Is David Norris Toast?

Sir Oxman · 02-08-2011 01:45PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nawi was a plumber turned human rights activist... I'd hardly say that would constitute an "abuse of power" - I'm almost certain that exists for people in public office, etc.

I thouight it can also encompass adults of his age, mature adults who could have an improper influence or 'power' over a young boy/girl.
I don't think it refers solely to what your trade is.

Also, the lad may have given his consent but he wasn't legally able to.

I understand the charge of statutory rape means he didn't actually rape the lad though.

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 01:47PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

I said nothing about an elite, I said it was a snobby attitude.

I understand fully the role of the president, so there's no need to be so patronising.

Well based on the comment that a president needs to know how to "shake hands, open schools and plants trees" I would disagree that you have any understanding of Article 26 of the Constitution or the powers of the president.

Not being patronising, just basing my commentary on yours.

Side Show Bob · 02-08-2011 01:50PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think we should be clear here that it was STATUTORY rape, not proper rape.

In Israel there are 3 conditions that must be met between 14-16

The only condition that was not met in this case was the first. It was completely consensual sex and if they were less than three years apart it would have been totally legal.
Norris may well have been correct to write in his personal capacity to ask for leniency, but his mistake was doing so on official letterhead.

Is that an error of judgement? Yes.
Is it a morally wrong thing to do that should ruin this man's reputation? No.

Rape is rape there's no such charge as "not proper rape"
He does not represent the majority of the people so ti was an "error of judgment.
No it should not ruin the mans reputation, but he should resign from all public positions imediadetly

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 01:50PM

gambiaman wrote: »

I thouight it can also encompass adults of his age, mature adults who could have an improper influence or 'power' over a young boy/girl.
I don't think it refers solely to what your trade is.

Also, the lad may have given his consent but he wasn't legally able to.

I understand the charge of statutory rape means he didn't actually rape the lad though.

I would disagree based on the inclusion of the age issue separately.

I'm not totally convinced by the ethical implications of statutory rape in general, especially where a person is only a few months from the age of consent.

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 01:51PM

Side Show Bob wrote: »

Rape is rape there's no such charge as "not proper rape"
He does not represent the majority of the people so ti was an "error of judgment.
No it should not ruin the mans reputation, but he should resign from all public positions imediadetly

There is rape and statutory rape. Two different things completely.

Side Show Bob · 02-08-2011 01:52PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is rape and statutory rape. Two different things completely.

Yes legally but not morally!

Judgement Day · 02-08-2011 01:53PM

Sounds of a dead horse being flogged on the Joe Duffy Show now as all the David Norris supporters phone in.

hotmail.com · 02-08-2011 01:56PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well based on the comment that a president needs to know how to "shake hands, open schools and plants trees" I would disagree that you have any understanding of Article 26 of the Constitution or the powers of the president.

Not being patronising, just basing my commentary on yours.

Referring bills to the supreme court. You believe that this is the most important function of the president? Sorry to sound patronising but that is daft.

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 01:57PM

Side Show Bob wrote: »

Yes legally but not morally!

Agree to disagree. As I said in another post, statutory rape is a ropey subject in general, especially where the person is only months away from the age of consent.
Morals really have no place in a discussion of a legal issue IMO (there are others that would disagree).

It was improper morally to write the letter on government letterhead, that's the issue.
Whether or not statutory rape is morally wrong is a red herring really.

hotmail.com wrote: »

Referring bills to the supreme court. You believe that this is the most important function of the president? Sorry to sound patronising but that is daft.

Care to explain how it's not? Art 26 is vital to establish and preserve separation of powers and ensure that laws are constitutional.
The only thing that is daft is an attempt to state that this is not a vital function in any democracy and that knowing how to "shake hands, open schools and plants trees" is more important.

Side Show Bob · 02-08-2011 01:58PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

Sounds of a dead horse being flogged on the Joe Duffy Show now as all the David Norris supporters phone in.

Typical of this country to phone Joe Duffy's Whineline when it's the Gardai should be called

Sir Oxman · 02-08-2011 02:01PM

Joe Jackson ('journalist') is saying on the Norris for pres FB page that a message he has received makes him believe that Norris will not be withdrawing from seeking nomination
<salt pinch needed>

hestia · 02-08-2011 02:01PM

What's the crime? Is there a precedent in Irish law? Call the Gardai for what exactly?

hotmail.com · 02-08-2011 02:04PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Agree to disagree. As I said in another post, statutory rape is a ropey subject in general, especially where the person is only months away from the age of consent.
Morals really have no place in a discussion of a legal issue IMO (there are others that would disagree).

It was improper morally to write the letter on government letterhead, that's the issue.
Whether or not statutory rape is morally wrong is a red herring really.

Care to explain how it's not? Art 26 is vital to establish and preserve separation of powers and ensure that laws are constitutional.
The only thing that is daft is an attempt to state that this is not a vital function in any democracy and that knowing how to "shake hands, open schools and plants trees" is more important.

I live in the real world. Have you not lived through a full presidential term?

What has that president done? Have they ever referred bills to the supreme court?

The constitutional role of the president is limited, their man role is ceremonial and they do things like opening schools. Not much else. We can go 6 months without seeing the president.

Side Show Bob · 02-08-2011 02:09PM

hestia wrote: »

What's the crime? Is there a precedent in Irish law? Call the Gardai for what exactly?

Because making a Representation to the judiciary of another country on behalf of this country, to attempt lessen a crime committed in another jurisdiction without any consultation or permission of the Minister responsible on an official letterhead is actualy misrepresenting the people of this country.

His letter is now a State Document, and his abuse of his position of power is further misrepresentation

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 02:10PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

I live in the real world. Have you not lived through a full presidential term?

No, I'm six next month actually. You got me!

What has that president done? Have they ever referred bills to the supreme court?

The constitutional role of the president is limited, their man role is ceremonial and they do things like opening schools. Not much else. We can go 6 months without seeing the president.

It's not my job to educate the ignorant to be honest, but still... it's been done by McAleese 8 times and about the same by Robinson. I think Dr. Hillery did it 5 or 6 times and it was used about 8 or 9 times before him.

You're also forgetting the power to put referendums to the people.

Side Show Bob wrote: »

Because making a Representation to the judiciary of another country on behalf of this country, to attempt lessen a crime committed in another jurisdiction without any consultation or permission of the Minister responsible on an official letterhead is actualy misrepresenting the people of this country.

His letter is now a State Document, and his abuse of his position of power is further misrepresentation

In fairness, misrepresentation only applies in contract law. You are totally correct in regards to the fact that it was an abuse of power, but AFAIK no actual law was broken.

hestia · 02-08-2011 02:12PM

He represented his own views only, not those of the country. To do it on official paper was indeed wrong. That is not deemed a punishable crime in this country. An abuse of power, yes; criminal activity, no.

Godge · 02-08-2011 02:15PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think we should be clear here that it was STATUTORY rape, not proper rape.

In Israel there are 3 conditions that must be met between 14-16

The only condition that was not met in this case was the first. It was completely consensual sex and if they were less than three years apart it would have been totally legal.
Norris may well have been correct to write in his personal capacity to ask for leniency, but his mistake was doing so on official letterhead.

Is that an error of judgement? Yes.
Is it a morally wrong thing to do that should ruin this man's reputation? No.

It was an abuse of power in the same way that swimming coaches, teachers, priests or other upstanding members of the community have abused such power in Ireland in the past and committed similar offences. In this case a well-known respected human rights campaigner with a high reputation abused his position.

Norris was also very wrong to describe a person convicted of statutory rape as a trustworthy, good and moral person, whether he was writing on headed notepaper or not.

Side Show Bob · 02-08-2011 02:15PM

hestia wrote: »

He represented his own views only, not those of the country. To do it on official paper was indeed wrong. That is not deemed a punishable crime in this country. An abuse of power, yes; criminal activity, no.

The use of the Stale's letterhead together with the signituree makes the letter a document of the state, what would happen if he were to send it to an Irish Judge in a similar case, perverting the course of justice comes to mind

hotmail.com · 02-08-2011 02:17PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, I'm six next month actually. You got me!

It's not my job to educate the ignorant to be honest, but still... it's been done by McAleese 8 times and about the same by Robinson. I think Dr. Hillery did it 5 or 6 times and it was used about 8 or 9 times before him.

You're also forgetting the power to put referendums to the people.

She referred 3 bills to the supreme court, not 8. That's in 14 years of a presidency. Big wow. Are you seriously suggesting that this is the most important thing about being the president?

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 02:23PM

Planning and Development Bill 1999
Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999
Section 24 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2001
Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004
Criminal Justice Bill 2007
Defamation Bill 2006
Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009
Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Bill 2010

All invoked Council of State powers to begin in Re Art 26 proceedings, some were signed without referral.

You're wrong about the president because you simply don't understand separation of powers and would prefer to make this issue about something which you have no chance of convincing me otherwise.

Unless you have any further desire to derail this thread further I think I'll just leave it there and continue with my knowledge that I'm pretty well versed in the Constitution of this (and other) countries and the powers of the President.

DJCR · 02-08-2011 02:23PM

Liveline 10 min poll now, Should Norris continue with the campaign, text Y or N

Just finished:-

Liveline poll: Should Norris continue - Yes 8,758 (45%) No 10,844 (55%)

Have to say this really surprised me.

He only had 25% support last week, yet he appears to have done rather better here and one would have expected the FG/LAB faithful to do their duty here?

Godge · 02-08-2011 02:24PM

hestia wrote: »

He represented his own views only, not those of the country. To do it on official paper was indeed wrong. That is not deemed a punishable crime in this country. An abuse of power, yes; criminal activity, no.

You are right that what Norris did is not a punishable crime but to dismiss it as a mere abuse of power is too simple.

If you saw similar letters in the past, they would have been written simply - please show some leniency to x, signed Joe Bloggs TD.

In his letter, Norris goes to great lengths to talk about his own importance, elected as a Senator with the biggest popular vote ever, member of the Foreign Affairs Committe, potential candidate for President. There is a hint of a threat there, I am a man of influence, you would do well not to cross me. Brings CJH to mind.

Wolfe Tone · 02-08-2011 02:27PM

DJCR wrote: »

Liveline 10 min poll now, Should Norris continue with the campaign, text Y or N

Just finished:-

Liveline poll: Should Norris continue - Yes 8,758 (45%) No 10,844 (55%)

Have to say this really surprised me.

He only had 25% support last week, yet he appears to have done rather better here and one would have expected the FG/LAB faithful to do their duty here?

Different question was asked....

Those people who voted yes wont necessarily vote for him.

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 02:27PM

Godge wrote: »

You are right that what Norris did is not a punishable crime but to dismiss it as a mere abuse of power is too simple.

If you saw similar letters in the past, they would have been written simply - please show some leniency to x, signed Joe Bloggs TD.

In his letter, Norris goes to great lengths to talk about his own importance, elected as a Senator with the biggest popular vote ever, member of the Foreign Affairs Committe, potential candidate for President. There is a hint of a threat there, I am a man of influence, you would do well not to cross me. Brings CJH to mind.

At the end of the day it's Israel, the US's little bulldog... a letter from Norris isn't going to change much. He can threaten all he wants, but the potential President of Ireland means next to nothing in Israeli courts I'd imagine

I agree with you, but I'm just saying it's a bit much to start reading into the letter.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 02-08-2011 02:31PM

DJCR wrote: »

Liveline 10 min poll now, Should Norris continue with the campaign, text Y or N

Just finished:-

Liveline poll: Should Norris continue - Yes 8,758 (45%) No 10,844 (55%)

Have to say this really surprised me.

He only had 25% support last week, yet he appears to have done rather better here and one would have expected the FG/LAB faithful to do their duty here?

correct me if im wrong, but that 45% and the 25% you refer to are not comparable figures, when you think about it.

fitz · 02-08-2011 02:33PM

hestia wrote: »

He represented his own views only, not those of the country. To do it on official paper was indeed wrong. That is not deemed a punishable crime in this country. An abuse of power, yes; criminal activity, no.

I'm not going to get into arguing one side or the other, but the one thing I've found a bit odd is that people seem to have not noticed that there are two letters. One was a character reference, which looks like it was sent before/during the trial, sent on headed paper in January 1997. The letter pleading for clemency looks to have been sent on unheaded paper in August 1997.

The fact that both documents look like they've been scanned concurrently into the one PDF file seems to be creating the impression that it was all the one, and so second letter looks like it was on headed paper.

Here's the file:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisletter.pdf

What do people think?

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 02:35PM

fitz wrote: »

I'm not going to get into arguing one side or the other, but the one thing I've found a bit odd is that people seem to have not noticed that there are two letters. One was a character reference, which looks like it was sent before/during the trial, sent on headed paper in January 1997. The letter pleading for clemency looks to have been sent on unheaded paper in August 1997.

The fact that both documents look like they've been scanned concurrently into the one PDF file seems to be creating the impression that it was all the one, and so second letter looks like it was on headed paper.

Here's the file:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisletter.pdf

What do people think?

Very good find. I haven't been able to check the docs yet but looked at them there now and I'm now convinced he has done nothing wrong.

DJCR · 02-08-2011 02:37PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Different question was asked....

Those people who voted yes wont necessarily vote for him.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

correct me if im wrong, but that 45% and the 25% you refer to are not comparable figures, when you think about it.

Both true of course..... I was just mearly relating to the fact that it isn't just his core supporters that want him to keep going. That's the bit that surprised me..... I would have thought overall the support would have dropped, especially with his main campaign team jumping overboard.

Wolfe Tone · 02-08-2011 02:39PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Very good find. I haven't been able to check the docs yet but looked at them there now and I'm now convinced he has done nothing wrong.

Perhaps you should read them?

DJCR · 02-08-2011 02:40PM

fitz wrote: »

I'm not going to get into arguing one side or the other, but the one thing I've found a bit odd is that people seem to have not noticed that there are two letters. One was a character reference, which looks like it was sent before/during the trial, sent on headed paper in January 1997. The letter pleading for clemency looks to have been sent on unheaded paper in August 1997.

The fact that both documents look like they've been scanned concurrently into the one PDF file seems to be creating the impression that it was all the one, and so second letter looks like it was on headed paper.

Here's the file:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisletter.pdf

What do people think?

That is crazy..... another smear campaign?

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments