Can Norris be President?

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes they can be condoned. Those men where heroes, and went out to die in the hope to inspire others. No other description for them other than heroes.

I can think of another description for them. Firstly it is nuanced, not some part of a Republican hagiography. They were men (and one woman), very and deeply flawed men. Their 'philosophy' had engaged in the marketplace of ideas for at least 50 years, to no avail or popular support. What do you do when nobody agree's with you? Accept that you may be wrong? Endeavour to persuade them peacefully?

Or take up arms against a regime most Irish people were indifferent to, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, and the destruction of central Dublin? I've said it for ages now, that if the Irish hadn't have lost their sense of humour for a couple of years in the early 20th century these bufoons would have been mocked with impunity.

Heroes? Cretinous imbeciles more like. And thats my nuanced view.

goose2005

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I would be ashamed if someone like Norris became president. Someone who regards the founders of this state as terrorists and a guy who desperately wants to rejoin the commonwealth.

The founders of this state were the Irish people - all of them. Would you hold it against David Cameron if he saw the founders of his state as bloodthirsty medieval warlords? As for the Commonwealth, what harm would it do to forge a few more international links and to show we're over the Four Green Fields stuff?

goose2005

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Those men where heroes, and went out to die in the hope to inspire others. No other description for them other than heroes.

Didn't the 9/11 hijackers go out to die in order to inspire others and strike fear into the enemy? Dying doesn't make you right.

timespast

goose2005 wrote: »

The founders of this state were the Irish people - all of them. Would you hold it against David Cameron if he saw the founders of his state as bloodthirsty medieval warlords? As for the Commonwealth, what harm would it do to forge a few more international links and to show we're over the Four Green Fields stuff?

Given we are in the EU and a sizeable % of Tories want out of the EU. Why don't they forge more credible international links within the EU instead of a mickey mouse organisation headed by Liz II?

RandomName2

Rebelheart wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?

Of you: perhaps. But in this case it would be easy to work you up by just speaking the truth. If it wasn't so off topic I would, by periphrastic means get you to justify the Enniskillen bombing, but you're doing that off your own bat anyway. It's kind of like goading people who believe that the Earth was created 4,000 years ago. It's cruel, and without the benefit of being able to make them see sense. I suppose when goading republicans you would want to be out of Armalite range, though.

RandomName2

goose2005 wrote: »

Didn't the 9/11 hijackers go out to die in order to inspire others and strike fear into the enemy? Dying doesn't make you right.

This is such a funny line to end up in a discussion concerning the electability of a gay, protestant, ex-Trinity lecturer, media mogul to a token public position.

Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart!

timespast

Denerick wrote: »

I can think of another description for them. Firstly it is nuanced, not some part of a Republican hagiography. They were men (and one woman), very and deeply flawed men. Their 'philosophy' had engaged in the marketplace of ideas for at least 50 years, to no avail or popular support. What do you do when nobody agree's with you? Accept that you may be wrong? Endeavour to persuade them peacefully?

Or take up arms against a regime most Irish people were indifferent to, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, and the destruction of central Dublin? I've said it for ages now, that if the Irish hadn't have lost their sense of humour for a couple of years in the early 20th century these bufoons would have been mocked with impunity.

Heroes? Cretinous imbeciles more like. And thats my nuanced view.

Would you accept that all who died in WWI were cretinous imbeciles?

Denerick

timespast wrote: »

Would you accept that all who died in WWI were cretinous imbeciles?

Tongue in cheek? You understand, yes?

How you can equate the quixotic uprising of 2,000 people with a continental war gripping all of the major players is beyond me.

timespast

Denerick wrote: »

Tongue in cheek? You understand, yes?

How you can equate the quixotic uprising of 2,000 people with a continental war gripping all of the major players is beyond me.

These achieved within a few years independence of sort that led to a sovereign state.....as did so many other countries.

Millions died in WWI because imperialist countries were fighting it out again.

In Ireland it was stupid (according to you) yet a few here (particularly in the media) think it was even more glorious to watch men being mown down in their thousands in WWI.

Id have more respect for your opinion if you were against the folly of death etc. but I suspect you're just scoring points.

I had a Great Grandfather who was in the old IRA and a Grandfather who served in WWII....equally proud of both.

I've had your opinion...Im bored now...time to move on.

Shea O'Meara

The Presidency is a mix of 'Who cares?' and a popularity contest. I doubt he has much chance due to his annoying accent. I think he would make a decent job of it, but I can't see a lot of people get past his voice more so than his sexuality.
On a side note, Finlay could be good, but he seems to have a record of commiting to something then backing off after a period. He'll most likely never appear on any ballot.
There may be a surge in interest in this race as people are hungry to voice their opinion and there being no election on the horizon (untill FFail feel we are war weary with things) we may see an increase in turn out for this race.

JonJoeDali

Peppapig wrote: »

Well as I said, I doesn't bother me who is president, the fact that Norris is gay would enrage many homphobic people in Ireland. Is it wrong that for me to want this? No.

Fair play to ye. Nobody ever said democracy was perfect.

evenmicheal

Think he can, Catholic Church is so badly damaged a lot of people will see him as a break from the past and a sign off a new secular modern Ireland. He seems the most interesting candidate at the moment.

Jeboa Safari

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

t, but I can't see a lot of people get past his voice more so than his sexuality.

This, one big reason I wouldn't vote for him is because he's so loud and hyper. If he got to be president we'd have to listen to him even more and he wouldn't know when to shut up.

Rebelheart

Denerick wrote: »

Given your sectarian comment...your bigoted sentance ....

And what sectarian and bigoted "sentance" would that be now? The one in response to your fellow unionist's (unsubstantiated) claim that "Protestants" were lynched in Ireland? Please try and be precise in your response.

Denerick wrote: »

it appeared that you did not know that the majority of the United Irish leadership were Protestant.

Perhaps you shouldn't judge everybody else's knowledge of Irish history to be as lowly as your own rather undergraduate knowledge which equated the United Irishmen with all participants on the Irish side.

Denerick wrote: »

the vast majority of United Irishmen and Defenders were indeed Catholic (The exception of course in Ulster were they were mainly Presbyterian)

Most of the Defenders in Ulster were not Presbyterian. This is basic. For one so sure of his historical knowledge your inability to distinguish between the United Irishmen and Defenders in Ulster belies your claims to historical reliability. If you were aware of why they were called Defenders you wouldn't have made this mistake.

Denerick wrote: »

25% of the Protestant population disappeared between the 1911 and 1926 census. The catholic population declined by around 4%. Coincidence?

Personally I think its more likely that they fled because Republicans were burning their homes and killing their friends.

Your "statistics" are, to be kind, not precise. It would have taken you a moment to get more accurate statistics but you didn't bother. So much for your claim to be a historian.

Nevertheless, of course this decline had nothing to do with a large number of that population being misguided idiots who went and died for the British Empire in World War 1? Or that 25% of the figure can be accounted for by the withdrawal of the British garrison in 1922? Or that the decline was greater in the cities and urban centres than it was in rural Ireland? Or that they had a lower marriage rate? Or lower fertility rates? Or the greater effect of their (albeit lower) emigration rate on their community? No, we wouldn't want to let historical facts and complexity interfere with your understanding of a multifaceted historical issue when you can resort with greater ease to atavism.

Have you read a single book on this issue? Or did you merely fleetingly google Wesley Johnston's homepage some years ago and accept it all?

In a nutshell what you "personally" feel/think on this issue is irrelevant. Try and do some historical research before the next bout of recidivistic anti-Irishness that passes as your posting here.

Rebelheart

gbee wrote: »

But the croppy boy has to be taken to mean the republican version, made famous by the song of the same name.

This writes a new history, this may or may not be correct in factual analysis, but the meaning is for the 'intent' that has taken popularity from the song, and not a history book.

It doesn't, and it isn't. 'Croppy' was, despite the claim by RandomName2, widely used during the 1798 uprising by loyalists to describe many of the insurgents but also to describe many of the people within the loyalist community who tried to mollify and moderate actions within that community.

One minute I'm being accused of not knowing my history and the next I'm being accused of not basing my understanding of history on a song. :rolleyes:

IrishTonyO

Biggins wrote: »

GOOD!!!

Maybe then we can have a President that can think for themselves and thus open their mouths without having to grovel and ask permission to speak.

That is not the role of the Irish president

Rebelheart

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ireland did a great job lynching Protestants.

Still waiting for you to back up this "sectarian" and "bigoted" sentence. Or is it beyond your intellectual capacity to rely on something other than your anti-Irish prejudices?

Rebelheart

baalthor wrote: »

Well, that is the key question ...

Using the power of Google, I searched for David Norris 1916 and David Norris terrorists 1916.

And this is what I found:

Feb 28, 2010:
The above mentioned "Irish" Sunday Times article

Mar 6, 2010
A post on politics.ie repeating the allegations from the article

June 25, 2010
A comment on cedarlounge also repeating the allegation

But nothing from the man himself except this excerpt from the Indo where he complains that the gay heroes of 1916 were not commemorated in the centenary celebrations.

Although, here he does refer to "terrorists" of a more recent vintage ...

I also searched the Seanad debates. Norris has made a vast amount of speeches but among the quotes I found from him about 1916 was this one from 1988:
So, the only place I could find where Norris is alleged to describe the 1916 leaders as terrorists is the original article from the Sunday Times which people on the web are already repeating as truth.

Of course, maybe Norris has described the 1916 men as terrorists, not everything is on the web, but you might expect views that are "oft articulated" to appear somewhere on-line.

You might also expect the author of the article to offer a source (or even sources) for these "oft articulated" views. But we don't even know who the author of the anonymous profile is ...

Reading back over the article, it is a bit of a sly hatchet job but who knows, maybe the Murdochacracy might have a slight issue with the very liberal,Pro Palestinian, anti-war, anti-war-on-terror, anti-Shell, outspoken critic of Bush, Blair and their policies becoming President of Ireland.

Thank you, Baalthor, for that research. It seems that, as things stand, certain people are trying to discredit David Norris.

timespast wrote: »

I've emailed David Norris on 1916 and joining the Commonwealth. (I always like to get it from the horse's mouth if possible)

Unfortunately he's away from his office until the 22nd. (that's September by the way).

Good work; never thought of doing that. We'll have our answer soon enough then.

Rebelheart

RandomName2 wrote: »

Funny how Norris' religion isn't really an issue, rather his sexuality; I suppose Childers got us over that taboo.

I suppose you've never heard of Dubhghlas de hÍde or was he too Irish to be a "real" Protestant in your eyes?

Eliot Rosewater

Rebelheart wrote: »

How, like, "enlightened" of you to praise somebody who allegedly condemns Irish nationalist battles but who then commemorates British nationalist battles.

This, I think, is the most irritating part of Irish nationalism. If you're not willing to hold the 1916 risers as good then you're automatically a British Imperialist sympathiser who believes in fighting wars and oppressing the weak. It is apparently incomprehensible that one could condemn both the 1916 Rising and the First World War.

sceptre

Too much mutual trading of insults and poster personalisation in this thread, some of you doing it multiple times. Kindly keep such behaviour restrained please.

/mod

Rebelheart

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It is apparently incomprehensible that one could condemn both the 1916 Rising and the First World War.

Well, when one does not condemn the latter then one's professed ability to condemn it is all quite academic.

Eliot Rosewater

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Does that logic extend to a certain Bertie Ahearn too?

Of course it does. A rather poor logical fallacy, if I may say so. "Bertie Ahern knows everyone in the Oireachtas. Bertie Ahern is a bad man. Therefore, anyone who knows everyone in the Oireachats is a bad man."

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Did I say that?

Well, you insinuated such. You said that David Norris didn't talk about anything "that matter" for twenty years. Given that he's done a lot of talking about equal rights for homosexuals, one can only assume that you do not consider such rights to be something "that matter".

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

And what he's been doing since or campaigning for since.

The little niggly matter of homosexuals not being in receipt of the same rights as heterosexuals; a matter you seem to have overlooked.

Eliot Rosewater

Rebelheart wrote: »

Well, when one does not condemn the latter then one's professed ability to condemn it is all quite academic.

But that's ridiculous! We're talking about David Norris' position on the 1916 Rising. Are you suggesting that every time I wish to criticise the 1916 Rising I should also have to add in a footnote criticising the British Empire? Even when such a statement of criticism is off-topic and, as such, against the forum charter?

Pat D. Almighty

Manach wrote: »

I'd be very interested in seeing his tactics in wooing the Catholic vote in a presidential race.

I don't think anyone cares about Catholic/Protestant differences in this part of the country.

SillyMcCarthy

lynski wrote: »

well polygamy is illegal here but you will find it practiced by the heads of some of those states.
David Norris is an honest, educated, brave Irish man, he would be a wonderful president for Ireland in the 20-teens.

What in the world makes D. Norris a brave man?
Does the fact that I'm straight make me a brave Irish man too?
Personally I believe that someone of his orientation should NOT
be representative of any country. There are too many of these
people on T.V. & radio! It's almost to gotten to the stage where
it fashionable to be..un-straight!:mad:

Denerick

Rebelheart wrote: »

Perhaps you shouldn't judge everybody else's knowledge of Irish history to be as lowly as your own rather undergraduate knowledge which equated the United Irishmen with all participants on the Irish side.

Why are you inventing stuff? I never said that.

Most of the Defenders in Ulster were not Presbyterian. This is basic. For one so sure of his historical knowledge your inability to distinguish between the United Irishmen and Defenders in Ulster belies your claims to historical reliability. If you were aware of why they were called Defenders you wouldn't have made this mistake.

Again, I never said anything of the sort. I'm aware of the history of agrarian movements in Ireland in the 18th century. It was sloppy phrasing but you've chosen to interpret that I've said something that I clearly haven't.

Your "statistics" are, to be kind, not precise. It would have taken you a moment to get more accurate statistics but you didn't bother. So much for your claim to be a historian.

The statistics were off the top of my head from what I can recall, a very rough approximation. I'm not going to go googling to appease Republicans in an internet battle.

Nevertheless, of course this decline had nothing to do with a large number of that population being misguided idiots who went and died for the British Empire in World War 1? Or that 25% of the figure can be accounted for by the withdrawal of the British garrison in 1922? Or that the decline was greater in the cities and urban centres than it was in rural Ireland? Or that they had a lower marriage rate? Or lower fertility rates? Or the greater effect of their (albeit lower) emigration rate on their community? No, we wouldn't want to let historical facts and complexity interfere with your understanding of a multifaceted historical issue when you can resort with greater ease to atavism.

Oh please. Of course some of the numbers can be accounted for by withdrawn British troops, the desertion of the remaining landowning class etc. etc. But next thing you're going to be telling us that no Protestants were burnt out during the war or the Civil War :rolleyes: Tom Barry admits as much in his memoir. No amount of sophistry will get away from that.

The Protestant decline can only partly be explained by lower fertility or marriage rates, but the statistics speak for themselves about the extent of Protestant emigration during these years. Many just upped and left. I don't understand how you can be so callous about this national tragedy.

In a nutshell what you "personally" feel/think on this issue is irrelevant. Try and do some historical research before the next bout of recidivistic anti-Irishness that passes as your posting here.

Its not my fault that you're deliberately misinterpreting my posts to serve your own narrative of Republican inevitability - a highly dishonest tactic, and very transparant.

Denerick

Rebelheart wrote:

Try and do some historical research before the next bout of recidivistic anti-Irishness that passes as your posting here.

I should also add that I find it interesting that Rebelheart associates anti-Republicanism with anti-Irishness.

I've said it before, the more you delve into the dark heart of Irish Republicanism the closer you come to the fascist, intolerant, obscuritan demon that lies beneath. It is a fundamentally authoritarian ideology. The insane bigoted old clown John Mitchel sums up the entire belief system. Insanity resting on a bed of mostly invented and exaggerated historical grief.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

I should also add that I find it interesting that Rebelheart associates anti-Republicanism with anti-Irishness.

I've said it before, the more you delve into the dark heart of Irish Republicanism the closer you come to the fascist, intolerant, obscuritan demon that lies beneath. It is a fundamentally authoritarian ideology. The insane bigoted old clown John Mitchel sums up the entire belief system. Insanity resting on a bed of mostly invented and exaggerated historical grief.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Dont forget to add some hyperbole to your posts chara.. oh wait...

Denerick

Thats not hyperbole. Rhetoric like Rebelheart's is too frequent to be mere coincidence. There is something sickly and unwell about Irish Republicanism, and there always has been.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

Thats not hyperbole. Rhetoric like Rebelheart's is too frequent to be mere coincidence. There is something sickly and unwell about Irish Republicanism, and there always has been.

And by extent Irish Republicans?

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

And by extent Irish Republicans?

There are always exceptions.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

There are always exceptions.

That made me smile. You are a clever, slippery customer all right!

DeVore

I've had dealings with Norris during my time as a civil rights activist in TCD and I found him to be a very principled and brave person. I would be proud to have him as my president.

DeV.

kowloon

DeVore wrote: »

I found him to be a very principled and brave person. I would be proud to have him as my president.

Seconded, he seems like a genuine person and someone with decent values.
Some people find him loud and opinionated, but I don't see it as a problem. Loud gets heard, and can I help it if I find I almost always agree with what he says?

Nijmegen

I think Norris would be an interesting choice. However, one thing that does bug me and would be a campaign issue: He spoke out in support of Cathal O Searcaigh, the poet of Nepalese fame.

JonJoeDali

He has also campaigned for 16 year-olds being legally allowed to have sex with 60 year-olds.

People outside the Pale will never vote for a homosexual in the Aras.

IrishTonyO

JonJoeDali wrote: »

He has also campaigned for 16 year-olds being legally allowed to have sex with 60 year-olds.

People outside the Pale will never vote for a homosexual in the Aras.

I assume by that you mean lowering the age of consent to 16, as it is now, 17 year olds can have sex with any age, even 90 year olds if they want.

Nijmegen

Lowering the age is something divisive, but with relevant opinions on either side.

Supporting a man who had very questionable relationships with boys in Nepal is a bit different.

Uriel.

wobzilla1 wrote: »

That's a great way to use your vote. Let's vote for him just because he's gay. That's exactly what happened in the US with Obama

Obama is gay?

Uriel.

Realistically though what has Norriss done as such. The vast majoirty of his work is based around Local Issues, particularly TCD and the Gay rights issue, which while national, even international, which is an issue that in the grand scheme of things for the average citizen is down the list on practical priorities.

I would say he has zero chance of getting elected as it is a national vote. Nobody outside of Dublin cares much about what he does as such and the whole cathlic hang up on homosexuality leaves he down the pile. I just can't see the old generation of Fianna Fail voters 70+ voting for him to be honest.

I've met him once, terribly nice guy, great speaker and he is very passionate about his convictions but unfortunately I just don't see him being a serious contender.

Grolschevik

Denerick wrote: »

Nothing would infuriate this generation of Irish people more than to have a big Queen in the Arás

Would we not need a referendum to establish a monarchy, so?:)

MarkGrisham

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I was listening to an interesting discussion on Newstalk yesterday and someone brought up an interesting question which never occourred to me. Can David Norris be President given his open homosexuality? It would bar him from visiting, or receiving visitors from, many Middle Eastern and African countries as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries.

Arresting a head of state is a huge deal. If a country doesn't want international scrutiny, they won't dare.

Nijmegen

MarkGrisham wrote: »

Arresting a head of state is a huge deal. If a country doesn't want international scrutiny, they won't dare.

A head of state has immunity. He or she wouldn't travel if they didn't.

vandammaged

I;D rather norris then bertie

bijapos

A friend of mine was at a conference in UCC last Saturday on Women in Politics. Senator Mary White FF was there, in her profile for the conference notes she stated her intention to seek the FF nomination for President.

professore

IrishTonyO wrote: »

David Norris is far too outspoken to be president. As president he would have to be impartial in everything and keep his opinions to himself. I don't reckon he would be able to do this.

That's it .... why rock the boat ? The best strategy is to keep quiet and sweep it all under the carpet if you see any wrongdoing. That's the kind of attitude that has us as a nation in the mess we're in. Personally I think he would make an outstanding president.

professore

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

What in the world makes D. Norris a brave man?
Does the fact that I'm straight make me a brave Irish man too?
Personally I believe that someone of his orientation should NOT
be representative of any country. There are too many of these
people on T.V. & radio! It's almost to gotten to the stage where
it fashionable to be..un-straight!:mad:

Ooooh nooo .... this thread is making me gay !!!! Down with this kind of thing !!!! Who would have thought it - one of them there negroes president of the USA ... and now a sodomite trying to get into the ar(a)s ....

IrishTonyO

professore wrote: »

That's it .... why rock the boat ? The best strategy is to keep quiet and sweep it all under the carpet if you see any wrongdoing. That's the kind of attitude that has us as a nation in the mess we're in. Personally I think he would make an outstanding president.

That is the role of president of Ireland a non political one. It is not an attitude of mine it is what the role is. The role is a non-executive and non policy role and the president has to abide by the decisions of the government even regarding foreign trips they may take, they can only do so with the governments blessing

professore

From Wikipedia :

Norris describes himself as a human rights activist and he has campaigned against some of the actions of the United States during its 'war on terror', including the confinement of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay detention camp. He is also a strong critic of both loyalist and republican terrorism. Norris has observed some controversial Orange marches in Northern Ireland. In February 2010, Norris declared his interest to run in the next Irish presidential election.

I have heard this man speak on several occasions. Each time I am impressed by the clarity and straightforwardness of his answers, and the way he actually seems to have principles, contrasting strongly to the bull**** waffle and the changing with the wind we get from most of our leaders.

I might not agree with everything he says - although I must say I agree with a lot of it - but at least he is more of a man than any other politician out there. As for his sexual orientation, well a lot of the people who won't vote for him on those grounds are the same people who will attend mass on a sunday and strongly defend and institution that actively shelters paedophiles to this day.