Is David Norris Toast?

Godge · 03-08-2011 11:04PM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Personally if I had a 15 year old son and I heard that a 40 year old man was interfering with him, I'd kick the shyte out of the 40 year old man. Even if my son was to say it was consensual, it wouldn't be a mitigating factor as far as I'd be concerned. A parent is responsible for his/her child until they reach the age of 18. If my son went off with this guy when he reached the age of 18 then there wouldn't be much I could do about it. And there's no way it's the same as a couple of 15 or 16 year olds messing around. A 40 year old man who takes advantage of a 15 year old kid is a predator and a deviant, whether it be a straight or gay situation.

Exactly, it is amazing how so many of the Norris supporters miss this point. Now imagine how you feel if some two-bit politician was writing letters of clemency for that 40-year old who interfered with your son.

Godge · 03-08-2011 11:06PM

C14N wrote: »

45=/=60 but that's not the point.

The point is that it's more or less a victimless crime. I agree that Nawi deserved his punishment as it was against the law of the land but considering it's not even a unanimous law amongst our own partners in Europe it's not that major a crime. If he actually raped someone or was tied up in drugs or something like that, it would be completely different.

It's true that if a 60 year old politician (or indeed a 45 year old) was found to have had sex with a 17 year old, he would probably be done with here but that is down to our own social norms, it's not a moral atrocity.

In any case, Norris did not do it himself, he simply asked for a lighter punishment for a close friend. It's not unlike having a friend or family member commit a crime and testifying on their behalf or even hiding evidence (which is wrong but something good people will do anyway). I doubt an Irish senator has much sway over an Israeli judge anyway.

And all those bishops who just moved the abusers on to another parish were just giving lighter punishment to a close friend. Seriously, think about what you are defending in the context of what this country has gone through.

Fuinseog · 03-08-2011 11:07PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

Said 60 year old straight politician is The Italian PM. Still had his job well up until today, but I suppose what he did was ok the child was getting money for the sex.

true enough, but what if said politician were Irish?

HarryPotter41 · 03-08-2011 11:08PM

C14N wrote: »

45=/=60 but that's not the point.

The point is that it's more or less a victimless crime. I agree that Nawi deserved his punishment as it was against the law of the land but considering it's not even a unanimous law amongst our own partners in Europe it's not that major a crime. If he actually raped someone or was tied up in drugs or something like that, it would be completely different.

It's true that if a 60 year old politician (or indeed a 45 year old) was found to have had sex with a 17 year old, he would probably be done with here but that is down to our own social norms, it's not a moral atrocity.

In any case, Norris did not do it himself, he simply asked for a lighter punishment for a close friend. It's not unlike having a friend or family member commit a crime and testifying on their behalf or even hiding evidence (which is wrong but something good people will do anyway). I doubt an Irish senator has much sway over an Israeli judge anyway.

Is it victimless? I know a situation where a lad starting having sex ( consensual ) woth a man in his 50's. At 17 he was a mess and still having sex with the same male. He said he felt dirty after he had sex with the man but admitted that his horniness took over and the sex was consensual but when the deed was over he knew what he had done was wrong and felt exploited. You wouldn't believe the mess this lad was in, a total wreck. And every sexual act was consensual. Was that a victimless crime?

Fuinseog · 03-08-2011 11:08PM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

This is pathetic.

interesting contribution.

Fuinseog · 03-08-2011 11:10PM

Godge wrote: »

I am sure there are plenty of priests in Cloyne and Ferns saying the same thing about their fourteen and fifteen year-old altar boys and girls,.....sure people wouldn't be making such a song and dance about it in France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

The point is that while most of those countries have lower ages of consent, they do try and protect teenage kids from exploitation by older men. It doesn't matter whether it was consensual or not, Nawi exploited the boy.

Norris would argue he was educating him and he probably gave him a bag of sweets so it was exploitation

ResearchWill · 03-08-2011 11:14PM

Godge wrote: »

Exactly, it is amazing how so many of the Norris supporters miss this point. Now imagine how you feel if some two-bit politician was writing letters of clemency for that 40-year old who interfered with your son.

Firstly I must point out I think any politician writing a letter to any Court to seek clemency for any crime is just nasty. If a person wants to give the court evidence why a person should have clemency then they should know the person well and explain the fact and how exactly they know the person I.e. If you are the persons ex not good enough to say your a long term friend the court needs all the correct information, also such information should be given under oath and in person, just too easy to write a letter.

But if any person wishes to give evidence in court to be cross examined, to see the victim of the crime in the court, then they should be allowed to do so. The judge needs all the information about the crime, the victim and the accused so as to decide the correct punishment.

ResearchWill · 03-08-2011 11:19PM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Personally if I had a 15 year old son and I heard that a 40 year old man was interfering with him, I'd kick the shyte out of the 40 year old man. Even if my son was to say it was consensual, it wouldn't be a mitigating factor as far as I'd be concerned. A parent is responsible for his/her child until they reach the age of 18. If my son went off with this guy when he reached the age of 18 then there wouldn't be much I could do about it. And there's no way it's the same as a couple of 15 or 16 year olds messing around. A 40 year old man who takes advantage of a 15 year old kid is a predator and a deviant, whether it be a straight or gay situation.

Well under Irish law if said 15 year old consented to the acts, excluding intercourse, I.e. Heavy petting, then the said 40 has not committed any crime. The crime in this case is sexual assault, and a child of 15 or more can consent to such act.

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935

Defence of consent by person under fifteen years of age.

14.—It shall not be a defence to a charge of indecent assault upon a person under the age of fifteen years to prove that such person consented to the act alleged to constitute such indecent assault.

Indecent assault Was changed to sexual assault by the Criminal Law Rape Amendment Act 1990

Sexual assault.

2.—(1) The offence of indecent assault upon any male person and the offence of indecent assault upon any female person shall be known as sexual assault.

(2) A person guilty of sexual assault shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

(3) Sexual assault shall be a felony.

The punishment was increased to 10 years and 14 years in case of person 14 or under.

So in the able situation the 40 would more than likely not be convicted, while you on the other hand would be convicted of a section 3 or 4 Assault. But of course you would not ask any of your old friends to give evidence of how nice a guy you are the good work you have done etc., because any such claim for clemency should never be allowed.

K-9 · 03-08-2011 11:19PM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

This is pathetic.

Yep, a new low for politics.

At least Dana might run, might attract the support of a few on this thread.

Be a change to see what they are for rather than against.

Pompey Magnus · 03-08-2011 11:24PM

C14N wrote: »

The point is that it's more or less a victimless crime. I agree that Nawi deserved his punishment as it was against the law of the land but considering it's not even a unanimous law amongst our own partners in Europe it's not that major a crime. If he actually raped someone or was tied up in drugs or something like that, it would be completely different.

If a person drives whilst drunk but gets home safely they too are guilty of a victimless crime, the problem is that when they got behind the wheel they did not know for sure there wouldn't be a victim but they went ahead and did it anyway.

When Nawi had sex with that underage boy he didn't know for sure how the boy would react after the event, he didn't know that boy wouldn't become a victim but he went ahead and did it anyway.

To use the excuse that there was no victim in this case and that the age of consent varies even in Europe is absolutely no more valid than excusing the drunk driver because in that particular instance they didn't cause an accident and that the allowable alcohol levels whilst driving varies even amongst our own partners in Europe.

anymore · 03-08-2011 11:25PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

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?

First i suggest you ask a woman that and then ask a Doctor which, if any, is likely to be more physically traumatic.

Further information on the subject :
Among the diseases with which anal sex is associated are HIV,[89] human papilloma virus (HPV) (which can increase risk for anal cancer),[90] or typhoid fever.[91] Among these are: amoebiasis; chlamydia; cryptosporidiosis; E. coli infections; giardiasis; gonorrhea; hepatitis A; hepatitis B; hepatitis C; herpes simplex; human papillomavirus; Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (HHV-8);[92] lymphogranuloma venereum; Mycoplasma hominis; Mycoplasma genitalium; pubic lice; salmonellosis; shigella; syphilis; tuberculosis; and Ureaplasma urealyticum.[9][93][94][95]
The high concentration of white blood cells around the rectum, together with the risk of cuts to the rectum and that one of the functions of the rectum is to absorb fluid, increases the risk of HIV transmission because the HIV retrovirus reproduces within the immune system's T-cells/CD4 cells. Use of condoms and other precautions are a medically recommended way to lessen risk of infections. Unprotected receptive anal sex is the most risky sexual behavior in terms of HIV transmission.[96][97][98]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Increased_risk_of_anal_cancer

C14N · 03-08-2011 11:26PM

Godge wrote: »

And all those bishops who just moved the abusers on to another parish were just giving lighter punishment to a close friend. Seriously, think about what you are defending in the context of what this country has gone through.

As I said, it

is wrong but something good people will do anyway

The bishops weren't inherently bad people but like Nawi, they deserve to be punished for their crimes. In this case, it was far more severe as they were the ones in power and the crime was child abuse, a much more serious offence. Said bishop is in a very different situation to Norris.

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Is it victimless? I know a situation where a lad starting having sex ( consensual ) woth a man in his 50's. At 17 he was a mess and still having sex with the same male. He said he felt dirty after he had sex with the man but admitted that his horniness took over and the sex was consensual but when the deed was over he knew what he had done was wrong and felt exploited. You wouldn't believe the mess this lad was in, a total wreck. And every sexual act was consensual. Was that a victimless crime?

Interesting point, and I may reconsider my stance. Clearly he was a victim, but would it have been any different had he started at 17 instead?

Godge wrote: »

Exactly, it is amazing how so many of the Norris supporters miss this point. Now imagine how you feel if some two-bit politician was writing letters of clemency for that 40-year old who interfered with your son.

Pretending to be the dad here, if it was rape, I would feel very angry, if it was consenting and my son didn't seem traumatised in the slightest, I would feel the blame went half to my son as I believe a 15 is old enough to know what he is doing and I wouldn't hold a grudge against Nawi, but that's just me.

Godge · 03-08-2011 11:27PM

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, a new low for politics.

At least Dana might run, might attract the support of a few on this thread.

Be a change to see what they are for rather than against.

Many of the people on this thread are for the protection of children and teenagers from exploitation by older men. Are you against that?

Pompey Magnus · 03-08-2011 11:36PM

Godge wrote: »

Many of the people on this thread are for the protection of children and teenagers from exploitation by older men. Are you against that?

Just to be more specific, we are for the law to provide homosexual minors with absolutely no more and no less protection than is afforded heterosexual minors.

Speaking for myself I am entirely perplexed why some people regard the statutory rape of the young gay boy in this case to be less deserving of condemnation than the statutory rape of a young straight girl in the Humphries case.

C14N · 03-08-2011 11:40PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If a person drives whilst drunk but gets home safely they too are guilty of a victimless crime, the problem is that when they got behind the wheel they did not know for sure there wouldn't be a victim but they went ahead and did it anyway.

When Nawi had sex with that underage boy he didn't know for sure how the boy would react after the event, he didn't know that boy wouldn't become a victim but he went ahead and did it anyway.

To use the excuse that there was no victim in this case and that the age of consent varies even in Europe is absolutely no more valid than excusing the drunk driver because in that particular instance they didn't cause an accident and that the allowable alcohol levels whilst driving varies even amongst our own partners in Europe.

True, he didn't know how the guy would react, my only point was that it's not set in stone that 15 is too young to consent as millions of perfectly rational people believe it to be fine. Your comparison between this victimless crime and the victimless crime of driving drunk aren't apt though. If someone were visiting another country (Germany for example, I don't know their legal alcohol level but lets assume its higher than ours). While there, they drive with a higher alcohol level than is legal there but with an amount that is fine there, would anyone really care that much?

Or if they were slightly over the limit here, but to such a small degree that it would still be considered a safe amount in most other countries, would it be such a crime that merely trying to defend it could ruin someone's career?

Fuinseog · 03-08-2011 11:43PM

C14N wrote: »

As I said, it

The bishops weren't inherently bad people but like Nawi, they deserve to be punished for their crimes. In this case, it was far more severe as they were the ones in power and the crime was child abuse, a much more serious offence. Said bishop is in a very different situation to Norris.

Interesting point, and I may reconsider my stance. Clearly he was a victim, but would it have been any different had he started at 17 instead?

Pretending to be the dad here, if it was rape, I would feel very angry, if it was consenting and my son didn't seem traumatised in the slightest, I would feel the blame went half to my son as I believe a 15 is old enough to know what he is doing and I wouldn't hold a grudge against Nawi, but that's just me.

you do not know many 15 year olds, do you? I work with teenagers and at that age the vast majority of them are confused, unsure of themselves and most insecure. I would regard a 40 year old trying to proposition them here as as a threat and morally questionable.

HarryPotter41 · 03-08-2011 11:43PM

C14N wrote: »

Interesting point, and I may reconsider my stance. Clearly he was a victim, but would it have been any different had he started at 17 instead?

By 17 he would have been a much wiser person and I don't think he would have ever entered into the relationship. At 15 he wasn't sure about his sexuality and this was exploited by somebody older who should have known better. The fact that at 17 he was still meeting the man and feeling that he had to meet him because he had "done so much" for him shows how the exploitation had taken hold.

Fuinseog · 03-08-2011 11:46PM

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, a new low for politics.

At least Dana might run, might attract the support of a few on this thread.

Be a change to see what they are for rather than against.

I do not think Post Celtic Tiger Ireland is mature enough to have someone who is openly Roman Catholic as president.

jill_valentine · 03-08-2011 11:46PM

I see what you did there.

You should probably warn that young McAleese wan though, she wouldn't want to be getting her hopes up.

Bock the Robber · 03-08-2011 11:51PM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Personally if I had a 15 year old son and I heard that a 40 year old man was interfering with him, I'd kick the shyte out of the 40 year old man.

So would I.

It would be very good to see a first-hand report of the trial showing that the lad was 15. That would end speculation once and for all.

Unfortunately, all we have to rely on for now is the Sunday Independent which is not exactly a paper of record.

anymore · 03-08-2011 11:52PM

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Is it victimless? I know a situation where a lad starting having sex ( consensual ) woth a man in his 50's. At 17 he was a mess and still having sex with the same male. He said he felt dirty after he had sex with the man but admitted that his horniness took over and the sex was consensual but when the deed was over he knew what he had done was wrong and felt exploited. You wouldn't believe the mess this lad was in, a total wreck. And every sexual act was consensual. Was that a victimless crime?

There is a particular hazard where older men start approaching young boys who may or may not be gay. Your post deals with this and it is an issue that needs to be recognised and perhaps discussed.
There is another particular hazard in relation to this palestinian boy. Had these events occured in an area under the control of Islamic fundamentalists, the outcome could have very much more terrible possibly even deadly. I am assuming that the boy is Islamic which of course he may not be.

Godge · 03-08-2011 11:54PM

C14N wrote: »

The bishops weren't inherently bad people but like Nawi, they deserve to be punished for their crimes. In this case, it was far more severe as they were the ones in power and the crime was child abuse, a much more serious offence. Said bishop is in a very different situation to Norris.

.

Chapter 11 of the Cloyne Report details a complaint by a woman who had been sexually assuaulted at 16 by a priest.

Paragraph 12.8 deals with a complaint by a mother about finding a priest in bed with her 15 1/2 year old son. In 12.9, the complainant, a traveller boy, was 15.

Chapter 14 deals with a case involving an admitted sexual relationship between a priest, then aged about 30 and a 16-year old girl.

Only a small sample following a quick perusal of the report but it is clear that Cloynes isn't just about pre-pubescent child abuse, it is also about forms of pederstry, as defended a number of times on this thread.

Fuinseog · 03-08-2011 11:54PM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

So would I.

It would be very good to see a first-hand report of the trial showing that the lad was 15. That would end speculation once and for all.

Unfortunately, all we have to rely on for now is the Sunday Independent which is not exactly a paper of record.

the fifteen year old was probably a refugee without mum or Dad and our hero looked after him so in his mindset he believed he deserved some kind of reward. there are no lengths supporters of Norris will not go to to justify something that is essentially wrong.

jill_valentine · 03-08-2011 11:55PM

You've written quite a script for this scenario man, it has to be said.

Teclo · 03-08-2011 11:56PM

The semantics on this thread from the pro Norris/Pro gay politics lobby will puzzle many people. Nothing can bring you away from the basics facts - a man who wanted to be president of Ireland, Senator Norris, was(or still is) in love with a man who likes to have sex with underage boys. The former candidate used the offices of this state to try to save his lover from imprisonment, not just because of his love for him but also because he really didn't believe that he had done anything wrong.

Norris is damaged goods. As catholics must dump a bishop who refuses to believe that one of his priests could be an abuser, the gay lobby must dump Norris if they want to avoid being accused of putting support for their own leaders above the rights of children to be safe from predators.

zuroph · 03-08-2011 11:57PM

I should have listened to myself 2 days ago. once again, I'm out of this thread. This is why democracy does not work. good bye

Pompey Magnus · 03-08-2011 11:58PM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Wow, I wonder what happens during that .5 time?

That had me confused for a moment too, but if the study went on for say 2 months and the first month the median had anal sex twice and then the second month they had anal sex 3 times, then the median's frequency per month would be 2.5. At least that is what I think anyway, it has been ages since I did any statistics.

ResearchWill · 03-08-2011 11:59PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

the fifteen year old was probably a refugee without mum or Dad and our hero looked after him so in his mindset he believed he deserved some kind of reward. there are no lengths supporters of Norris will not go to to justify something that is essentially wrong.

Doubt it considering that his parents made the complaint.

Fuinseog · 03-08-2011 11:59PM

Godge wrote: »

Chapter 11 of the Cloyne Report details a complaint by a woman who had been sexually assuaulted at 16 by a priest.

Paragraph 12.8 deals with a complaint by a mother about finding a priest in bed with her 15 1/2 year old son. In 12.9, the complainant, a traveller boy, was 15.

Chapter 14 deals with a case involving an admitted sexual relationship between a priest, then aged about 30 and a 16-year old girl.

Only a small sample following a quick perusal of the report but it is clear that Cloynes isn't just about pre-pubescent child abuse, it is also about forms of pederstry, as defended a number of times on this thread.

child abusers often argue that they were 'educating' their victims and teaching them that the world can be a bad place.
a teenager is for the most part confused and for a mature adult to groom them a certain way is wrong.

Bock the Robber · 04-08-2011 12:01AM

What would you suggest as a Europe-wide definition of adulthood?

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments