Norris, more abuse of power

IngazZagni · 03-10-2011 02:05PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

More hair-splitting.:rolleyes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/02/scandal-scuppers-gay-president

No it's not. It wasn't rape, there's no questions about that. It was consensual.

Even the Guardian had to correct their mistake as shown at the bottom of that article. They bought into the lies being spewed at the time and they still are by various people too.

The Guardian wrote:

• This article was amended on 3 August 2011. The original incorrectly stated that Ezra Yitzhak Nawi was convicted of the rape of a 15 year-old boy. In addition we also suggested that David Norris had written to the Israeli authorities seeking clemency for Nawi before he was convicted, but his plea for clemency came after the conviction, before he was sentenced. This has been corrected.

David Norris will be down at the clock tower today from 5.30pm. Id recommend you go down and ask him questions directly yourself, in a non patronizing tone of course.

Lord TSC · 03-10-2011 02:11PM

So, I get the feeling the topic has now followed the following path...

"It's an abuse of power!"
"Oh no it isn't."
"Yeah, but what about the letters issue?"

Does this need ANOTHER topic? If people want to discuss the ins and outs of whether it's an abuse of power to aid a friend in an open way, fine. But the letter's issue is being discussed in about 5 other topics on AH at the moment, and it's now reached the stage whereby people try and create a new contraversy to start bashing Norris, fail, and fall back on an older one.

Laisurg · 03-10-2011 02:15PM

MMAIRELANDFAN wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/norris-made-seanad-plea-on-behalf-of-second-foreign-lover-2894088.html

This is unreal

Not really... I think you just saw that story and thought to yourself ''I don't know if this is actually a really bad thing but David Norris did it so it has to be!'' Start thinking for yourself....

Teclo · 03-10-2011 02:19PM

Not much here other than another example of what he loves best, collecting all these middle eastern victims.

TanG411 · 03-10-2011 02:20PM

I don't think the media want a gay president for some reason.

Morlar · 03-10-2011 02:23PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

No it's not. It wasn't rape, there's no questions about that. It was consensual.

Sex with a minor is Statutory Rape. A minor is not legally competent in the first place to give consent to a person who wants to have sexual intercourse with them.

Biggins · 03-10-2011 02:25PM

ThinksAmoral wrote: »

I don't think the media want a gay president for some reason.

Reading some of the stupid comments below the article, sadly its not maybe just the media.
Some of the people commentating on the article state we would be a laughing stock if we elected a president that was gay. They need to wake up and kop-on.
There has been MANY gay presidents before in other countries (we didn't laugh at them!). We would not be a laughing stock for having a gay president. The only thing that would further make us a laughing stock would be if we let stupid bigots dictate their ignorance into a form of biased exclusion.

reprazant · 03-10-2011 02:26PM

Teclo wrote: »

Not much here other than another example of what he loves best, collecting all these middle eastern victims.

Algeria is not in the Middle East.

IngazZagni · 03-10-2011 02:27PM

Morlar wrote: »

Sex with a minor is Statutory Rape. A minor is not legally competent in the first place to give consent to a person who wants to have sexual intercourse with them.

Key word. Most EU Countries would have said he is legally competent though.

Statutory rape is a lot different than rape. I'm just asking people to understand the difference because I feel many have been mislead and believe it was simply rape, ie, an act of force and an act of doing something against someone's will which is a serious offence, that was not the case here.

Morlar · 03-10-2011 02:32PM

Biggins wrote: »

We would not be a laughing stock for having a gay president. The only thing that would further make us a laughing stock would be if we let stupid bigots dictate their ignorance into a form of biased exclusion.

It's only the supporters of Norris are trying to make this an anti-gay thing.

In the same way that critics of Israel are accused of anti-semitism, critics of Norris are accused of being anti-gay.

The ignorance here is in thinking that this is a balanced outlook of what is going on in light of the repeated revelations.

This is about a presidential candidate who has refused to clarify his position on the age of consent, who has put pederasty in a favourable light, used his position to lobby for clemency for a 40+ yr old man who committed the statutory rape of a 15 yr old boy, and who now today it's been revealed also lobbied for preferential treatment for a then boyfriend to get Irish Citizenship. ANY presidential candidate gay straight or otherwise would and should be grilled on that basis. If Mitchell did the above or equivalent he would rightly be grilled, if McGuinness did the above there would be an RTE ticker running across the screens 24x7 with every vehicle RTé could muster chasing him around the country for comment. This is not some David Norris persecution thing ffs.

dvpower · 03-10-2011 02:32PM

reprazant wrote: »

Algeria is not in the Middle East.

North Africa, Middle East, Thailand - sure isn't it all foreign?:o

reprazant · 03-10-2011 02:35PM

Morlar wrote: »

It's only the supporters of Norris are trying to make this an anti-gay thing.

In the same way that critics of Israel are accused of anti-semitism, critics of Norris are accused of being anti-gay.

The ignorance here is in thinking that this is a balanced outlook of what is going on in light of the repeated revelations.

Biggins was talking about a comment in the independent piece.

On the first page of comments, there were two comments about not wanting a gay president.

I guess people see what they want to see and miss what they don't want to.

Biggins · 03-10-2011 02:38PM

Morlar wrote: »

It's only the supporters of Norris are trying to make this an anti-gay thing.

Judging by many of the comments alone below the article, I would say different.
If even a tiny percentage of all the comments is anti-gay - and they are - its a sad reflection on our society still that such bigots still exist.

Posted by NOTNORRIS after the article (and 4 'liked' it)

the last thing this country needs is a gay president, we'd be the laughing stock of the world.

As regards the Indo' latest attempt at muck raking, this story has been in the public domain since 2007 and was even published on Norris's blog on Friday 27th of April 2007: http://www.senatordavidnorris.ie/blogger/2007/04/senator-david-norriss-adjourment-debate.html

Once again we seen the Indo at its gutter level worst - but what compounds their antics and is deeply saddening to see, is the amount of dumb, non-thinking sheep that fall for it.

Morlar · 03-10-2011 02:38PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

Key word. Most EU Countries would have said he is legally competent though.

Statutory rape is a lot different than rape. I'm just asking people to understand the difference because I feel many have been mislead and believe it was simply rape, ie, an act of force and an act of doing something against someone's will which is a serious offence, that was not the case here.

I find it sinister that you totally ignore the part about how a Minor is not legally competent to give consent.

If you take a 15 yr old from a vulnerable background, you might, being a 40+yr old man be clever enough to talk them into giving consent - they are still not legally competent to give that consent and so the question of consent is an irrelevance - it is still Statutory Rape.

You will most likely end up on the sex offenders list prevented from working with minors again and get a lengthy prison term. That seems like a moderate punishment in my view.

Captain Darling · 03-10-2011 02:41PM

reprazant wrote: »

Biggins was talking about a comment in the independent piece.

On the first page of comments, there were two comments about not wanting a gay president.

I guess people see what they want to see and miss what they don't want to.

Very true with reference to the Shinners. Luckily there are none of their advocates driving their agenda here.

General General · 03-10-2011 02:48PM

Gah.

So many pages of ping pong.

1. Norris is just doing what everyone else does in politics. He's even said it himself. Fair enough. Why vote for him or defend him?...unless you want to look like those 'Arise & follow Charlie' yokels or defenders-of-da-Bertie/Pee/you-pick.

2. Yer man & Norris are no longer in a relationship... I wonder how long after those citizenship papers came through passed before the old "not you, it's me" record got played. If this was a Senator pleading/outraging on whether citizenship will be granted his hot bit of stuff female 'partner' from North Africa (shades of Silvio)... & then when she got citizenship, the relationship ended, he'd be a laughing stock, irrespective of what the 'true story behind it all' was.

3. This letters thing won't go away until he stops rearranging his excuse like it's a kind of anagram & publishes.

4. What hasn't been revealed yet? If these newspapers are acting as scummy as some say, then it'll be very clear by polling day... however, I'd sooner we see any new revelations before the election, rather than face a ridiculous crisis any time after it.

5. Either way, the post is fairly unimportant in the day-to-day (except the whole separation of powers thing which matters less & less since Lisbon 2), we should be pressing that all candidates accept a substantially lower wage/expenses/etc. - & I would like clarification on this fund Norris has mentioned (which seems a step in the right direction), especially regarding the associated pension.

Morlar · 03-10-2011 02:49PM

Captain Darling wrote: »

Very true with reference to the Shinners. Luckily there are none of their advocates driving their agenda here.

I will be voting for McGuinness.

What is it you want or expect here ?

A discussion with only Norris Advocates on one side & non voters or undecideds on the other ?

Do you equally want to exclude Norris voters from any discussion on Martin McGuinness ? What a silly position to put forward.

IngazZagni · 03-10-2011 03:04PM

Morlar wrote: »

I find it sinister that you totally ignore the part about how a Minor is not legally competent to give consent.

If you take a 15 yr old from a vulnerable background, you might, being a 40+yr old man be clever enough to talk them into giving consent - they are still not legally competent to give that consent and so the question of consent is an irrelevance - it is still Statutory Rape.

You will most likely end up on the sex offenders list prevented from working with minors again and get a lengthy prison term. That seems like a moderate punishment in my view.

I'm not saying it was right, Nowhere did I condone it and I didn't ignore anything. The point I'm making is that there is a big difference between Statutory and non statutory rape. The other point I'm making is that if the act where to take place in most EU Countries it would not have been an issue either. In Israel a 15 year old is not legally competent but in Germany they would be.

Also your last paragraph is ridiculous and a bit of a personal insult really.

h2005 · 03-10-2011 03:13PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

Key word. Most EU Countries would have said he is legally competent though.

Statutory rape is a lot different than rape. I'm just asking people to understand the difference because I feel many have been mislead and believe it was simply rape, ie, an act of force and an act of doing something against someone's will which is a serious offence, that was not the case here.

So sex with a minor isn`t a serious offence?

Yahew · 03-10-2011 03:26PM

Morlar wrote: »

I will be voting for McGuinness.

What is it you want or expect here ?

A discussion with only Norris Advocates on one side & non voters or undecideds on the other ?

Do you equally want to exclude Norris voters from any discussion on Martin McGuinness ? What a silly position to put forward.

no no. However I think a statement in the Senate trying to get asylum for a friend is not in the same category as running a organisation which wanted to bring the State down violently.

So, lets balance this:

1) Trys to get friend into Ireland using parliamentary privs -1 point.
2) Trys to bring down the State running a criminal cartel with a murderous regime of sectarian violence to its name. Um, - 1000 points?

IngazZagni · 03-10-2011 03:34PM

h2005 wrote: »

So sex with a minor isn`t a serious offence?

The age of consent and a minor are two different things. Like in the USA, it is common to refer to someone under 21 as a minor in relation to alcohol

Knowingly having sex with someone under the age of consent is an offence. How much younger than the age of consent they are would determine the seriousness of it.

In this case the 15 year old was about 6 months under the age of consent, it could have been 11 or 1 month. Nawi argued that he did not know he was 15 but that's a different matter.

He committed an offence and served 3 months in prison for it. That's not a doubt. I just think the seriousness was relatively minor when all points are put together.

Hank_Jones · 03-10-2011 03:36PM

Really sick of hearing about Norris at this stage.

The media really are tearing into him though, feel a bit sorry for him.

dvpower · 03-10-2011 04:04PM

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Really sick of hearing about Norris at this stage.

The media really are tearing into him though, feel a bit sorry for him.

That's what makes these non stories counter productive.
Norris does have some questions to answer in relation to the letters and his views on the age of consent, but there are so many nonsense stories that just muddy the water (and maybe sell a few papers).

Min · 03-10-2011 04:11PM

dvpower wrote: »

You think Oireachtas members shouldn't represent non Irish nationals?

What level of relationship should exclude a person from representation? Lovers, family members, neighbours, people who live in the constituency?

People shouldn't be excluded from being represented because they have a personal relationship with an Oireachtas member and Norris did fully disclose the nature of the relationship (even if some here would dearly like to misrepresent it).

It doesn't matter that his lover was foreign. he used the Seanad for his personal love life.
Is that was the Seanad is for?

Paparazzo · 03-10-2011 04:14PM

Min wrote: »

It doesn't matter that his lover was foreign. he used the Seanad for his personal love life.
Is that was the Seanad is for?

In this case, yes.

Captain Darling · 03-10-2011 04:17PM

Morlar wrote: »

I will be voting for McGuinness.

.

Well done, hopefully McGuinness will 'fess up now as well.

Shinners in honesty shocker.

dvpower · 03-10-2011 04:18PM

Min wrote: »

It doesn't matter that his lover was foreign.

It mattered to you a few hours ago. What changed?

Min wrote: »

This was more than an individual case though, he was not representing a citizen of Ireland

Min wrote: »

Is that was the Seanad is for?

What level of separation should there be before it is acceptable for an Oireachtas member to make a representation on behalf of an individual?

Morlar · 03-10-2011 04:32PM

dvpower wrote: »

What level of separation should there be before it is acceptable for an Oireachtas member to make a representation on behalf of an individual?

He threatened to personally take legal action against the state if he did not get his way in relation to his then boyfriend being given citizenship of Ireland, subverting the normal state procedures for such cases.

Questioning why the Department of Justice had turned down Mr Akin's application, the senator said "The gentleman in the visitors' gallery demands to know who put a black mark against him and what is that black mark.

"I want the officials in the department to know I will pursue this matter to the bitter end.

"Woe for them if they have behaved wrongly because if I cannot get an answer in the Oireachtas, I will make sure in the courts that I get an answer."

To everyone but a Norris supporter this goes way beyond any kind of normal public representative /constituent relationship. It's just another example of personal interests being pursued through the political arena from Norris.

dvpower · 03-10-2011 04:41PM

Morlar wrote: »

He threatened to personally take legal action against the state if he did not get his way in relation to his then boyfriend being given citizenship of Ireland, subverting the normal state procedures for such cases.

To everyone but a Norris supporter this goes way beyond any kind of normal public representative /constituent relationship. It's just another example of personal interests being pursued through the political arena from Norris.

If anyone knows it, it is Norris, that taking legal action against the state is sometimes the only way to get justice.

Morlar · 03-10-2011 04:42PM

dvpower wrote: »

If anyone knows it, it is Norris, that taking legal action against the state is sometimes the only way to get justice.

I think this is a symptom of his contemptous attitude for our political structures. To feel that you, as a politician, have a personal entitlement to drag your fcuking personal life through the political arena (at the expense of non personal issues and concerns) in order to push your own selfish private interests.

He is a grotesque politician, he is his very own personal jackie healy ray.

Norris, more abuse of power

Comments