Is David Norris Toast?

anymore · 01-08-2011 12:20PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

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.

There is a significant difference between sex and sodomy.

Pompey Magnus · 01-08-2011 12:21PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

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.

So if you reckon 15-16 and the victim in this instance was 15 then by this standard you would say that he was at the very best only just borderline ready for sex and quite possibly too young?

anymore · 01-08-2011 12:25PM

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.

Could you point out the relevant passage where the evidence outlining this ' trap' is presented ? And is the evidence about the actual commission of the crime ?

madtheory · 01-08-2011 12:35PM

anymore wrote: »

Could you point out the relevant passage where the evidence outlining this ' trap' is presented ? And is the evidence about the actual commission of the crime ?

Have you not read the letter? Did you miss the quote from it above? Here it is in part, it's on page 6 of the pdf, I quote: "Firstly there is the question of the nature of the original intervention by the police. The arrest took place in a curious and troubling manner The circumstances are deeply worrying. Mr. Yizhak was lured into a carefully prepared trap. "

We don't know for a fact what the police did, if the police used a boy who looked older (entrapment); or anything at all really. Are you aware that the guy is pro Palestinian? It's possible that the Isrealis set him up, but they deny it. Hard to know for sure. It's probably too complicated at this stage for Norris to do anything but give up.

Sir Oxman · 01-08-2011 12:47PM

The only detail given about what Norris describes as 'a carefully prepared trap' is Sen. John Crown on RTE Radio 1 yesterday who said the police contacted Nawi pretending to be a customer looking for a plumbing job to be done and then arrested him when he answered the door.

I'm just reporting what he said on radio yesterday (yes, it doesn't make sense to me either)

anymore · 01-08-2011 12:48PM

madtheory wrote: »

Have you not read the letter? Did you miss the quote from it above? Here it is in part, it's on page 6 of the pdf, I quote: "Firstly there is the question of the nature of the original intervention by the police. The arrest took place in a curious and troubling manner The circumstances are deeply worrying. Mr. Yizhak was lured into a carefully prepared trap. "

We don't know for a fact what the police did, if the police used a boy who looked older (entrapment); or anything at all really. Are you aware that the guy is pro Palestinian? It's possible that the Isrealis set him up, but they deny it. Hard to know for sure. It's probably too complicated at this stage for Norris to do anything but give up.

That passage is evidence of nothing whatsoever !
" The arrest took place in a curious and troubling manner The circumstances are deeply worrying. Mr. Yizhak was lured into a carefully prepared trap "
This is nothing more than an opinion voiced by the defendants partner !
So I ask again, where is the evidence ? And evidence of what ?

Pompey Magnus · 01-08-2011 12:50PM

gambiaman wrote: »

the police contacted Nawi pretending to be a customer looking for a plumbing job to be done

Is that a euphemism in the gay community that I'm not aware of :pac:?

hestia · 01-08-2011 12:50PM

Back to the issue..

I have admired Norris for all that he has achieved on so many issues. Media gorging, and bias aside, I cannot but condemn his action on this occasion. Statutory rape is a serious crime and cannot, and should not, be minimised. Norris is utterly wrong in his representation and interpretation. He asserted that the judge was wrong to say the crime was no different to one "involving heterosexual relations". Unbelievable and utterly wrong.

beagle001 · 01-08-2011 12:54PM

hestia wrote: »

Back to the issue..

I have admired Norris for all that he has achieved on so many issues. Media gorging, and bias aside, I cannot but condemn his action on this occasion. Statutory rape is a serious crime and cannot, and should not, be minimised. Norris is utterly wrong in his representation and interpretation. He asserted that the judge was wrong to say the crime was no different to one "involving heterosexual relations". Unbelievable and utterly wrong.

Cannot have this predator heading our nation,a good familyan is what's needed not some sex hungry old senator who condones child rape.

hestia · 01-08-2011 12:57PM

Misinterpreting my opinion is no subsitute for a counter-view.

hestia · 01-08-2011 12:59PM

The most thoughful comment I've read so far...http://williamquill.com/2011/07/31/david-norris/

hestia · 01-08-2011 01:25PM

You can't interpret the response to his action as an attack on your own values. It's all there in black in white. The issue is not sex per se, or the definition of sexual maturity. The issues are summarised adequately and eloquently by Andrew Madden in the following:

In 1997 Senator David Norris wrote a letter to the Israeli High Court in an appeal for clemency for his former partner, Mr Ezra Nawi Yizhak, who was before the courts having pleaded guilty to the statutory rape of a 15 year old boy. Bishops and others in the Catholic Church, in this country and elsewhere, have protected child molesters and rapists from the criminal justice system and, even worse, left such people in positions where they had access to more children, and all too often, those who the bishops had protected went on to molest and rape more children. The usual apologists for the Catholic Church who try to equate what Senator Norris did with what the Catholic hierarchy did don’t fool me. No opportunity by such people to minimise the Catholic Church’s role in causing the sexual abuse of so many children is lost and no opportunity to give vent to their homophobia is missed.

No gutter too deep either.

Does that mean that there is no problem with Senator Norris’s letter? No it does not.

I haven’t spoken to Senator David Norris since this weekend’s revelations but before I came away on holiday yesterday, I listened to people speaking on radio who have.
I gather that Senator Norris acknowledges that his writing of that letter, in 1997, to the Israeli High Court in an appeal for clemency for his former partner, Ezra Nawi Yizhak, was wrong.

I’m glad to hear it, because it certainly was wrong.

I’m sure I’m right in saying that at least two Government ministers in recent years have had to resign from office in circumstances where they sought to intervene, in some way or other, on behalf of people who were the subject of the criminal justice system, or who were seeking to help others who were the subject of the criminal justice system.

If the same standard is to be applied to Senator Norris then it is not possible to support the view that he could hold the highest office in the land having intervened the way he did. Neither could anyone else who made similar interventions.
But my concerns about the letter go further, because Senator Norris went a lot further than just pleading for clemency. Most of Senator Norris’s pleading is on technical grounds some of which I would have to take issue with. In fact it’s more than that. What Senator Norris sought to do, whether he realised it or not, was to minimise what Mr Yizhak had done. His motivation seems to have been to try and secure a non-custodial sentence for Mr Yizhak. Unfortunately that doesn’t make it okay.

Serious offences, including statutory rape, require a custodial sentence. I don’t support calling for a non-custodial sentence in a case of this nature on the basis that the perpetrator pleaded guilty and I am surprised to read the claim in Senator Norris’s that in this jurisdiction such a mitigating fact would very likely result in a non-custodial sentence.

I have long been on the record as saying that possession of images of child sexual abuse should automatically attract a custodial sentence, so I can’t support a non-custodial sentence for statutory rape.

I am also perturbed to read Senator Norris refer to Mr Yizhak guilty plea as unwise; if Mr Yizhak committed the offence then it is only right and proper that he should admit his guilt at the earliest opportunity to save the young boy, who was the victim in this case, any further distress that may be caused by further court proceedings including a trial.

Senator Norris also raised the issue of consent in mitigation by referencing studies which apparently argue that in some cases where the victim can be considered the instigator or at least a willing participant, a sentence towards the lower end of the range would be appropriate. I cannot in all conscience support the use of such an argument in mitigation by Senator Norris.

Senator David Norris was wrong to write that letter and I think in these circumstances he should withdraw from the nomination process to become President of Ireland.

I'm a supporter of Norris, but I cannot let my personal values over-ride what was a gross error of judgement. A sad day.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 01-08-2011 01:39PM

anymore wrote: »

There is a significant difference between sex and sodomy.

Could you define sodomy? Seriously.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 01-08-2011 01:43PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

So if you reckon 15-16 and the victim in this instance was 15 then by this standard you would say that he was at the very best only just borderline ready for sex and quite possibly too young?

Yep, and it was against the law. But I am merely highlighting the arbitrary nature of the moral high ground being taken by some. In many European countries, 15 year olds can have sex to bate the band. Anal, gay or otherwise. It may not be to your taste, but you cannot deny to hazy, arbitrary, cultural, shifting with zeitgeist nature of whether a 15 year old can have consensual sex or not.

Ok in Spain, not in Ireland. But WE are sooooo right about that. Those heinous Spaniards.

hestia · 01-08-2011 01:49PM

Taking the high moral ground about what?

The facts of the representation and intervention speak for themselves. It was a fatal error of judgement that attempted to minimize the seriousness of the situation. Getting stranded on the issue of defining sexual maturity and consent is an irrelevancy within the context of Norris's responsibility and survival as a presidential candidate. It does Norris little favour either. He has admitted what he did was wrong.

beagle001 · 01-08-2011 01:51PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

So if you reckon 15-16 and the victim in this instance was 15 then by this standard you would say that he was at the very best only just borderline ready for sex and quite possibly too young?

Yep, and it was against the law. But I am merely highlighting the arbitrary nature of the moral high ground being taken by some. In many European countries, 15 year olds can have sex to bate the band. Anal, gay or otherwise. It may not be to your taste, but you cannot deny to hazy, arbitrary, cultural, shifting with zeitgeist nature of whether a 15 year old can have consensual sex or not.

Ok in Spain, not in Ireland. But WE are sooooo right about that. Those heinous Spaniards.

He won't b getting my vote as it just sets the wrong image for our country,the last thing we need is more scandal on the world stage.
We have had two great presidents just past and a new president needs to represent what's good about Ireland.
Michael D is your man,great speaker,intelligent,compassionate just what we need not someone who condones child rape.

hestia · 01-08-2011 01:56PM

In an ideal world, his suitability would be put to the people for public vote. The current system of nomination is archaic and undemocratic. Personally, no-one on the list impresses me, but I'll defend their right to be judged by the majority. The great pity is that Norris won't survive to get that opportunity he deserves.

hotmail.com · 01-08-2011 02:07PM

Sodomy is a Victorian term for anal sex. Just say anal sex. Lots of straight couples have anal sex.

hotmail.com · 01-08-2011 02:14PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yep, and it was against the law. But I am merely highlighting the arbitrary nature of the moral high ground being taken by some. In many European countries, 15 year olds can have sex to bate the band. Anal, gay or otherwise. It may not be to your taste, but you cannot deny to hazy, arbitrary, cultural, shifting with zeitgeist nature of whether a 15 year old can have consensual sex or not.

Ok in Spain, not in Ireland. But WE are sooooo right about that. Those heinous Spaniards.

And I wonder how many posters on here began their sexual lives before the legal age...

Duke Leonal Felmet · 01-08-2011 02:23PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

And I wonder how many posters on here began their sexual lives before the legal age...

I wish I did... ;-)

Duke Leonal Felmet · 01-08-2011 02:24PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Sodomy is a Victorian term for anal sex. Just say anal sex. Lots of straight couples have anal sex.

yeah, but its wrong because of some fairy story in a magic tome.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 01-08-2011 02:25PM

hestia wrote: »

Taking the high moral ground about what?

The facts of the representation and intervention speak for themselves. It was a fatal error of judgement that attempted to minimize the seriousness of the situation. Getting stranded on the issue of defining sexual maturity and consent is an irrelevancy within the context of Norris's responsibility and survival as a presidential candidate. It does Norris little favour either. He has admitted what he did was wrong.

It was wrong. It doesn't mean that you are right.

hestia · 01-08-2011 02:52PM

About what? I'm not claiming to be right about anything.

Focusing on matters of sexual maturity obscures the realities of Norris's action in this case. So many opportunities for discussion on sexual maturity have gotten lost along the way. Most prominently back during the Cathal O'Searcaigh debacle, then the McGill interview. These could have, and should have, served as platforms for an insightful and rich exploration on matters of consent and pederastry that would've illuminated all our understanding. Intellectuals like O'Searcaigh and Norris have important contributions to make on the subject, as do the likes of William Quill (referenced above) and others. A chance to challenge assumptions made by everyone involved was lost. It is all about context.

We cannot assume either that a willingness to participate in sexual activity is a direct expression of consent. The William Quill comments above reflects the complexities around that, particularly within the context of gay sex. More skilled and responsible interviewers and filmmakers could've sought to use their position better. They still can, but they fail to do so. With the exception of Dermod Moore (aka Bootboy writer with Hotpress), little serious philosphical consideration or attempts to penetrate the complexities of sexual maturity versus consent has been made. The chickening out silence says as much about our other writers and thinkers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all on for mining this subject. My point is that confining our judgement to degrees of consent in this instance is somewhat futile within the context of Norris's action. Plus I instintively wince at simplistic one-up-manship reductions to comparative legal age when it comes to a deeply complex subject. All of which is irrelevant next to Norris's intervention and interpretation, whatever way you look at it.

Silvio.Dante · 01-08-2011 05:34PM

Norris is toast as a presidential candidate. It's just a shame The Zionist military Junta has its grubby hand in it...

tayto lover · 01-08-2011 05:48PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Sodomy is a Victorian term for anal sex. Just say anal sex. Lots of straight couples have anal sex.

YUK.

tayto lover · 01-08-2011 05:53PM

hestia wrote: »

In an ideal world, his suitability would be put to the people for public vote. The current system of nomination is archaic and undemocratic. Personally, no-one on the list impresses me, but I'll defend their right to be judged by the majority. The great pity is that Norris won't survive to get that opportunity he deserves.

Well does he really deserve it now. He has sullied the name of Senator by intervening on behalf of a sex abuser. I have serious doubts on some of the stuff he tried to get the Israelis to believe i.e. a guilty plea to sex abuse would likely lead to a non-custodial sentence. I just don't buy that at all especially in this case where the boy was 15 and the abuser 40. I would like him to tell us about these cases as i simply do not believe this.

MagicSean · 01-08-2011 06:06PM

I would hope he is toast. The Magil article really put me off him when it first came out. When you add this incident it really puts some context on the article in my opinion.

And wtf is that crap "he was lured into a trap"? How do you trap someone into having sex with a boy?

HarryPotter41 · 01-08-2011 06:10PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yep, and it was against the law. But I am merely highlighting the arbitrary nature of the moral high ground being taken by some. In many European countries, 15 year olds can have sex to bate the band. Anal, gay or otherwise. It may not be to your taste, but you cannot deny to hazy, arbitrary, cultural, shifting with zeitgeist nature of whether a 15 year old can have consensual sex or not.

Ok in Spain, not in Ireland. But WE are sooooo right about that. Those heinous Spaniards.

And that is their right to have the legal age of consent they desire as a democratic country. And in most of those european countries there are laws which allow prosections for what they consider predatory sex of someone above their legal age of consent when there is a large age gap. They will also prosecute anyone having sex with someone below their age of consent. I am sure you are also aware that most Eiroupean countries, along with Ireland, allow for the prosection of somebody havign sex with somene below the age of consent even if it is legal age in the country where it happened, ie, an Irish person can be prosecuted for having sex with a 16yo in a country where the legal age of consent is 16. Laws vary from country to country, such is life, its a fallacious argument for defending terrible wrongdoing.

Discodog · 01-08-2011 06:13PM

Whatever Norris may of done or is alleged to of done it is nothing compared to not allowing the public to vote for their clear favourite. That is the real crime.

Yet again we have an elite dictating to us.

HarryPotter41 · 01-08-2011 06:16PM

Discodog wrote: »

Whatever Norris may of done or is alleged to of done it is nothing compared to not allowing the public to vote for their clear favourite. That is the real crime.

You may notice his last boards poll was 60% would vote for him, after the revelations the new poll is running 60% wouldn't vote for him. 25% in a poll ( and a pre letter one at that ) is hardly a resounding endorsement from the electorate. So I don't think he is now considered the front runner by anyone ( except possibly himself going by the egotistical view of himself he put into that letter of clemency )

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments