Is David Norris Toast?

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2011 10:54AM

Godge wrote: »

(1) I am not attempting to slime Norris

Yes, you are, when you say this:

"does David Norris believe that the sexual molestation (in a non-penetrative way) of a 16-year old boy by a 30-year old man to be acceptable behaviour or not?"

This is the oldest political slime tactic in the book: accuse the candidate of some horrible thing while hiding behind the form of a question.

If the candidate comes out and answers the question, great, he's in the news talking about that old paedophilia slur, giving it more oxygen. If he doesn't, you can beat the drum about why he won't answer the charges.

And when you're called on this tactic, you can say "Hey, I just asked a question, I didn't start the story, some of my best friends are gay" etc. etc.

There's a famous story of Lyndon Johnson using this trick in the 1940s.

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2011 10:57AM

later10 wrote: »

I am 24, have a gay sibling,

I hope they don't read boards!

31-05-2011 10:58AM

Godge wrote: »

(5) Which makes it hard to understand why his defence on the subject relies on the "I was misquoted" or "I am not in favour of penetrative sex with juveniles". It reminds me most of the line by a former President of another country "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" where language is used to disguise the issue.

I don't find that hard to believe at all..
Hello like? he's being accused of something he refuted extensively 9 years ago.

Again, I ask the question, does David Norris believe that the sexual molestation (in a non-penetrative way) of a 16-year old boy by a 30-year old man to be acceptable behaviour or not? I have seen nothing, either in the stuff from ten years ago or the stuff from today to answer that question.

He dealt with that and stuff like it on kenny,if you weren't listening,I suggest that you get the podcast when it's out.

You are going on as if he hasn't dealt with it.
He dealt with it on the radio very well.
Essentially he said that his intelectual discussion was on degree's of wrongness where the first degree is wrong and the last degree is very very very wrong.
Of course this is something the mcgill author ignored rather conveniently at the time.
If he is guilty of anything,it's of the same type of misunderstanding of language as Ken Clarke was when he was talking about degree's of rape the week before last.
Of course to me,it seems HLB's motive is to foster that into a whole misrepresentation and a smear on David Norris.
It's very see through.

Boulevardier · 31-05-2011 11:00AM

I would repeat my point, which is that pederastry with post-pubescent teenage boys, unlike paedophilia, is an intrinsic part of gay behaviour. Oscar Wilde certainly did it. Therefore, if this comes under attack, all the gains made by the gay community (led by people like Norris) are at risk.

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:02AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I hope they don't read boards!

Why? frankly the notion that gay people should or would not find this article a little worrying is an unfair generalisation. It is not a case of them vs us. Of course some homophobic types will be first to jump on the band wagon, but then there will also be people from all sorts of backgrounds with legitimate concerns. I just do not see how some of these comments can be taken out of context, I dont see any context in which they would have been appropriate.

mikom · 31-05-2011 11:04AM

Nice touch going on Kenny this morning instead of leaping into a slanging match on liveline AKA The sun newspaper on the radio.

Very tactful........ like something a president would do.

oceanclub · 31-05-2011 11:06AM

HLB's insinuations includes her mentioning David's "holidays in Thailand" on Liveline. Many people heard this and took a certain meaning from it.

What she actually was referring to was his taking part in a European delegation investigating the trafficking of women and children in Thailand, in which Norris took part:

http://www.senatordavidnorris.ie/1newsletter.htm#thai

"Holiday in Thailand." Hmm, code for anything? Of course, actually explaining the purpose of his trip wouldn't fit in with the narrative she's trying to portray.

P.

Godge · 31-05-2011 11:08AM

optogirl wrote: »

I don't think 'molestation' is what DN is referring to - he is referring to a concensual relationship between an older man and a teenager. I am reminded of the case of Patrick Dunlevy from a few years ago - now I must first say that what Mr Dunlevy did was wrong, ill-judged and idiotic however the relationship was very much consensual. I must also state that the boy in question was 14 and nowhere does DN say that he would advocate a relationship between a grown man and a boy of 14, but the Dunlevy case was an interesting one. I actually felt kind of sorry for the guy although I completely agree that he should have been charged and should have ran a mile as soon as he knew what age the boy was. However "Counsel for Dunleavy told Judge Nolan that this was not a case in which the young boy had been groomed, nor was "there a withdrawal of consent throughout the incidents"

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/actor-guilty-of-sex-with-boy-14-1666682.html

Now, you believe that what Mr. Dunlevy did was wrong, ill-judged and idiotic. So do I. You then go on to say that it was a consensual relationship, but I wonder how many people would accept that excuse if it was a 35-year old man and a 16-year old girl. You also note that the judge accepted that it was not a case in which the young boy had been groomed. Now, I don't share your sympathy, I know people who when they were young were subjected to much older sexual predators such as the likes of Mr. Dunlevy and I know from personal experience the long-term damage that has been done.

But this isn't about what you and I think. This is about what David Norris thinks. Read the two quotes below.

".....but in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks, for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man to adult life, there can be something said for it. Now, again, this is not something that appeals to me. Although when I was younger I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, treating me with affection, teaching me about life."

"Of course, there is a whole spectrum. In my opinion, the teacher or Christian Brother who puts his hand into a boy's pocket during a history lesson, that is one end of the spectrum."

Yes they were written by Helen Lucy Burke but I have read both of Joe Jackson's articles and nowhere does David Norris deny their accuracy. It certainly leaves you with the idea that Norris favours the grooming of impressionable adolescents by older men and the introduction to sexual realities that accompany that grooming. He also seems to suggest that sexual offences and sexual abuse of boys by men at the lower end of the spectrum isn't serious. In the Joe Jackson article, he doesn't fully clear it up as he says:

"But all I’m saying is that when I was seventeen, forty year ago, it was illegal to be gay. People were driven into bushes, public lavatories and that’s all there was for them. So if somebody, a few years older, who is handsome, athletic and so on, came along, the majority of young gay people would think that is a better alternative.”

OK, he doesn't mention 14, but I am sure that given the furore that had arisen he was careful in that interview to mention the specific age of 17. However, it is still damaging as he once again defends the practice of older men with younger boys (a boy is under 18).

Now I am not going to condemn Norris for his views. As far as I am concerned he can have whatever views he likes on the age of consent or on pederasty or appropriate behaviour between older men and younger boys/men/adolescents but given the controversy I do want to know what his views really are.

The other thing is that it does matter now because he is running for President. You see, just because I accept his right to have such views, and will defend his right to have such views (so long as he doesn't act on any aspect of those views that may be illegal), that doesn't mean I will vote for President someone with those views.

Dub. · 31-05-2011 11:09AM

later10 wrote: »

Why?

Because she couldn`t provide any details of helping his campaign, and also, it just seemed a bit convenient for her story.

Basically, she came across as a lying, two bit hack throughout her slanderous story.

It will be very interesting to hear what, if anything, is on this missing tape.

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2011 11:09AM

Will any of the other prospective candidates raise this? I would say no, it's too transparently disgusting an attack, and none of them will want to be associated with it.

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2011 11:10AM

later10 wrote: »

Why?

So, they don't, then.

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:14AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, they don't, then.

Use boards... I presume not. No idea why that is relevant.

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:17AM

Dub. wrote: »

Because she couldn`t provide any details of helping his campaign, and also, it just seemed a bit convenient for her story.

Basically, she came across as a lying, two bit hack throughout her slanderous story.

It will be very interesting to hear what, if anything, is on this missing tape.

I think you are answering a question I did not ask. If her story was actually slanderous, why exactly no proceedings were taken against Burke is startling.

tbh · 31-05-2011 11:19AM

later10 wrote: »

I think you are answering a question I did not ask. If her story was actually slanderous, why exactly no proceedings were taken against Burke is startling.

If the story is true, why exactly no proceedings were taken against Norris for claiming it wasn't, especially since I presume everything can be proven by reference to the tape, is startling.

oceanclub · 31-05-2011 11:21AM

later10 wrote: »

I think you are answering a question I did not ask. If her story was actually slanderous, why exactly no proceedings were taken against Burke is startling.

I can think of two reasons:

(1) Norris is not actually rich contrary to some belief and has put any money he actually has into his campaign.
(2) It's hard to sue when you're dealing with insinuation rather than outright libel/slander (see above - HLB could argue that there was absolutely nothing behind her "holiday in Thailand" remarks).

P.

31-05-2011 11:22AM

later10 wrote: »

I think you are answering a question I did not ask. If her story was actually slanderous, why exactly no proceedings were taken against Burke is startling.

None were taken against Norris 9 yrs ago either.
So?

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:23AM

tbh wrote: »

If the story is true, why exactly no proceedings were taken against Norris for claiming it wasn't, especially since I presume everything can be proven by reference to the tape, is startling.

Norris has not said anything libelous of Burke - he has not suggested that she is lying. Suggesting that he has been misunderstood is not a libellous slur.

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

None were taken against Norris 9 yrs ago either.
So?

You cannot reasonably be sued for suggesting that someone has taken you out of context..

31-05-2011 11:26AM

You can if you say someone is telling porkies though and I'm not convinced you cannot sue in the way you say you can't either.
Fact is,one decided to leave it for 9 years and the other decided to use every available cost free method to refute the insinuations and allegations.

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:29AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You can if you say someone is telling porkies though.

Nonsense. Norris has not libelled Burke so far. He has not suggested that she is inventing the comments. Which itself is worrying.

31-05-2011 11:32AM

later10 wrote: »

Norris has not said anything libelous of Burke - he has not suggested that she is lying. Suggesting that he has been misunderstood is not a libellous slur.

I've no inclination to dig up all his refutation articles/radio interviews of 9 years ago but he certainly wasn't afraid to say 2 things on the radio this morning that would mean that HLB is lying and those are that she hadn't worked on his campaigns ever and also that he asked her to correct what she read out on the phone to him.
She said yesterday he agreed with all of it.

Also the whole Thailand slur belies the truth of what this is about.A made up mud slinging.

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2011 11:33AM

later10 wrote: »

If her story was actually slanderous, why exactly no proceedings were taken against Burke is startling.

Note that Burke is now saying that Magill refused to run the whole story 9 years ago, so they apparently thought it was libellous back then.

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:36AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I've no inclination to dig up all his refutation articles/radio interviews of 9 years ago but he certainly wasn't afraid to say 2 things on the radio this morning that would mean that HLB is lying and those are that she hadn't worked on his campaigns ever and also that he asked her to correct what she read out on the phone to him.
She said yesterday he agreed with all of it.

Also the whole Thailand slur belies the truth of what this is about.A made up mud slinging.

HLB said she contributed to his campaign, not that she worked for him.

I saw nothing harmful in the mentioning that Norris had been to Thailand, that was just Joe Jackson being a bit hysterical tbh. HLB mentioned it as part of the reason why she read out the article to Norris over the phone.

It would be interesting to hear from the former editor of Magill who is alleged to have removed one paragraph for being unsuitable for publication.

oceanclub · 31-05-2011 11:37AM

Dub. wrote: »

Basically, she came across as a lying, two bit hack throughout her slanderous story.

Can anyone verify that on Liveline yesterday, she claimed no changes were made to the article, while on Pat Kenny Today this morning, she claimed that Norris asked for changes to the article (after Norris said she made no changes)?

P.

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:38AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Note that Burke is now saying that Magill refused to run the whole story 9 years ago, so they apparently thought it was libellous back then.

They took out one paragraph, and published the rest - which is what HLB is talking about. The article was puiblished by Magill in 2002.

jakdelad · 31-05-2011 11:38AM

Judgement Day wrote: »

Anybody hear Helen Lucy Burke on Liveline today? Her allegations about David Norris which stem from an interview by her contained in Magill some nine years ago raise serious issues about his views on moral/legal issues. The Liveline programme is available here: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/ and is dynamite. Lucy Burke has a tape of the original interview and if this is as explicit as she claims he is finished - possibly in the Senate too. I am not anti-gay and would probably have voted for him as President - before today. I was worried that Ireland wasn't ready for a 'gay' President but this is more serious if it stands up.

so your not anti gay
so you beleive duffy and helen burke then
well the best thing you can do is not vote for him.

and you were worried about our president being gay
it seems you have issues with gay people
does a persons sexuality really matter to you???
what is it withyou??
what exactly is your problem ????
let talk about his politics not his private life jeeze

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:40AM

oceanclub wrote: »

Can anyone verify that on Liveline yesterday, she claimed no changes were made to the article, while on Pat Kenny Today this morning, she claimed that Norris asked for changes to the article (after Norris said she made no changes)?

P.

She said yesterday that the editor, John Waters, ecluded something which he considered unsuitable.

31-05-2011 11:41AM

later10 wrote: »

HLB said she contributed to his campaign, not that she worked for him.

same difference.

I saw nothing harmful in the mentioning that Norris had been to Thailand, that was just Joe Jackson being a bit hysterical tbh. HLB mentioned it as part of the reason why she read out the article to Norris over the phone.

Roffle,if you can't or refuse to connect the dots and indeed if you listened to the tone of how she mentioned Thailand again yesterday [I was listening live,it was as if she had forgotten to check why he was there or had forgotten deliberately his refutations of 9 yrs ago]...
If you can't connect those dots,I view your comments as unreasonable and according to Kenny,the vast majority of texters to his show today agree with my view.

It would be interesting to hear from the former editor of Magill who is alleged to have removed one paragraph for being unsuitable for publication.

Actually it was HLB who brought that up yesterday herself.
RTE disallowed it's airing too.

Nodin · 31-05-2011 11:42AM

later10 wrote: »

She said yesterday that the editor, John Waters, ecluded something which he considered unsuitable.

...which could be anything. This individual seems to imply much and deliver little.

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:45AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Roffle,if you can't or refuse to connect the dots and indeed if you listened to the tone of how she mentioned Thailand again yesterday [I was listening live,it was as if she had forgotten to check why he was there or had forgotten deliberately his refutations of 9 yrs ago

In fairness, she said yesterday on air that she meant nothing by the mention of Thailand, she did not seem to care whether he was in Thailand or in Tipperary. Personally I am far more concerned about what DN actually said, and how his use of the word boys, as well as suggesting that sex should be consent based and not aged based could possibly be taken out of context. It is important to note that DN has not denied saying this.

hinault · 31-05-2011 11:45AM

oceanclub wrote: »

Can anyone verify that on Liveline yesterday, she claimed no changes were made to the article, while on Pat Kenny Today this morning, she claimed that Norris asked for changes to the article (after Norris said she made no changes)?

P.

On Liveline, HLB said that she read back to Norris the full transcript of their conversation.
She said that she read the full transcript back to him slowly.

She said that Norris requested no changes/amendments to the transcript.

She then forwarded the transcript to the editor. The editor removed one particularly salacious paragraph. The final published transcript omitted the paragraph in question.

31-05-2011 11:51AM

later10 wrote: »

In fairness, she said yesterday on air that she meant nothing by the mention of Thailand, she did not seem to care whether he was in Thailand or in Tipperary. Personally I am far more concerned about what DN actually said, and how his use of the word boys, as well as suggesting that sex should be consent based and not aged based could possibly be taken out of context. It is important to note that DN has not denied saying this.

In fairness though to the cop on of most of the general public,I'd suggest she saw that little jibe was amongst the biggest of the backfires in her attempted demolition job.

As for the boys bit etc,I'm of the view now that DN was waxing lyrically as he often does about in this case classical Greece.
His reference to boys in all clarifications was boys of consenting age.
I'm a boy by the way,I've no objection to calling a male adult a boy or me being called a boy or a 17yr old being called a boy.
This is all misinterpretation jam.

hinault · 31-05-2011 11:54AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a boy by the way,I've no objection to calling a male adult a boy or me being called a boy.

what age are you?

later12 · 31-05-2011 11:55AM

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness though to the cop on of most of the general public,I'd suggest she saw that little jibe was amongst the biggest of the backfires in her attempted demolition job.

As for the boys bit etc,I'm of the view now that DN was waxing lyrically as he often does about in this case classical Greece.
His reference to boys in all clarifications was boys of consenting age.
I'm a boy by the way,I've no objection to calling a male adult a boy or me being called a boy or a 17yr old being called a boy.
This is all misinterpretation jam.

Would you say that even if it does not do anything for you, that there is something to be said for classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks?

Do you see how unacceptable that is in a country that has been torn up with paedophilia, and with masses of the public coming out to back up respected public figures (in those cases, church figures) during such controversies in the past?

31-05-2011 12:01PM

Eh? I've voted in 5 or 6 of the last general elections.
I am a boy.
I am somebodies boy friend.
I am one of the boys,one of the lads.

I don't agree with this notion of seizing on the use of one word and running off going j'accuse with it.
Especially when in this case David Norris has clarified what he meant.

I mean he could have just been talking about age differences between the younger legal age of consent person and someone much older.
He clarified the important bit umpteen times in that he said within the law.
Thats that to bed.

(Unless someone here wants to outrageously twist that choice of word there into who it is I want in my bed which perhaps you could save untill I run for president please,as I don't have time right now...plus I reckon it might gain me votes not lose them)

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean he could have just been talking about age differences between the younger legal age of consent person and someone much older.

That is not the ancient Greek version, whereby adults engaged in non penetrative sexual relations with adolescent boys. In ancient Greece this was something that happened before the coming of age, almost by definition.

Further, Norris said he supported a consent based approach, and not age limits.

These are not interpretations, these are my paraphrasing from direct quotes, and Norris is not denying having made them. I personally find that unacceptable. If he did not mean these comments to be taken seriously, or if he was trying to spark lively debate, fine, but he should say that.

31-05-2011 12:10PM

later10 wrote: »

Would you say that even if it does not do anything for you, that there is something to be said for classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks?

Do you see how unacceptable that is in a country that has been torn up with paedophilia, and with masses of the public coming out to back up respected public figures (in those cases, church figures) during such controversies in the past?

I think it's taking a mudsling somebody else has tried and going way OTT with an analysis of it.
David Norris is on record of what he thinks of Church child sex abuse,he has been very unequivocal about it.

As regards your first line,I'm inclined not to take anything written in the article as trustworthy at this stage now that it's been scrutinized and it's been shown that he denied it 9 years ago and she ignored him and said no more on the topic back then but brings it all back up now even though it's as shakey an article now as it was then.

As noidin said earlier HLB seems to imply much and deliver little.
Classic mud slinging.

Further, Norris said he supported a consent based approach, and not age limits.

I already dealt with that.
He could have been talking about age differences but he definitely clarified within the law

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's taking a mudsling somebody else has tried and going way OTT with an analysis of it.
David Norris is on record of what he thinks of Church child sex abuse,he has been very unequivocal about it.

As regards your first line,I'm inclined not to take anything written in the article as trustworthy at this stage now that it's been scrutinized and it's been shown that he denied it 9 years ago

He is not denying having said any of it. Show me where he denied having said these words nine years ago, and explain why is not denying it today.

If *anybody* did make these comments, do you think they are acceptable or not?

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

He could have been talking about age differences but he definitely clarified within the law

No9 he did not. He suggested that the law should take a different approach to non penetrative sex - he suggested it should be based on consent and not age. Read the article.

31-05-2011 12:18PM

later10 wrote: »

No9 he did not. He suggested that the law should take a different approach to non penetrative sex - he suggested it should be based on consent and not age. Read the article.

I did read the article.
I also am aware that David Norris asked for some parts of the article to be corrected back before it's original publication and I'm aware that he has denied supporting child sex as the law today stands on the radio this morning.
I'm also aware that he stated this morning that at the time in 2002 he stated in several rebuttals that it was inaccurate.
For that reason as stated in another post,the article as far as I'm concerned is unentertainable.
It appears to be gospel to you though,I think taking that attitude is unreasonable.

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:24PM

Deleted User wrote: »

he has denied supporting child sex as the law today stands on the radio this morning.

Of course he does not support sex with children under standing legislation, the article did not even suggest that.
However, he has not denied supporting a change to the legislation whereby the courts take account of consent instead of age, and whereby it occured in ancient Greece. He has not rejected nor denied these comments. He was quoted directly.

I am going to ask you again. Do you think it is acceptable for *anyone*, be it a bishop or a senator or a newspaper vendor to come out with such rubbish as suggesting that there is something to be said for the ancient Greek model of non penetrative sex with boys, or that the courts should take account of consent instead of age? Do you think that is ever an acceptable thing to say?

31-05-2011 12:29PM

later10 wrote: »

I am going to ask you again. Do you think it is acceptable for *anyone*, be it a bishop or a senator or a newspaper vendor to come out with such rubbish as suggesting that there is something to be said for the ancient Greek model of non penetrative sex with boys, or that the courts should take account of consent instead of age? Do you think that is ever an acceptable thing to say?

Frankly you have no need to ask me that as the veracity of the article is in question considerably.
You've also no right to ask me that.

Wolfe Tone · 31-05-2011 12:30PM

Again Black Briar alleges that Helen Lucy Burke is homophobic, AGAIN I ask for some evidence.

If you are going to make such accusations you need to back them up, or keep stum.

Its pathetic that you attempt to portray anyone who takes issue with what Norris has said as homophobic.

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You've also no right to ask me that.

I absolutely do.

Do you think such comments as have not been denied, are ever acceptable, regardless of who advances them?

zuroph · 31-05-2011 12:31PM

later10 wrote: »

I am going to ask you again. Do you think it is acceptable for *anyone*, be it a bishop or a senator or a newspaper vendor to come out with such rubbish as suggesting that there is something to be said for the ancient Greek model of non penetrative sex with boys, or that the courts should take account of consent instead of age? Do you think that is ever an acceptable thing to say?

he said there was something to be said for it, in that he said he would have liked an older figure when he was that age. That's all. Heaven forbid anyone under the age of 17 even consider their sexuality?! sure I didnt even look at women til I was 18, and only then, when I was given permission. :rolleyes:
He also says he was either misquoted or mispoker, and the quote was classical Pederasty, not paedophilia.

kn · 31-05-2011 12:34PM

Joe Duffy and Liveline seemingly have THE TAPE.....da na na na......

Wolfe Tone · 31-05-2011 12:34PM

kn wrote: »

Joe Duffy and Liveline seemingly have THE TAPE.....da na na na......

Is that live now?

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:36PM

zuroph wrote: »

He also says he was either misquoted or mispoker, and the quote was classical Pederasty, not paedophilia.

That is fine... classical pederasty is no better in my view. Its advancement is equally misplaced is a developed society such as ours. Do you think the comments are ever acceptable? What if Archbishop Martin came out and said this? I think that there would - quite rightly - be fury.

Of course, if an archbishop was accused of saying such things 25 years ago, there would be a swell of support for him. How ironic.

kn · 31-05-2011 12:36PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Is that live now?

The programme starts in 10 minutes.

later12 · 31-05-2011 12:36PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Is that live now?

about 20 minutes

edit
oops... ten apparently

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments