Is David Norris Toast?

Wibbs

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

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

This is what has ticked me off most about this thread and opinions on this matter elsewhere. Oh noes can't say boo about oul Dave or you're a homophobe. Brilliant way to clamp down on any negative press. Eh no.

For the record I'd still vote for him so far. So he ran off his mouth ten years ago. I can see what he's getting at and it's hardly perverse, though I can see how others would think it was. I don't put him next nor near an asses roar of o snodaigh and gits like that. They shouldnt be in the same sentence.

later10

later10 wrote: »

I absolutely do.

I am not the subject of this thread ergo You do not.

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

Actually as I understand it they have been denied.
I've explained it in earlier posts here, [the the one addressed to you about the radio interview on kenny this morning] and explained again by Zuroph just now.
On a point of principle I'm not going to give my views on the topic as they are irrelevant.
Mind you I'm sure you'll keep asking for them.

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

Thats my view yes.I don't have to give evidence for my views,just my facts.

later12

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually as I understand it they have been denied.

Norris has not denied making the direct quotes in question. Why are you unwilling to say whether you think it is acceptable or not that such comments might be advanced?

You have nothing to back up the direct and, quite frankly libelous suggestion that HLB is homopohobic. I suggest you back it up, or do not put it forward in the first place.

Nodin

later10 wrote: »

Norris has not denied making the direct quotes in question. Why are you unwilling to say whether you think it is acceptable or not that such comments might be advanced?

.

This seems to be a variant of 'You don't support Osama, do you?'.

Dudess

It isn't paedophilia, yet that term is being used all over the media about it.

Judgement Day

jakdelad wrote: »

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

As I have already stated, I have nothing against gay people and was going to vote for David Norris - but not now. When I said I worried about Ireland not being ready for a gay President it was in terms of the country being mature enough to see beyond his being gay and vote for the man rather than his sexual preference. Since his intention to run for the Presidency was announced my only concern was that the newspapers would end up carrying salacious stories of his gay sex life that might be bad for him and the country. I had never heard of the Magill article before, not being a fan of the magazine, and thus had no knowledge of the comments regarding pederastry etc.

I have no problem - thank you for your concern.

later12

Nodin wrote: »

This seems to be a variant of 'You don't support Osama, do you?'.

I think comparing this to Osama is a little strange.

The question is the nature of these comments, and whether it is ever acceptable to promote the abolition of the age of consent in favour of consent alone in a classical Greek pederastical context. I think it is fair to ask whether or not that is ever acceptable. Particularly so when the relevent quotes are direct quotes, and are not subject to denial.

zuroph

later10 wrote: »

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.

what comment? The idea that an aspect of pedarasty ("something to be said for.."), the chance to be mentored by an older male, was something that he personally would have liked when he was a young man, trying to deal with his sexuality in a time when it was very tough to do so in Ireland?

Again, if I say that when I was 15 I'd have loved to have an affair with a 25 year old, is that so abhorrent?

later10

later10 wrote: »

You have nothing to back up the direct and, quite frankly libelous suggestion that HLB is homopohobic. I suggest you back it up, or do not put it forward in the first place.

Lol,expressing what I think it looks like to me [reasonably I might add] and stating a fact are two entirely different things.
Hyperbole much.
Barrell scraping galore.

later12

zuroph wrote: »

Again, if I say that when I was 15 I'd have loved to have an affair with a 25 year old, is that so abhorrent?

Not for a fifteen year old. But for a twenty five year old to suggest that such a thing has, in retrospect, something to be said for it, yes I would find that unacceptable.

David Norris said that he would have liked such a thing when he was a boy - sure - no problem there at all.

But for him to say, as an adult, that such a situation has merit, is what I have trouble in excusing.

zuroph

later10 wrote: »

Not for a fifteen year old. But for a twenty five year old to suggest that such a thing has, in retrospect, something to be said for it, yes I would find that unacceptable.

David Norris said that he would have liked such a thing when he was a boy - sure - no problem there at all.

But for him to say, as an adult, that such a situation has merit, is what I have trouble in excusing.

but thats not what he did, as you're abandoning the context again. he's saying theres something to be said for "it".. as in, remove the sex, and the mentoring, education and chance to speak frankly about his sexuality with someone would have been something he would have benefitted from. Nowhere in it does he mention any explicit acts, so you cannot presume that he means the aspect of pederasty you have a problem with, perhaps he just means a chat and a pint?? the "something" does not necessarily refer to sex.

zuroph

later10 wrote: »

Not for a fifteen year old. But for a twenty five year old to suggest that such a thing has, in retrospect, something to be said for it, yes I would find that unacceptable.

But I just said, as a 28 year old, that, as a 15 year old, I would have enjoyed it. I'm not saying 28 year olds should be with 15 year olds, but I'm saying when I was 15 I wouldnt have said no. You didnt brand me a pervert.

That's what he said also.

d'Oracle

This is a restaurant critic.

Why is a restaurant critic a viable source for political information?

Nodin

d'Oracle wrote: »

This is a restaurant critic.

Why is a restaurant critic a viable source for political information?

Why is a programme hosted by Joe Duffy a platform for attack on a presidential candidate by a restaurant critic, even?

d'Oracle

Indeed.
I'd say "only in Ireland", but unfortunately I reckon it could happen everywhere.

later12

zuroph wrote: »

but thats not what he did, as you're abandoning the context again. he's saying theres something to be said for "it".. as in, remove the sex, and the mentoring, education and chance to speak frankly about his sexuality with someone would have been something he would have benefitted from. Nowhere in it does he mention any explicit acts

Oh come on. If you are going to defend this you should at least be realistic. Do you think that Norris was referring to going for milkshakes here? Why else would he mention classical paedophilia or pederasty, and qualify it by mentioning what it does not appeal to him? By the way, there is certainly no suggestion that David Norris has done anything wrong, or that he is interested in pedaristic behaviour - that notion needs to be nipped in the bud. But so does yours.

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.

But I just said, as a 28 year old, that, as a 15 year old, I would have enjoyed it. I'm not saying 28 year olds should be with 15 year olds, but I'm saying when I was 15 I wouldnt have said no. You didnt brand me a pervert.

Of course not. I am convinced that the vast majority of kids, whether gay or straight, would have felt similarly to Norris when he was a boy. Nor is remarking on those feelings in retrospect any way perverse.

Saying that you now find that to have merit in the more considered wisdom of adulthood, as Norris was saying, is what most people would probably take issue with.

FoxT

I am not associated with David Norris, but I plan to vote for him.

I heard a bit of the Joe Duffy show yesterday & was gobsmacked. I dimly recalled this bubbling up years ago & being put to bed. Reread the Magill article & Joe Jackson interview, and his Bio.

David Norris's father died when David was 6 years of age, and David himself was gay at a time when it was very difficult/isolating.

In this context I think it is understandable that David might say that a relationship with an older man could have been a positive thing for him.

My impression is that this is what he meant - but of course he stepped on a landmine when he started talking about 'Classical pederasty'. He also shot himself in the foot when he explained his views on the age of consent.

So, he made a mistake in an interview 9 years ago. It is probably a good thing that this has bubbled up again, now, it would be worse for him if it came up closer to, or after, the election.

I remain convinced that he would be a good president, and a good ambassador for Ireland.

-Foxt

Nodin

d'Oracle wrote: »

Indeed.
I'd say "only in Ireland", but unfortunately I reckon it could happen everywhere.

O indeed, indeed.

Anyhoo, its now 14.35 as I'm typing this and nobody with a stronger stomach than me has reported hearing the tape on Mr Bluffys show....

d'Oracle

Nodin wrote: »

O indeed, indeed.

Anyhoo, its now 14.35 as I'm typing this and nobody with a stronger stomach than me has reported hearing the tape on Mr Bluffys show....

I'm listening to it. No tape there, just her quoting the article.
She is getting hammered.

zuroph

so you interpret it one way, I interpret another. Having read the magill article first, such was the push, I was taken aback. However, once I read Norris put it in to context, it made sense to me.
You say that you agree he (probably) hasnt any interest in such things. However, HLB yesterday called it a sinful evil way of thinking. evocative language. That, and the "holiday in thailand" were the two stand out parts of her conversation that helped make my mind up on just who was trying to play to peoples emotions.

d'Oracle

John Waters was Editor of McGill at the time.....

later12

d'Oracle wrote: »

I'm listening to it. No tape there, just her quoting the article.
She is getting hammered.

What are you talking about, she is not on Radio 1. They are trying to convert the tape to radio.

d'Oracle

later10 wrote: »

What are you talking about, she is not on Radio 1. They are trying to convert the tape to radio.

Helen Lucy Burke is on Joe Duffy right now.
What are you talking about?

Wolfe Tone

d'Oracle wrote: »

Helen Lucy Burke is on Joe Duffy right now.
What are you talking about?

lol no she aint, he is still on about seminar crap/cult

Judgement Day

d'Oracle wrote: »

This is a restaurant critic.

Why is a restaurant critic a viable source for political information?

Why should being a restaurant critic invalidate her article? Don't like the message, shoot the messenger.....:rolleyes:

PS I don't what Joe Duffy Show you're listening to as the tape has not been on or HLB.

d'Oracle

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

lol no she aint, he is still on about seminar crap/cult

I'm listening online.
And I have not heard a thing about seminars.

Maybe I'm listening to yesterdays.
Was she on yesterday?

later12

zuroph wrote: »

You say that you agree he (probably) hasnt any interest in such things. However, HLB yesterday called it a sinful evil way of thinking. evocative language.

I think the use of the word evil was a bit silly on her part, certainly I would agree that this way of thinking is unacceptable in a country like Ireland which did in 2002, and still does have today, a particularly brutal history in terms of paedophilia and-or pederasty.

We also have a particularly sad history of sticking up for public figures who seem to advance crazy commentary on such issues, going all the way back to corporal punishment and paedophilia by some members of the Roman Catholic clergy in the mid 20th century. It is in that light that I find the more illogical defenses of David Norris to be in particularly bad taste. People are sticking up for him here by using rebuttals that he has not even attempted himself, and denying his having made comments which he is not presently denying having made, and which are currently on a Phillips tape in an RTE studio.

dvpower

d'Oracle wrote: »

I'm listening online.
And I have not heard a thing about seminars.

Maybe I'm listening to yesterdays.
Was she on yesterday?

She was on yesterday - the seminar thing is today.

later12

d'Oracle wrote: »

Helen Lucy Burke is on Joe Duffy right now.
What are you talking about?

You are listening to a repeat of the show yesterday.
The tape is in RTE, it is being prepared for radio.

Where are you getting the information that it is a phillips tape and that rte are in the process of converting it for radio?

d'Oracle

Judgement Day wrote: »

Why should being a restaurant critic invalidate her article? Don't like the message, shoot the messenger.....:rolleyes:

Being a restaurant critic doesn't lend itself well to proper interviewing.
It is not reporting on affairs nor objective interpretation of an interview.

What it is is giving (often undeserved) extra weight to ones own opinion.
Basically she is not really qualified to dispense this. And from the sounds of what I am listening to my concerns would be valid.

This is not good journalism, it sounds like he said something that she didn't like and unjustly coloured her opinion of his beliefs, that is what invalidates her article.

Judgement Day

d'Oracle wrote: »

I'm listening online.
And I have not heard a thing about seminars.

Maybe I'm listening to yesterdays.
Was she on yesterday?

Breathe in, breathe out....:pac::pac::pac:

zuroph

d'Oracle wrote: »

I'm listening online.
And I have not heard a thing about seminars.

Maybe I'm listening to yesterdays.
Was she on yesterday?

yes she was on yesterday. lol. can you fast forward?

i'm listening live online, its about "landmark courses" all afternoon.

PS, they sound like a total scam.

Zubeneschamali

zuroph wrote: »

However, HLB yesterday called it a sinful evil way of thinking.

Not "perverted and criminal". Not "wrong and harmful". Sinful and evil.

Okey dokey.

zuroph

later10 wrote: »

I think the use of the word evil was a bit silly on her part, certainly I would agree that this way of thinking is unacceptable in a country like Ireland which did in 2002, and still does have today, a particularly brutal history in terms of paedophilia and-or pederasty.

We also have a particularly sad history of sticking up for public figures who seem to advance crazy commentary on such issues, going all the way back to corporal punishment and paedophilia by some members of the Roman Catholic clergy in the mid 20th century. It is in that light that I find the more illogical defenses of David Norris to be in particularly bad taste. People are sticking up for him here by using rebuttals that he has not even attempted himself, and denying his having made comments which he is not presently denying having made, and which are currently on a Phillips tape in an RTE studio.

I havent seen many directly deny the quotation, bar people who have questioned what he said, on both sides. What most people have questioned is the context.

d'Oracle

Judgement Day wrote: »

Breathe in, breathe out....:pac::pac::pac:

Sorry?

Judgement Day

d'Oracle wrote: »

Sorry?

Forget it. I'm just puzzled as to how you can be contributing to this thread without realising that the Joe Duffy interview was yesterday.

later12

zuroph wrote: »

i'm listening live online, its about "landmark courses" all afternoon.

PS, they sound like a total scam.

They do, and likely to remind posters of another Presidential nominee-candidate Kathleen O Meara (Labour) who was involved in a Landmark mini controversy a few years back.

Joe really is hammering the potential nominees this week!

Tomorrow -- Mairead McGiuinness steals lunch money from disabled school children.

tbh

Judgement Day wrote: »

Why should being a restaurant critic invalidate her article? Don't like the message, shoot the messenger.....:rolleyes:

it's all about context.

unless the interview is being reproduced verbatim, then you have to accept that a certain amount of conscious or unconscious editorialising is being done - you are experiencing the interview through the filter of HLB, and all her opinions, experiences and bias - positive or negative.

For example, if Gerry Adams and, say, Tom Elliot interviewed Martin McGuinness, asked him the same questions to which he gave the exact same answers, the two published articles would likely be very different.

So in this case, I think the fact that HLB being a restaurant critic, and not, say, a political analyst or an academic does throw up the possibility that she misinterpreted some of what DN was saying. I'm not saying that is what happened, but her previous body of work is definitely relevant.

Wolfe Tone

d'Oracle wrote: »

Being a restaurant critic doesn't lend itself well to proper interviewing.
It is not reporting on affairs nor objective interpretation of an interview.

What it is is giving (often undeserved) extra weight to ones own opinion.
Basically she is not really qualified to dispense this. And from the sounds of what I am listening to my concerns would be valid.

This is not good journalism, it sounds like he said something that she didn't like and unjustly coloured her opinion of his beliefs, that is what invalidates her article.

Helen Lucy Burke is originally of Galway origin but now based in Dublin. For years she was prominent in the Equal Pay and the Womens' Rights movements. At the same time she was also working as a freelance journalist, mainly writing on political and economics issues. Then she was asked by the Sunday Tribune to write restaurant reviews, which she did for years, changing several times to write for other periodicals.

At present she is the restaurant reviewer for the Dubliner Magazine. She has also written a best-selling novel, and prize-winning short stories.

http://www.irishfoodwritersguild.ie/members/helen.php

d'Oracle

Judgement Day wrote: »

Forget it. I'm just puzzled as to how you can be contributing to this thread without realising that the Joe Duffy interview was yesterday.

I don't get to contribute because of when I listened to the interview?
Do I even need to listen to the interview to have an opinion on the matter?

Surely anybody who has read up on the matter, must be welcome to enter and contribute to the conversation, free of your condescension?

Judgement Day

d'Oracle wrote: »

I don't get to contribute because of when I listened to the interview?
Do I even need to listen to the interview to have an opinion on the matter?

Surely anybody who has read up on the matter, must be welcome to enter and contribute to the conversation, free of your condescension?

All that I was saying is that it seems odd that you have weighed in without even picking up that basic fact about the Joe Duffy interview on the way. I was not being condescending as it's not my place to say who should, or shouldn't, contribute to the thread but it is best to be properly informed before wading in.

later12

tbh wrote: »

So in this case, I think the fact that HLB being a restaurant critic, and not, say, a political analyst or an academic does throw up the possibility that she misinterpreted some of what DN was saying. I'm not saying that is what happened, but her previous body of work is definitely relevant.

As has been pointed out, Helen Lucy Burke has been a political journalist in the past, and has been involved in Irish political analsysis and campaigns.

Furthermore, this is exactly the same sort of argument which was put forward against Jim Duffy in his student interview with Brian Lenihan senior, and which eventually thwarted Brian Lenihans bid for the Presidency.

The fact that Helen Lucy Burke has elsewhere been a food critic is pretty much irrelevant. She does have a political background.

optogirl

Judgement Day wrote: »

All that I was saying is that it seems odd that you have weighed in without even picking up that basic fact about the Joe Duffy interview on the way. I was not being condescending as it's not my place to say who should, or shouldn't, contribute to the thread but it is best to be properly informed before wading in.

I think you're being a little harsh here Judgement(al) - who cares when anybody listened to the interview or indeed if they listened to it at all? As long as they are aware of the topic that all the hoo-ha is about & the context etc, which, in fairness , you would get a pretty good idea of simply by reading the thread, then I think the contribution should be welcomed

Wolfe Tone

I can't believe I sat through that sh!te, Joe bloody Duffy.

Zubeneschamali

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

She has also written a best-selling novel, and prize-winning short stories.

...over 30 years ago.

Here's a funny one:

The most famous Irish chef is a young man called Conrad Gallagher. When a colleague of mine, Helen Lucy Burke, had the pleasure of dining at his flagship restaurant, Peacock Alley, Gallagher decided to spare her the nuisance of writing it up by issuing a solicitor's letter in which it was alleged that, on the night in question, 'Helen Lucy Burke ... appeared to be intoxicated, made little sense to talk to, in addition to slurring her words, and also made unnecessary disparaging remarks to Mr Gallagher's staff, eg, "Can you wrap this up, I want to feed it to my blind pussy?"'

zuroph

I know, we should ring in to joe to complain about joe.

dvpower

I don't know if this has been posted, but David Norris was on PK this morning.
http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0531/media-2968388.html#

serfboard

tbh wrote: »

unless the interview is being reproduced verbatim, then you have to accept that a certain amount of conscious or unconscious editorialising is being done - you are experiencing the interview through the filter of HLB, and all her opinions, experiences and bias - positive or negative.

Apparently Bobby Fischer towards the end of his life would only do live radio interviews for precisely this reason. The listener hears exactly what is said, there are no visuals to distract and there can be no colour added in by the interviewer.

d'Oracle

Judgement Day wrote: »

All that I was saying is that it seems odd that you have weighed in without even picking up that basic fact about the Joe Duffy interview on the way.

This particular basic fact is largely irrelevant to the topic of conversation.

Judgement Day wrote: »

I was not being condescending as it's not my place to say who should, or shouldn't, contribute to the thread but it is best to be properly informed before wading in.

Your "breath in, breath out" comment was condescending.

And if you believe that you have no place to say who should contribute why then are you questioning my contribution based on how up to speed I am on Joe Duffy. (which appears not to have covered the subject today)