Is David Norris Toast?

ixoy · 04-08-2011 10:10AM

Fuinseog wrote: »

there is one law for the straight community and another for the gay community. Norris likes teenagers and supports relationships between very old men and teenagers and nothing will happen until a representative of the gay community comes out and says he is wrong and should do the right thing.

Why does a representative have to say anything? Who is this representative? Nobody represents me in the same way as there is no representative for the straight community. We're not all some Borg-like entity.
Does the straight community bring out a representative that gets wheeled out and speaks for a straight collective?

ResearchWill · 04-08-2011 10:10AM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Some of the criticism of the blogger on this case is really strange. I don't agree with his politics but I don't see what he did wrong in this case. He found online that Norris' ex-lover was convicted of sexual assault of a minor in Israel and reported it on his blog - this is what Bloggers do. He did not find or publish the clemency letter, contrary to what his opponents seem to think.

It was Norris' campaign team and supporters in the Dail who pulled the plug on Norris campaign, not this blogger, Fine Gael, Israel or the media. In fact the campaign team pulled the plug even before the letter was public or the media reported on it, because they disagreed with what Norris did. If his campaign team didn't think it was a big deal, and his supporters in the Dail didn't think it was a big deal; Norris would still be in the race. He would have lost some votes; but judging by the reaction of people here and on other forums, he still had a good chance of winning.

If the Norris supporters want to blame anyone for stopping him from being president it should be his supporters who stopped supporting him. The blogger is just some guy who came across some hebrew articles online and posted about them.

I would have supported Norris if he had got the nomination, so I suppose that makes me a Norris supporter. Do I blam the blogger nope, do I question his motives yes. But in saying that and after a lot of searching I have found no solid evidence that the said blogger was doing anything wrong.

In relation to Norris supporters, what I got from early news reports was that key team members left because David Norris had informed them that there was nothing in his past that could cause any problems. Political handlers don't like a candidate that they feel they can not trust.

anymore · 04-08-2011 10:14AM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

If the Sunday Independent would release these records we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. We'd know for sure. I have read in various places that he was convicted of indecent assault, and the extremely lenient sentence seems to bear this out. Therefore, for the umpteenth time, I'm asking for a first-hand account of the trial, if somebody can produce it. I don't believe that's too much to ask for. Do you?

Apart from that eminent paper of record, the SIndo, what's your source for saying that he was convicted of rape?

Have a look at the irish examiner and what it said he was convicted of :
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/norris-i-was-motivated-by-love-515133.html

Could you please clarify if you are the blogger ' Bock the Robber. I accessed the blog by clicking on your homepage but would like to have it clarified please.

anymore · 04-08-2011 10:16AM

ixoy wrote: »

Why does a representative have to say anything? Who is this representative? Nobody represents me in the same way as there is no representative for the straight community. We're not all some Borg-like entity.
Does the straight community bring out a representative that gets wheeled out and speaks for a straight collective?

Well if the gay community is campaigning in respect of various issues, are there people who regualrily speak in the media ' on behalf of' the gay community.

A Primal Nut · 04-08-2011 10:17AM

I also had been planning to vote for Norris but I wouldn't now. After being so angry with the church for being sympathetic towards people who have sexual relations with minors, it would be hypocritical for me to turn around and vote for Norris after this, even though I normally try to focus on politics rather than scandal.

Of course the bloggers motive was probably to reduce support for Norris, who has expressed pro-palestinian sentiment but he's just a blogger of no importance; who cares what is motive is. The truth is the truth regardless of who reveals and it was Norris' closest allies who ultimately made it so he could no longer run, not the blogger!

Another reason not to vote for Norris is his pompous attitude. He spends half the letter talking about himself, finishing with "I am a person of some consequence" and then explains why his opinion is more important than the rest of us! Ugh!

ResearchWill · 04-08-2011 10:19AM

anymore wrote: »

Well if the gay community is campaigning in respect of various issues, are there people who regualrily speak in the media ' on behalf of' the gay community.

When a person explains Kathleen Lynch's letter for the abuser of two young girls and why said letter tars all women, then maybe your argument carries weight.

anymore · 04-08-2011 10:21AM

ResearchWill wrote: »

When a person explains Kathleen Lynch's letter for the abuser of two young girls and why said letter tars all women, then maybe your argument carries weight.

For a person who posted good solid posts, that is a little bit silly !

Ambersky · 04-08-2011 10:26AM

Fuinseog says
there is one law for the straight community and another for the gay community. Norris likes teenagers and supports relationships between very old men and teenagers and nothing will happen until a representative of the gay community comes out and says he is wrong and should do the right thing.

As it stands it wold appear that the gay community is either staying silent or coming out to defend the indefensible.

There are many LGBT people who have been critical of David Norris.
I am gay and I have been posting long posts here in Politics in AA and in the LGBT forum about my opposition to his beliefs around pederasty since the controversy began as a result the Magill article.

Colm O Gorman ( who is also gay) has said
Statutory rape is a serious crime and should not be minimised. David Norris is utterly wrong in his representation and interpretation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021143/Favourite-Irish-presidency-David-Norriss-ex-partner-raped-Palestinian-boy-15.htm

Katherine Zappone ( who is Lesbian) has not been a supporter of David Norris and only agreed to support him in the last coupl of weeks with her senate vote under pressure on the principal that the electorate had a right to elect whom they chose but that was before the recent revelations.

Part of the problem is there are actually so few Lesbian and Gay public reperesentatives.
But believe me some of the people most critical of David Norris especially us older ones who actually knew him politically in his younger days before becoming so famous, are Lesbian or Gay

anymore · 04-08-2011 10:31AM

anymore wrote: »

For a person who posted good solid posts, that is a little bit silly !

I will amend my post by adding that for many people, the concern comes from the combination of the belated revelation of the Court letter and the case behind it and the opinions voiced by Mr Norris in the Magill article.
MR Norris's campaign workers clearly made thier own minds up. So why ask posters these kinds of questions - ask people who used to support Mr Norris.
Mr Norris clearly could if he wished specify exactly what his partner was convicted of. I am not aware that he has.
He could specify exactly what he rejects of the quotes attributed to him by HLB. If people are speculating about any of these various issues, Mr Norris could greatly assist in clearing the air. He has in the Senate spoken about many issues accross the globe. He has as a Senator gone on fact finding missions, as part of Dail delegations, to various spots around the world. Is it asking too much that he actaully clarify matters on these various issues. If he does not, will he have any credibility whilst speaking on issues he is not invloved in ?

Godge · 04-08-2011 10:32AM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

It happened in Israel.

At that time, Israeli law defined 16 as the age of consent for heterosexuals and 18 for homosexuals.

Then again, you (if bock the robber blog is you) defined the 19-year old blogger who started this off as a boy

http://bocktherobber.com/2011/08/david-norris-and-the-troll

so whether he was 15 or 17 doesn't really matter to you, by your own definitions, Nawi interfered with a boy.

Reading that blog exposes you for a complete hypocrite. if a 19-year old is a "boy who lacked the normal boundaries by which we show respect to our fellow men and women", then he could hardly be mature enough to consent to a sexual relationship with a 45-year old. I assume therefore that you are suggesting an age of consent of 20 or so?

Apologies if you are not that blogger, suggest a name change in that case.

ResearchWill · 04-08-2011 10:37AM

anymore wrote: »

For a person who posted good solid posts, that is a little bit silly !

I agree not the best formulated response. But to explain it, the other poster was asking a spokesman of the Gay community to comment on the Norris letter. This is not a gay straight issue it is a child protection issue. To expect a unified voices from every gay in the country would be like expecting a unified voice from every person who is straight in relation the the Kathleen Lynch letter.

Many people here have been mixing up issues.

Issue one was it right to send the letter seeking clemency. My view is no I personally do not think politicians should be sending such letters to a court, but it was epidemic in this country. It matters not what was the crime. I do on the other hand agree with personal information, but as I said earlier same should be given in person under oath, and there must be no hint that the person is using there position to influence the Court.

Issue 2 is the support of a convicted person for what ever the crime support of that crime. Well my own view is no of course not, in fact my personal view is that I would hope I could be there for any friend of mine convicted of a crime. Maybe I will be able to stand by them but I hope I will have the courage to.

Issue 3 if the above support moves from support to protection as in the recent issues in Ireland is that the same, as a lot of people have been saying on here. By comparing what Norris did to what the Catholic church did. The church shielded abusers, the church moved people around and did not give the state information. That is very different to writing a letter of support. If all the church had done was send a bishop to every trial at sentencing I would have no problem.

On an aside, there is need for discourse on the whole issue of sex and the protection of children. But an open and Frank debate, where if a person wants to wrap up every child in a nice safe place till they are 21 is listened to, as well as a person who what to lower the age of consent to say 15 or 16. Our current law is a mess, it needs reforming, it stupid that the age of consent is 17 yet a 15 year old can consent to a hand job. It's also mad that a 15 year old boy commits an offence if he has sex with a girl under 17.

Godge · 04-08-2011 10:37AM

anymore wrote: »

Well if the gay community is campaigning in respect of various issues, are there people who regualrily speak in the media ' on behalf of' the gay community.

I hate references to the "gay" community or to the "straight" community. We should be all one community and there should be a divergence of views among all. Just because you are straight/gay doesn't mean you should hold certain views.

It always seems to me that it is the extremists on either side of the argument who try to put such labels and they tend to be extreme on all issues. There is nothing wrong with holding strong views on this subject or that subject (for example, as a parent of teenagers, I have very strong views about the appropriateness of sexual relations between older men and teenagers) but holding such views to an extent that leads you to label yourself or others leaves you open to being blinded by the strong views rather than continually debating and reassessing them.

Bock the Robber · 04-08-2011 10:40AM

anymore wrote: »

I clicked on to your homepage and find that the tone you adopt there is much different on this subject. Here you are the voice of sweet reason, there you appear to give full vent to your anger and cast comments aoround without being overly worried about sweet reason -
" My advice to our trolling friend would be simple. ....."
Just to be on the safe and to avoid attirbuting quotes to you that are not yours, could you clarify that are or are not the blogger ' Bock the Robber' please ?

The trolling remark refers to previous behaviour, as you would know if you had taken the trouble to look into the background.

Bock the Robber · 04-08-2011 10:44AM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

What are your sources for claiming he wasn't? If you are demanding access to the court documents before you believe the statutory rape charge is legitimate then surely it is inconsistent for you to also claim that as far as you can establish "Nawi was not convicted of statutory rape". Just how far have you established that claim without access to these documents that you demand and what more reputable sources are backing up your claim?

Out of interest did David Norris once deny that Nawi was convicted of statutory rape?

You seem very resistant to the idea that the trial details should be made public. Surely they can only strengthen the position of those who believe that Nawi was convicted of rape. If those documents confirm that he was indeed convicted of rape, that will be the end of the matter and we can move on.

anymore · 04-08-2011 10:44AM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

The trolling remark refers to previous behaviour, as you would know if you had taken the trouble to look into the background.

Could you please just clarify that you are the blogger ' Bock the Robber' to ensure I am not misquoting you - it is just a courtesy.

Bock the Robber · 04-08-2011 10:46AM

anymore wrote: »

Could you please just clarify that you are the blogger ' Bock the Robber' to ensure I am not misquoting you - it is just a courtesy.

That's me.

Pompey Magnus · 04-08-2011 10:59AM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

You seem very resistant to the idea that the trial details should be made public. Surely they can only strengthen the position of those who believe that Nawi was convicted of rape. If those documents confirm that he was indeed convicted of rape, that will be the end of the matter and we can move on.

I'm not resistant at all, I agree the details should be released because I am working off the assumption that the people who saw the documents got it right when they said he was convicted of statutory rape and if they were wrong I would have expected that they would have immediately been corrected by David Norris, which I don't believe he has done.

Given the limited information we have I take these two details to be the biggest clues available to deduce what actually happened in the trial and both point towards statutory rape.

Bock the Robber · 04-08-2011 11:01AM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Given the limited information we have I take these two details to be the biggest clues available to deduce what actually happened in the trial and both point towards statutory rape.

Is three months an appropriate sentence for rape? I would have thought it should be much longer.

K-9 · 04-08-2011 11:10AM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

Is three months an appropriate sentence for rape? I would have thought it should be much longer.

The Independent seem to be saying that the reluctance of the 15 year old to press charges may have played a part. Apparently it was 6 months but he actually served 3. It would appear consent was taken into account in sentencing.

Pompey Magnus · 04-08-2011 11:14AM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

Is three months an appropriate sentence for rape? I would have thought it should be much longer.

It does seem short alright, I believe he was originally sentenced to 6 months and it was reduced to 3. This case resulted in a 1 year sentence with another 6 months suspended.

No two cases are identical so it may be that just Nawi got off lightly.

Bock the Robber · 04-08-2011 11:26AM

The fact that Israel had two different definitions for a minor is the main reason I would like to confirm the full details of the case from a primary source.

A Primal Nut · 04-08-2011 11:53AM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

The fact that Israel had two different definitions for a minor is the main reason I would like to confirm the full details of the case from a primary source.

Which part exactly do you want to clarify?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/relations-with-ezra-nawi-threaten-to-derail-norris-irish-presidential-hopes-1.376165

According to Israeli law, adults are prohibited from having sexual relations with a minor under the age of 16. Nawi defined the affair at the time as “a mistake.”

Nawi said at the time that he had had an affair with the 15-year-old boy in question, and it was only when the boy’s parents found out about it that they lodged a police complaint.

I'm not sure what the issue is. It's illegal to have sex with a person under 16; the victim was 15. What else do you need to know? The nature of the sexual relations?

tayto lover · 04-08-2011 12:14PM

MadsL wrote: »

err there's doubt because the facts of the case don't appear to have been widely published yet...but of course "He clearly took advantage"

Still grasping at straws i see.

evolving_doors · 04-08-2011 12:14PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

What else do you need to know? The nature of the sexual relations?

Amen to that, picking over the details of the crime itself is pointless.. he was busted.. he admitted so.. he's toast.. end of

The thread title asks Is David Norris toast?

Answer= yes (burnt toast at that)

There is no debate anymore .. perhaps it should move on to ..is his life in politics over altogether? if he's not good enough for president then why is he good enough for any other political office.. is it any less of a misdemeanor if he is a senator rather than a presidential candidate?

HarryPotter41 · 04-08-2011 12:51PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

http://thesystemworks.wordpress.com/links-on-ezra-naw/

According to all those Israeli links it was sexual assualt or indecent act on a minor.

The guardian printed a clarification saying that it was statutory rape:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/aug/04/corrections-clarifications

As far as I know in Irish law, it's impossible to rape a man, as rape applies to vaginal penetration. I'm not sure if Anal Penetration comes under sexual assualt or statutory rape, in Israeli law. I don't think it matters really - what Nawi did was very, very wrong either way!

Section 4 rape in Irish law covers the raping of a man : http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/sec0004.html

Bock the Robber · 04-08-2011 12:53PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Which part exactly do you want to clarify?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/relations-with-ezra-nawi-threaten-to-derail-norris-irish-presidential-hopes-1.376165

According to Israeli law, adults are prohibited from having sexual relations with a minor under the age of 16. Nawi defined the affair at the time as “a mistake.”

Nawi said at the time that he had had an affair with the 15-year-old boy in question, and it was only when the boy’s parents found out about it that they lodged a police complaint.

I'm not sure what the issue is. It's illegal to have sex with a person under 16; the victim was 15. What else do you need to know? The nature of the sexual relations?

In 1992 it was illegal in Israel for homosexuals to have sex under 18. The age of consent for heterosexuals was 16. Therefore, a person of 17 could simultaneously be a minor and an adult, depending who they had sex with.

HarryPotter41 · 04-08-2011 12:55PM

K-9 wrote: »

The Independent seem to be saying that the reluctance of the 15 year old to press charges may have played a part. Apparently it was 6 months but he actually served 3. It would appear consent was taken into account in sentencing.

It seems the guilty plea so that the lad did not have to testify and the consent were used as mitigating factors in the sentencing, and in fairness in this country people have got three to four years for horrific child abuse so not strange that light sentences are handed out like this.

InigoMontoya · 04-08-2011 03:48PM

Bock the Robber wrote: »

In 1992 it was illegal in Israel for homosexuals to have sex under 18. The age of consent for heterosexuals was 16. Therefore, a person of 17 could simultaneously be a minor and an adult, depending who they had sex with.

But the lad in this case was 15, so... ?

tayto lover · 04-08-2011 04:11PM

InigoMontoya wrote: »

But the lad in this case was 15, so... ?

I think he is trying to imply that the young lad wasn't born until he was 3.

Bock the Robber · 04-08-2011 04:18PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I think he is trying to imply that the young lad wasn't born until he was 3.

I'm not trying to imply anything. If the lad was 15 that's the end of it.

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments