision. IMO the media are on nobody's side but their own- they will do whatever it takes to shift copy.

In the letter Mr Norris says" .. Mr Yizhak was lured into a carefully prepared trap...."
I am puzzled, how is one lured or trapped into having anal sex with a fifteen year old boy ?

Pompey Magnus · 01-08-2011 12:12PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I prefer to avoid Abrahamic hysterics, thanks. What say you of countries whose legal age of sexual consent is 15? Is Ireland's legal age of 17 the 'perfect' age? If not, should it be higher? Why? A non-arbitrary reason, thanks.

Out of interest at what age do you suggest it is okay for adults to have sex with an adolescent?

Duke Leonal Felmet · 01-08-2011 12:14PM

anymore wrote: »

In the letter Mr Norris says" .. Mr Yizhak was lured into a carefully prepared trap...."
I am puzzled, how is one lured or trapped into having anal sex with a fifteen year old boy ?

how is one lured or trapped into having anal sodomisation (Leviticus 12:3) with a 26 year old man?

anymore · 01-08-2011 12:16PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I prefer to avoid Abrahamic hysterics, thanks. What say you of countries whose legal age of sexual consent is 15? Is Ireland's legal age of 17 the 'perfect' age? If not, should it be higher? Why? A non-arbitrary reason, thanks.

I am not being hysterical - if it had been my son I would be hysterical.
Lets be more specific. The young boy was Palestinian, so lets us ask what is the legal age for sodomy in either Gaza or the West Bank.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 01-08-2011 12:17PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Out of interest at what age do you suggest it is okay for adults to have sex with an adolescent?

I think it is fairly arbitrary, tbh. Although I reckon 15-16 years old. Or maybe there should be a thing like an age spread. but like I said, its arbitrary enough beyond 15-16.

anymore · 01-08-2011 12:19PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

how is one lured or trapped into having anal sodomisation (Leviticus 12:3) with a 26 year old man?

I have no idea what you are talking about - stick with specifics.

Happyman42 · 01-08-2011 12:19PM

madtheory wrote: »

@anymore, I think you are very grossly over simplifying the facts in the case. If you read the letter you will see that there is evidence that it was a police setup. There are many other issues with the way evidence was or was not presented, in favour of the prosecution. It is not a simple matter at all, please inform yourself before you make rash unfounded implications about people you know nothing about.

Nawi pleaded guilty. :rolleyes:

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments