Is David Norris Toast?

tayto lover · 03-08-2011 11:08AM

It was wrong in 1992 and its still wrong today. Get it into your head. A dirty old man preyed on a minor. The man who tried to defend his honour lost his own. Simple as and no excuses or twisting is going to change that now.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 03-08-2011 11:09AM

seamus wrote: »

That's not a comparable scenario. Attempting to paint it as such just shows complete ignorance in relation to the facts of both situations.

Helen Lovejoy was a perfect description. Kudos.

RandomName2 · 03-08-2011 11:14AM

Most of the post here are debating the concept of the age of consent (in Israel?) Surely this is besides the point?

The reasons why it was wrong for David Norris to do what he did was because he was implicitly making his personal relationship a matter of the state, he was exercising poor judgement, and one may say that it brings his own morals into question. He also didn't disclose it to his campaign team - which also might show bad judgement.

Ultimately I think his eligibility should have been decided by the public. FOr such a high profile candidate and early frontrunner not to come before a public vote is a great shame imo.

I wouldn't have voted for him anyway, regardless of the controversy, but that also is besides the point.

anymore · 03-08-2011 11:30AM

seamus wrote: »

That's not a comparable scenario. Attempting to paint it as such just shows complete ignorance in relation to the facts of both situations.

If you are correct, then I suggest that another non -comparable scenario is rquating anal sex with vaginal sex as some posters appear to be doing. The vagaina is natuarlly designed as a sexual oral organ along with its role as a birth canal. The anus is not designed as a sexual organ. Yet the impression appears to be given that it is a sexual organ.

reprazant · 03-08-2011 11:35AM

anymore wrote: »

If you are correct, then I suggest that another non -comparable scenario is rquating anal sex with vaginal sex as some posters appear to be doing. The vagaina is natuarlly designed as a sexual oral organ along with its role as a birth canal. The anus is not designed as a sexual organ. Yet the impression appears to be given that it is a sexual organ.

So you disagree with anal sex?

HarryPotter41 · 03-08-2011 11:43AM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Correction: There can be a world of difference between rape and statutory rape, there can also be an awful lot of harm and damage caused on the victim by statutory rape.

I agree, the emotional scars of statutory rape can run equally as deep as those from rape of you are giving consent through the manipulation of somebody close to you whom you trust.

A Primal Nut · 03-08-2011 11:52AM

Seems this John Connolly guy is getting too much credit. He just reported what I found online - that Norris' lover had a conviction for statutory rape.

But who actually revealed that Norris had sent this letter on his behalf and who first published the letter?

reprazant · 03-08-2011 11:55AM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Seems this John Connolly guy is getting too much credit. He just reported what I found online - that Norris' lover had a conviction for statutory rape.

But who actually revealed that Norris had sent this letter on his behalf and who first published the letter?

Connolly said that he was pointed in the direction of the letter by a friend from Ireland whom he believes is a Michael D supporter. Michael D has denied having anything to do with it and I believe him as this sort of dirty politics does not seem to fit him.

A Primal Nut · 03-08-2011 11:58AM

reprazant wrote: »

Connolly said that he was pointed in the direction of the letter by a friend from Ireland whom he believes is a Michael D supporter. Michael D has denied having anything to do with it and I believe him as this sort of dirty politics does not seem to fit him.

But according to his blogs (if they are true) the friend only pointed him in the direction of the fact that Nawi had criminal convictions. He found the statutory rape thing and posted on 24 July, but there was nothing about the letter. The allegation that Norris wrote a letter came out a few days later when Norris' campaign team resigned. Was it they who revealed the letter existed?

Harry Angstrom · 03-08-2011 12:06PM

n32 wrote: »

ai ve read through this thread and i cant believe the amount of posters trying to make out that a relationship between a 50 yr old man and a 15 yr old boy is acceptable.

Perhaps David Norris wasn't all that morally outraged by Ezra's crime at the time? Remember the Helen Lucy Burke interview where Norris talked about an older man taking a youth in hand and teaching him the ways of the world? I don't think this case would be all that far removed from that in Norris's eyes. It was only yesterday that Norris was unequivocal in condemning Ezra's crime. Up until then he was happy enough to write a letter to the Israeli court seeking clemency for the guy, and he apparently didn't think the episode was important enough to disclose it to his election campaign workers from the outset.

zuroph · 03-08-2011 12:09PM

anymore wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

That's not a comparable scenario. Attempting to paint it as such just shows complete ignorance in relation to the facts of both situations.

If you are correct, then I suggest that another non -comparable scenario is rquating anal sex with vaginal sex as some posters appear to be doing. The vagaina is natuarlly designed as a sexual oral organ along with its role as a birth canal. The anus is not designed as a sexual organ. Yet the impression appears to be given that it is a sexual organ.

If someone wants to have anal sex, its none of your business. The anus is also perfectly capable of taking penetration. Your views on anal sex have no place in a political debate, but help us understand a lot about you

Duke Leonal Felmet · 03-08-2011 12:09PM

anymore wrote: »

If you are correct, then I suggest that another non -comparable scenario is rquating anal sex with vaginal sex as some posters appear to be doing. The vagaina is natuarlly designed as a sexual oral organ along with its role as a birth canal. The anus is not designed as a sexual organ. Yet the impression appears to be given that it is a sexual organ.

So oral sex is also a heinous act?

HarryPotter41 · 03-08-2011 12:12PM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Perhaps David Norris wasn't all that morally outraged by Ezra's crime at the time? Remember the Helen Lucy Burke interview where Norris talked about an older man taking a youth in hand and teaching him the ways of the world? I don't think this case would be all that far removed from that in Norris's eyes. It was only yesterday that Norris was unequivocal in condemning Ezra's crime. Up until then he was happy enough to write a letter to the Israeli court seeking clemency for the guy, and he apparently didn't think the episode was important enough to disclose it to his election campaign workers from the outset.

Shows his naivety, his staff should have been aware of everything, many of them were probably not even aware his former partner had this conviction, which even if the letter was never written they needed to know so if it came at them out of left field they could have dealt with it. There is so much smoke and bluster now from David Norris around this whole issue I am beginning to think he is not the saint many take him to be.

mikom · 03-08-2011 01:32PM

anymore wrote: »

The vagaina is natuarlly designed as a sexual oral organ along with its role as a birth canal.

Borat, is that you?

Happyman42 · 03-08-2011 01:53PM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Perhaps David Norris wasn't all that morally outraged by Ezra's crime at the time? Remember the Helen Lucy Burke interview where Norris talked about an older man taking a youth in hand and teaching him the ways of the world? I don't think this case would be all that far removed from that in Norris's eyes. It was only yesterday that Norris was unequivocal in condemning Ezra's crime. Up until then he was happy enough to write a letter to the Israeli court seeking clemency for the guy, and he apparently didn't think the episode was important enough to disclose it to his election campaign workers from the outset.

I think that is the nub of what happened, ^^^ Norris had no difficulty with what Nawi did and it's why it is right that he stepped down.
We have to make it clear from the TOP down that there are no grey areas, intellectual adoration of the Ancient Greeks is not a defence.

anymore · 03-08-2011 03:03PM

zuroph wrote: »

If someone wants to have anal sex, its none of your business. The anus is also perfectly capable of taking penetration. Your views on anal sex have no place in a political debate, but help us understand a lot about you

Given that a conviction for anal sex with a fifteen year old is the offence for which Norris is was seeking clemency, then the comments are entierly appropriate - you are remarkably touchy on the subject for a fellow who was such irreverent earlier - why the change in tone ?

Duke Leonal Felmet · 03-08-2011 03:09PM

anymore wrote: »

Given that a conviction for anal sex with a fifteen year old is the offence for which Norris is was seeking clemency, then the comments are entierly appropriate - you are remarkably touchy on the subject for a fellow who was such irreverent earlier - why the change in tone ?

Ok, just to clarify. A statutory rape of a 15 year old girl occurs. To you, does it matter whether it is anal or vaginal?

hotmail.com · 03-08-2011 03:13PM

anymore wrote: »

If you are correct, then I suggest that another non -comparable scenario is rquating anal sex with vaginal sex as some posters appear to be doing. The vagaina is natuarlly designed as a sexual oral organ along with its role as a birth canal. The anus is not designed as a sexual organ. Yet the impression appears to be given that it is a sexual organ.

Just mad.

Lots of people (straight and gay) have anal sex, maybe you should try it.

FreudianSlippers · 03-08-2011 03:23PM

Unless someone here is fluent in Hebrew, how do you know the nature of the contact with the minor? All I can see is that the conviction was for "indecent contact with a minor" which could be anything.

The guy came out and stated that it was consensual and Nawi was in jail for IIRC 3 months.

zuroph · 03-08-2011 03:41PM

anymore wrote: »

Given that a conviction for anal sex with a fifteen year old is the offence for which Norris is was seeking clemency, then the comments are entierly appropriate - you are remarkably touchy on the subject for a fellow who was such irreverent earlier - why the change in tone ?

lol, I'm not touchy in any way. I'm frustrated by your own close minded views on anal sex, which have no place in a political debate. the charge was for statutory rape, it doesnt matter how it took place, anal sex is not illegal in Israel. Billions of people for thousands of years have enjoyed anal sex, so your own views are irrelevent in this debate.

The sex being anal was not the issue, it was the age of the youth. He was 3 months below the legal age requirement for them to have a sexual relationship. They allegedly carried on their relationship afterwards, and never got any further bother from the authorities.

The hand wasnt designed as a sexual organ either, doesnt stop most people here from using it as such. :rolleyes:

Teclo · 03-08-2011 04:03PM

What is certain is that people who try to defend middle aged men who like to give it to 15 years up the arse(consensually or not) is that they are losing the argument.

Annasopra · 03-08-2011 04:10PM

Teclo wrote: »

What is certain is that people who try to defend middle aged men who like to give it to 15 years up the arse(consensually or not) is that they are losing the argument.

Perhaps Im missing something - how do you know the exact circumstances?

zuroph · 03-08-2011 04:12PM

Teclo wrote: »

What is certain is that people who try to defend middle aged men who like to give it to 15 years up the arse(consensually or not) is that they are losing the argument.

no1 I've seen here is defending the man. Merely pointing out that this wasnt a "brutal forced rape", as its being spun by some.

Teclo · 03-08-2011 04:53PM

no1 I've seen here is defending the man. Merely pointing out that this wasnt a "brutal forced rape", as its being spun by some.

I never used the word 'forced'. Whatever the circumstances where, the most appropriate word to describe a 40 year old man having sex with a vulnerable 15 year boy amounts to rape. 'Not believing in consent' and seeing the merits of an 'older man introducing a young boy to sex', as some people here do, is nothing more than a way of legalizing child abuse.

Perhaps Im missing something - how do you know the exact circumstances?

Whatever happened it wasn't pretty and it was illegal. Are you convinced that an experienced homosexual man would engage in illegal sexual activity with a boy but stop short of buggery? Does this man deserve the presumption of innocence on that one?

Annasopra · 03-08-2011 04:57PM

Teclo wrote: »

Whatever happened it wasn't pretty and it was illegal. Are you convinced that an experienced homosexual man would engage in illegal sexual activity with a boy but stop short of buggery? Does this man deserve the presumption of innocence on that one?

So you don't know what happened then.

Bock the Robber · 03-08-2011 05:27PM

Wasn't the Israeli court a bit derelict in its duty if it sentenced a man to only three months in jail for rape?

HarryPotter41 · 03-08-2011 05:49PM

This Morning Ireland interview shows the bombastic waffle and the dreadful opinions that made the man entirely unsuitable for the Presidency

http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0609/media-2974346.html

Teclo · 03-08-2011 06:33PM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

Wasn't the Israeli court a bit derelict in its duty if it sentenced a man to only three months in jail for rape?

Maybe the court was influenced by a man of great importance.

HarryPotter41 · 03-08-2011 07:11PM

Teclo wrote: »

Maybe the court was influenced by a man of great importance.

Oh? Really? Why, did somebody else write to them as well??

Fuinseog · 03-08-2011 07:14PM

mossyc123 wrote: »

Imagine for a moment it was Michael Healy-Rae* who wrote the letter for a constituent of his from down the road who had got himself locked up abroad for, lets say, riding a 15 year old young one on holidays?!

We wouldn't even be having this debate... he'd be hung, drawn and quartered by the media!

Instead we seem to have to jump through these "homophobia/prejudice" hoops.

He did wrong, he was caught and he's done.

(*Would still probably be re-elected though :pac:)

Norris does not believe he did any wrong and that is the worrying thing. He led us to believe that having sex with a fifteen year old was an academic debate and when it does happen he comes out and defends it.
there is one set of values for straight people and another for the gay community.

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments