Is David Norris Toast?

hestia · 02-08-2011 11:02AM

"afraid to say it's wrong"? really? the commentary is swamped with blanket objection to his action from all quarters. and rightly so.

Pompey Magnus · 02-08-2011 11:05AM

n32 wrote: »

in the name of christ the man should be judged by the same standards as a straight man would be. just because he is the first openly gay candidate for the presidency does not mean we should overlook his flaws.

This is the ridiculousness of this whole debacle, the side that claim he should be treated no different to a straight man and that a homosexual minor should be offered no less protection under the law than a heterosexual minor are the one's who are being accused of being discriminatory and homophobic by the opposite side. It is beyond preposterous.

anymore · 02-08-2011 11:05AM

hestia wrote: »

The constitution worth its salt is subject to periodic review and revision. I'm not a lone voice of dissent in calling the present system of selection an democratic process. We, the people, should decide. Do you also thank goodness for the undermining block-voting antics involved?

And if David Norris had felt it necessary to have the constitution revised, no Doubt he would have spent much of the past 20 years campaigning to have it changed - he took the trouble to put down a motion of support in the Senate supporting his boyfriend/ former boyfriend .. you know the one convicted in a court of sex offenses.
So why didnt he ? Presumably because he was quite happy with it.

mike65 · 02-08-2011 11:06AM

When is the press conference?

beagle001 · 02-08-2011 11:10AM

mike65 wrote: »

When is the press conference?

Twitter saying Norris to step down this lunch time.

hestia · 02-08-2011 11:14AM

anymore wrote: »

And if David Norris had felt it necessary to have the constitution revised, no Doubt he would have spent much of the past 20 years campaigning to have it changed - he took the trouble to put down a motion of support in the Senate supporting his boyfriend/ former boyfriend .. you know the one convicted in a court of sex offenses.
So why didnt he ? Presumably because he was quite happy with it.

Many of the electorate are not, increasingly so when it comes to the blatant underhandedness at play. You failed to answer my question. The demerits of being held hostage by the value judgements of a tiny minority, when it comes to selecting a representative of the entire electorate, are fairly obvious.

Your response is of the pat, self-satisfied, moral arbiter, devil-may-care variety. It'll be laughable, if it weren't so depressing.

anymore · 02-08-2011 11:20AM

hestia wrote: »

Many of the electorate are not, increasingly so when it comes to the blatant underhandedness at play. You failed to answer my question. The demerits of being held hostage by the value judgements of a tiny minority, when it comes to selecting a representative of the entire electorate, are fairly obvious.

Your response is of the pat, self-satisfied, moral arbiter, devil-may-care variety. It'll be laughable, if it weren't so depressing.

Pity you didnt reread your own post ! Unfortunately this country is increasingly becoming hostage to the values, or should I say the tyranny, of small minorities ! Which is why so few were willing to ask relevant questions over this sordid affair.

hestia · 02-08-2011 11:27AM

Blatantly taking my comments out of context is a deeply weak form of debate. The traditional format is to respond to the points being made and respond with your own. Not shifting the posts to score your own goals.

Who exactly is not questioning Norris on this issue? All public commentary I have read and heard has been unanimous in their objection of Norris's intervention. As I have said above.. rightly so. Who are you referring to?

Irrespective of whether Norris intervened in a court case, or whether Mary Davis subsidised her college fees with selling sex on the side, the system of selection remains undemocratic, open to corruption, and fundamentally unfair. Excessive moralising doesn't obscure that fact.

tayto lover · 02-08-2011 11:32AM

northkildare wrote: »

david norris is still seen as a legend and i believe this lad set him up, the media twisted the story.

David came to our meeting a few years ago and explained how it all happened so i dont understand why its only coming up now, nobody at the meeting had a problem then so why now.

this is the problem, when you try explain it to straight people you get trashed for something that is natural within the gay community.

So are you saying that none of the gay attendance at your meeting thought it wrong for a 40 year old to have sex with a 15 year old underage male which in Ireland is called Statutory Rape ?

anymore · 02-08-2011 11:35AM

hestia wrote: »

Blatantly taking my comments out of context is a deeply weak form of debate. The traditional format is to respond to the points being made and respond with your own. Not shifting the posts to score your own goals.

Who exactly is not questioning Norris on this issue? All public commentary I have read and heard has been unanimous in their objection of Norris's intervention. As I have said above.. rightly so. Who are you referring to?

Irrespective of whether Norris intervened in a court case, or whether Mary Davis subsidised her college fees with selling sex on the side, the system of selection remains undemocratic, open to corruption, and fundamentally unfair. Excessive moralising doesn't obscure that fact.

" taking my comments out of context " Now where did we hear that before.......thinks.....thinks very hard......." Oh I know ! It is the mantra for the ' Elect David Norris President Committee '.
An alternative to this mantra might be :
" Whatever you say, say nothing about you know what !"
"
As for democracy, the system has worked.

zuroph · 02-08-2011 11:36AM

tayto lover wrote: »

So are you saying that none of the gay attendance at your meeting thought it wrong for a 40 year old to have sex with a 15 year old underage male which in Ireland is called Statutory Rape ?

why do you continue to argue it with him, its clear he's just trying to derail the thread, he's argued both for and against on the same thread, in one night, he's just stirring. I'm avoiding using the "t" word here...

HarryPotter41 · 02-08-2011 11:36AM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Because the claim was that this supposed silent majority would "never" vote for Norris and homophobia mentioned as the specific reasoning behind this decision. It is ridiculous to claim such a thing for the one man who was showing himself most popular in the polls and the argument is based on nothing other than some prejudice against the ordinary Irish person.

Actually if you look at the original post mentioning the silent majority, there is absolutely no mention of his sexuality being the reason they would not vote for him, huge leap you took there. Yet again people who don't want to vote for him are homophobes. I don't want to vote for him and I am no homophobe. Then again, you probably don't believe that. All of us who don't want to vote for him are homophobes.

hestia · 02-08-2011 11:41AM

I've wandered in to a flat-earth theory convention, haven't I?

anymore · 02-08-2011 11:49AM

hestia wrote: »

I've wandered in to a flat-earth theory convention, haven't I?

Funny you say that, the ancient greeks established the spherical shape of the earth as a given. I shall avoid referring to one of thier other theories/ practices !

Pompey Magnus · 02-08-2011 11:53AM

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Actually if you look at the original post mentioning the silent majority, there is absolutely no mention of his sexuality being the reason they would not vote for him, huge leap you took there.

It was the post after that by boatbuilder, who brought this whole issue about a silent majority up, where homophobia came into it:

"Yes, true, but it is possible that people say one thing and do another at the polling booth for fear of being branded homophobic etc"

Yet again people who don't want to vote for him are homophobes. I don't want to vote for him and I am no homophobe. Then again, you probably don't believe that. All of us who don't want to vote for him are homophobes.

I get the impression there are some crossed wires here because this is exactly the same as what I am arguing.

Paddy De Plasterer · 02-08-2011 11:54AM

beagle001 wrote: »

Twitter saying Norris to step down this lunch time.

what other option has he, when three TDs deserted him and probably more to come. And no hope of recruiting other members of the Oireachtas. He dug his own grave.

HarryPotter41 · 02-08-2011 12:06PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

It was the post after that by boatbuilder, who brought this whole issue about a silent majority up, where homophobia came into it:

"Yes, true, but it is possible that people say one thing and do another at the polling booth for fear of being branded homophobic etc"

I get the impression there are some crossed wires here because this is exactly the same as what I am arguing.

Not crossed wires, you just have your sarcasm detection mechanism off

Fr Tod Umptious · 02-08-2011 12:07PM

beagle001 wrote: »

Twitter saying Norris to step down this lunch time.

Step down from what - resign his Senate seat ?

Or just withdrawing from seeking a nomination for the presidency, which is stepping down from nothing.

Laisurg · 02-08-2011 12:17PM

northkildare wrote: »

I had little fate in mick wallace and now i have none, He still supports David Norris and dosnt seem to care about the young boy.

You had nothing but praise for David Norris a two days ago :rolleyes:

Paddy De Plasterer · 02-08-2011 12:21PM

He should "step down"from the Aras race, and I believe also from Senate seat he occupies.

Sierra Oscar · 02-08-2011 12:24PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Step down from what - resign his Senate seat ?

Or just withdrawing from seeking a nomination for the presidency, which is stepping down from nothing.

Withdrawing from the race, but there is a press conference at 3PM so we will see for sure then.

hestia · 02-08-2011 12:28PM

The reasons for continued support from the independent senators are diverse and interesting. Wallace was explicit in his objection to Norris's intervention. He then stated he had done many stupid things in his own time, so he's coming from a position of forgiveness. O'Sullivan also objected to his actions, but felt his long record on human rights work justified his nomination and deemed it was important he continue with it. John Crowne again registered his objection but indicated his support was not based on personal choice, but on his convinction that the electorate should decide. It would be interesting to see how the electorate would've responded but it seems certain that won't happen.

Condemning Norris's representation to the court is not incompatible with supporting the view that the entire electorate should be in a position to judge. Neither is it incompatible with the condemnation of statutory rape. Blunt and crude interpretations, where unknocking the various issues are thrawted by the blanket all-or-nothing moralists who equate resistance to public hanging with endoresment of rape is an alarming outcome of this.

hotmail.com · 02-08-2011 12:41PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

Is that why both Douglas Hyde and Erskine Childers were elected as Presidents?

Hyde was an all-party candidate, there was no election.

I do think there are some bigots in Ireland that would get annoyed with the fact that Norris isn't Catholic.

HarryPotter41 · 02-08-2011 12:46PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Hyde was all-party candidate, there was no election.

I do think there are some bigots in Ireland that would get annoyed with the fact that Norris isn't Catholic.

Seeing that Erskine Childers was elected in this country at a time when the Catholic Church had a firm hold on the people ( don't forget at his State funeral cabinet ministers had to remain outside in their cars because they were not allowed at that time to enter a Protestant Church ) I think that's a remark from the dark ages. For the record, the most bigoted religious comment I ever heard was from a Protestant with regard to Catholics at a funeral in my local Protestant Church. Do Protestants then refuse to vote for someone because they are Catholic?

hestia · 02-08-2011 12:50PM

Surely a rhetorical question, certainly an idiotic one.

gman2k · 02-08-2011 12:51PM

I expect that DN will announce his withdrawal from the presidential race between 2:30pm and 3:00pm at the Hardymount Garden Festival in Carlow
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Senator-David-Norris-for-President/318973847746

Happyman42 · 02-08-2011 12:53PM

Norris put himself forward for scrutiny. He and his supporters wanted a nomination...HE failed to pass muster. That was HIS fault....not the system's. In this instance the system worked.

Side Show Bob · 02-08-2011 12:53PM

Why has the minister for forign affairs or the Taoiseach not yet interviewed Norris, seeking a full explanation regarding the use of a State letterhead without consultation or permission of any kind whatsoever from the then minister of Foreign Affairs, to write without even a legal opinion to make such a bizarre representation to the judiciary of a foreign jurisdiction.

If this were the UK or the USA it would possibly even be revered to the police at this stage for further investigation and clarification.

This being Ireland it will be left with the media to investigate, the only question being asked is "should the senator continue his campaign for President" of the country that he has grossly misrepresented in using it's State letterhead and his powerful position of Senator.

hotmail.com · 02-08-2011 12:56PM

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Seeing that Erskine Childers was elected in this country at a time when the Catholic Church had a firm hold on the people ( don't forget at his State funeral cabinet ministers had to remain outside in their cars because they were not allowed at that time to enter a Protestant Church ) I think that's a remark from the dark ages. For the record, the most bigoted religious comment I ever heard was from a Protestant with regard to Catholics at a funeral in my local Protestant Church. Do Protestants then refuse to vote for someone because they are Catholic?

Wrong again. Ministers didn't the funeral of Douglas Hyde in 1949.

I know of several Catholics that don't believe Protestants go to heaven. I don't believe in anything by the way, but it gives the idea of the ignorance of some Catholics in Ireland.

Just look at the GAA - a Catholic sectarian organisation.

There is no Catholic bigots in Ireland - please give me a break.

anymore · 02-08-2011 12:57PM

hestia wrote: »

The reasons for continued support from the independent senators are diverse and interesting. Wallace was explicit in his objection to Norris's intervention. He then stated he had done many stupid things in his own time, so he's coming from a position of forgiveness. O'Sullivan also objected to his actions, but felt his long record on human rights work justified his nomination and deemed it was important he continue with it. John Crowne again registered his objection but indicated his support was not based on personal choice, but on his convinction that the electorate should decide. It would be interesting to see how the electorate would've responded but it seems certain that won't happen.

Condemning Norris's representation to the court is not incompatible with supporting the view that the entire electorate should be in a position to judge. Neither is it incompatible with the condemnation of statutory rape. Blunt and crude interpretations, where unknocking the various issues are thrawted by the blanket all-or-nothing moralists who equate resistance to public hanging with endoresment of rape is an alarming outcome of this.

Norris himself for the period of his career has refrained from going before the electorate as a candiate in any general election/ byelection. He himself has choosen to only put himself as a candidate on behalf of the elite of Trinity College. It is a little late to be portraying him as a man of the people !

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments