David Norris - Post-Revelations

mrsdewinter

I wasn't all that pushed about Norris - but this whole debacle has just underlined suspicions that he would be too much of a loose cannon.
His loyalty to a former partner is admirable but an experienced politician should have known better than to try to weigh in on the judicial process of another country.

KnifeWRENCH

gambiaman wrote: »

I'd like to know if Mitchell is consistent in espousing opposition to the death penalty everywhere and to every case or was it a case that he has sympathy for this particular murderer because of his (ironically enough) 'pro-life' views?

That was exactly my first thought as well.

I'm willing to bet that if it was the other way around, and a doctor had murdered a pro-life activist, then Mitchell wouldn't have bothered sending Jeb Bush a letter asking for leniency. :rolleyes:

Like you, I won't hold my breath yet but i imagine it will come up when the campaign proper begins.

If he is to be held to the same standards as David Norris then it SHOULD come up. I've never bothered writing to TD's or the like before but if this is all swept under the carpet while, simultaneously, Norris is depicted as a paedophile-supporter and rape-apologist then I'll be getting MY headed paper out.....

.....how does one get headed paper and how much does it cost? To the stationery shop! --->

The thing on the headed paper could be less damaging for Mitchell as Ireland and the EU totally oppose the use of the death penalty so it is national and EU policy as such.

Damn EU and their liberal ways! USA isn't in the EU though so what business does Mitchell have trying to interfere? Now if he happens to write to governors on behalf of every US prisoner on death row, or to the Chinese authorities on behalf of each of the 2000+ people executed there every year, then I'll shut my mouth and congratulate him on his dedication! But if it's just that one letter in defence of a convict who shares his views on abortion......looks fishy to say the least. Especially if it was written on Govt. headed paper. (None of the reports seem to indicate whether it was or not.)

xoxyx

Orizio wrote: »

Agreed Biggins - I heard our local pastor here in Foxrock point out that we should forgive these so-called 'paedophile' preachers in the US that are relentlessly attacked by the American media. As you say, we are all human, we all make mistakes.

Oh please. You're being deliberately obtuse. You need to realise the difference between mistakes; bad judgement; unconventionality; differing culture; and, sticking it to a six year old who you have in a position of trust while knowing exactly what you're doing to damage what is, essentially, a baby.

whydoibother?

Forgiving a person is one thing, but deeming past behaviour off-limits for consideration when choosing a person for the highest office in the state is quite another. Everyone of us, when we apply for a job, send off a CV, are judged on our past. Why should this be an exception?

K-9

Orizio wrote: »

I shall still be voting for Norris - we can't let the knuckle-dragging homophobic culchie media destroy an intellectual like David because they want to get their own bogger into power (yet again).

Good man.

xoxyx

mrsdewinter wrote: »

I wasn't all that pushed about Norris - but this whole debacle has just underlined suspicions that he would be too much of a loose cannon.
His loyalty to a former partner is admirable but an experienced politician should have known better than to try to weigh in on the judicial process of another country.

Exactly.

Good person: probably.

Good president: no.

partyatmygaff

Orizio wrote: »

I shall still be voting for Norris - we can't let the knuckle-dragging homophobic culchie media destroy an intellectual like David because they want to get their own bogger into power (yet again).

The "knuckle-dragging homophobic culchie media"...

Who exactly? Boards.ie is also a media source and until two days ago it was full of Norris supporters calling anyone who even implied that he may not be a suitable candidate a "non-progressive" homophobe.

Orizio wrote: »

Very simply, as people who grow up in Dublin city (and to a lesser extent, Cork and Limerick city) are well-educated, sophisticated and urbane

The people of Dublin, Cork and Limerick are well-educated and sophisticated? :eek: Perhaps some of them are but the vast majority that I see on the streets are not the type of people i'd call "well-educated" and "sophisticated".

they are far too open minded and progressive to be homophobic.

Not wanting to vote in Norris does not make you a homophobe. The same way voting him in won't make you supreme, progressive, urbane, sophisticated and elegant.

As such, it stands to reason that if the media is attacking Norris with a homphobic hate campaign - as they are - the media must be culchie run.

What homophobic hate campaign? If you're seeking to be elected to a high standing political position then you are scrutinised by the media regardless of who you are.

One needs only to look at the non-stop GAA coverage in the media - even though decent human beings play/follow rugby and cricket - and the media's massive defense of the RCC in recent weeks to show just how that the Irish-media is bogger run.

Damn those Catholic GAA playing culchies. They're the real rulers of Ireland trying to oppress the poor decent urbanites in their pursuits of rugby and cricket coverage. :rolleyes:

Orizio wrote: »

I think you need to show a bit more faith in David.

He's a politician. Why should we have "faith in him" instead of actually voting for him on his merits and flaws?

We can do our bit - however if we want David to become President we need to destroy the homophobic culchie media that is doing its utmost to destroy him.

To sum up... you only want to vote for him to prove to the world that you're a "progressive" urbanite. That's a ridiculous reason to vote someone in for.

Pompey Magnus

Biggins wrote: »

What the media - and perhaps some people? - need to remember at the back of it all is "To Err Is Human, To Forgive Divine" - and lest we forget, especially those with short memories, this country has already elected and sometimes re-elected maybe persons of questionable character?

Does someone not first need to admit they have done wrong and understand the reason why before they can be forgiven?

xoxyx

partyatmygaff wrote: »

voting [Norris] in won't make you supreme, progressive, urbane, sophisticated and elegant.

Damn.

Pompey Magnus

xoxyx wrote: »

Norris wrote a character reference for somebody who was accused of statutory rape. Statutory rape does not, necessarily, mean child abuse - especially having regard to the differing ages of consent in different countries and the different practices which are in place.

Can I ask if you had any opinion on the statutory rape scandal involving the journalist Tom Humphries who was involved in a consensual relationship with an adolescent girl?

Biggins

Orizio wrote: »

Agreed Biggins - I heard our local pastor here in Foxrock point out that we should forgive these so-called 'paedophile' preachers' in the US that are relentlessly attacked by the American media. As you say, we are all human, we all make mistakes.

With respect, they were foisted upon the people - and their victims - without the consent by vote/choice of the people, that's significant as that with choice comes the ability to deeper recognise a personal mistake made in choice, want to learn from it and move on. To forgive ones-self as well as those you might have over looked.
Add to that, Norris did come clean of his own volition nor (as far as has been shown I think - open to be wrong) went out of his way in deliberateness to hide his actions or re-write the past in comparison to the worlds 'paedophile' preachers.

Where as Norris (as far as I know) has created no actual 'victims' then as such there is no one to "To Err Is Human, To Forgive Divine" towards him for any direct abuse he might have caused upon them.
- That cannot be said for the 'paedophile' preachers'. Their very victims in their own time, if they can will face the hard choice to face a decision of forgiveness in a measure unrelated in proportions to Mr Norris, a much harder task and understandably so.

After all that's came out this past week there's not a chance I'll be voting for Norris. That so many people are quick to defend the letter he sent is shocking considering that were the same letter penned by a bishop in defense of a priest then I imagine the posts of support would not be so forth coming.

Norris seems like a decent enough guy but some of the statements he comes out with are a little out there and the manner in which he used his office to try and get a lesser sentence for his ex-partner is really unforgivable. It may not be the worst thing someone in office has done but still it's pretty unforgivable.

Caulego

Biggins wrote: »

We might find something to disagree with upon analysis, but heavens, what a meaty, mighty post!

Well, you know how it is Biggins: sometimes if you've got something to say, think about it and just say it - that's one of the few remaining 'priveleges' that we are left with these days, which is why I pay attention to the clouds of meaningless political correctness that seems to hang over every contoversy and event in our society. There is a sort of sea change coming, I hope, and maybe, just maybe people will begin to think of the consequences of how we think about power and all its baggage in this country of ours - and it is ours, but only if we claim it and not surrender it to the gods of church and State dogma. It's the young and the next generation who will pay, and I sense that things will get worse rather than better.

Biggins

Caulego wrote: »

Well, you know how it is Biggins: sometimes if you've got something to say, think about it and just say it - that's one of the few remaining 'priveleges' that we are left with these days, which is why I pay attention to the clouds of meaningless political correctness that seems to hang over every contoversy and event in our society. There is a sort of sea change coming, I hope, and maybe, just maybe people will begin to think of the consequences of how we think about power and all its baggage in this country of ours - and it is ours, but only if we claim it and not surrender it to the gods of church and State dogma. It's the young and the next generation who will pay, and I sense that things will get worse rather than better.

Indeed.
Our present actions will reverberate down to our next of kin in possible ways yet we cannot or might not imagine.
Goodness knows, we have seen our actions (and sometimes lack of them) come back to haunt us and already have a price ready for our offspring to pay.

xoxyx

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Can I ask if you had any opinion on the statutory rape scandal involving the journalist Tom Humphries who was involved in a consensual relationship with an adolescent girl?

I have an opinion about anything I know about!

I'm not familiar with that particular incident, but I just had a quick Google. Was it the case that Humphries groomed a young girl to have sex with her? That's deplorable. He used a position of power to lure a young girl into a situation which was way out of what she should be experienced in.

Horrendous.

I don't see the connection though.

Look - sex is sex. Private areas are private because that is what we are taught. There are cultures where sex is something to be sold. I'm not saying that it's ideal - but would it be such a big deal if Norris had written a recommendation for somebody who had used a 7 year old to clean their chimney???

At 15 years old, if you were free from the taboo of sex is for certain people, of a certain age, and it's only for those who have their minds fully developed, what's the big deal???

It all seems to centre on what we think is right and wrong, without giving consideration to other cultures and other values.

Do you know what I think? I think we have far too big a stick up our own arses and we need to start living outside the box that we have made for ourselves.

CramCycle

xoxyx wrote: »

75%?

Thanks for clarifying that, I did think that the average 15yo old boy would jiz himself before he got the chance :pac::pac::pac:

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Can I ask if you had any opinion on the statutory rape scandal involving the journalist Tom Humphries who was involved in a consensual relationship with an adolescent girl?

He should be in jail and he should not be president.

Deleted User wrote: »

Norris seems like a decent enough guy

I know a few decent people (not many admittedly) but none of them to the best of my knowledge would put their name on the line to defend someone accused or guilty of having sex with a 15yo at the age of 40.

sock puppet

Did everyone take retard pills tonight? Orizio's sarcasm was about as subtle as comic book guy.

xoxyx

sock puppet wrote: »

Did everyone take retard pills tonight? Orizio's sarcasm was about as subtle as comic book guy.

That was sarcasm???

whydoibother?

I think that it's not only about the age of the victim, but also about the age of the other person. In the "Romeo and Juliet" statutory rape situation, where it's two teenagers, of roughly the same age, it's unfortunate but nowhere near as bad as a 45 year old and a 15 year old. A 45 year old has a much greater understanding of how the human mind works. They have a much greater capacity to manipulate. Note, I did not say they will manipulate, but if they wanted to, they have a much greater ability to do it, and persuade a 15 year old to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do. Though in recent years, we have seen the issue of statutory rape arise between teenagers, and found it a harsh crime to be convicted of often in that situation, I still think it is thoroughly appropriate to convict a 45 year old who sleeps with a 15 year old as a criminal.

xoxyx

whydoibother? wrote: »

, I still think it is thoroughly appropriate to convict a 45 year old who sleeps with a 15 year old as a criminal.

What about a 45 year old who sleeps with a 16 year old?

carlos D

Orizio wrote: »

I shall still be voting for Norris - we can't let the knuckle-dragging homophobic culchie media destroy an intellectual like David because they want to get their own bogger into power (yet again).

Yeah cos that's exactly what happened :rolleyes:

That sort of smug delusion is what has landed him in this mess,constantly insulting and being condescending towards anyone who dares to disagree with his views on paedophelia.

whydoibother?

xoxyx wrote: »

What about a 45 year old who sleeps with a 16 year old?

Personally, I would say if the age difference is going to be that big, the person should be 18, however, we have to respect the laws of the country concerned. You can't just say one year under is ok, because then it becomes what about one year and six months, two years etc.

HarryPotter41

xoxyx wrote: »

Norris wrote a character reference for somebody who was accused of statutory rape. Statutory rape does not, necessarily, mean child abuse - especially having regard to the differing ages of consent in different countries and the different practices which are in place.

We should really be careful to check out the facts before we make a judgement. I've read a lot about this and, yes, I do think that politicians who we have previously had in power, who have fecked a lot of ground level folks over, have done worse than writing a character references for somebody who may have hooked up with a 15 year old.

C'mon. In our society, there are many 15 year olds with 1 year old children. They're not sacrosanct!!

Ah sure you're right, that makes it okay then

Pompey Magnus

xoxyx wrote: »

I have an opinion about anything I know about!

I'm not familiar with that particular incident, but I just had a quick Google. Was it the case that Humphries groomed a young girl to have sex with her? That's deplorable. He used a position of power to lure a young girl into a situation which was way out of what she should be experienced in.

Horrendous.

I don't see the connection though.

Look - sex is sex. Private areas are private because that is what we are taught. There are cultures where sex is something to be sold. I'm not saying that it's ideal - but would it be such a big deal if Norris had written a recommendation for somebody who had used a 7 year old to clean their chimney???

At 15 years old, if you were free from the taboo of sex is for certain people, of a certain age, and it's only for those who have their minds fully developed, what's the big deal???

It all seems to centre on what we think is right and wrong, without giving consideration to other cultures and other values.

Do you know what I think? I think we have far too big a stick up our own arses and we need to start living outside the box that we have made for ourselves.

The girl in question was 14 when the two began their relationship, the boy that Ezra Nawi was involved with was 15. It is a fact of nature that girls mature much quicker during their adolescence than boys, so why is Humphries described as grooming this girl and that the relationship was horrendous, whilst the act between Nawi and a 15 year old boy seems to recieve tacit approval as just one of those things that happens?

I would have thought, given the fact that a 15 year old boy is quite likely to be less mature than a 14 year old girl, this act should be viewed at least as deplorable as the Humphries case.

Caulego

Orizio wrote: »

I think you need to show a bit more faith in David. We can do our bit - however if we want David to become President we need to destroy the homophobic culchie media that is doing its utmost to destroy him.

Can you give us some specific names of these 'homophobic culchie media' people, and links to some of their articles? Are you saying that there are no urban homophobic media members? Are you a 'culchiphobe'?

DecentBee

In my opinion it's almost as demeaning to someone to vote for them based solely on their sexuality than it is to not vote for them based solely on their sexuality. If I thought Norris was the best person to represent our nation I would vote for him, but I didn't think that before these revelations and I just can't see how anyone could think he is now.

MungBean

I would have voted for him before. I dont think he's a monster or anything but it isnt celebrity farm its the presidency. In a country that has seen an unbelievable amount of child abuse there's no way he can still be in the running after this.

He should do the right thing and pull out of the running.

As for the "is it right for an adult to have consensual intercourse with a minor" of course not. Regardless of whether its consensual its wrong. An adult looking for sexual gratification from a sexually inexperienced minor (whether the adult or child or both call it love or consensual) is taking advantage of a minor who isnt mature enough to be in that situation or make that decision. Thats why its classed as rape, and rightly so.

Dodd

Is there still a chance that someone could put their name in to get elected.
I could not pick any of them even before this kicked off.
The same with the gov election.
We need some good people/parties looking to get elected where you scratch
your head thinking who is the best and not scratching your head thinking
who is not the worst.

Show Time

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed.
Our present actions will reverberate down to our next of kin in possible ways yet we cannot or might not imagine.
Goodness knows, we have seen our actions (and sometimes lack of them) come back to haunt us and already have a price ready for our offspring to pay.

The main reason i am happy to have no kids is the state of this country no way would i want to bring a child into or have them grow up the way the place is turning out.

Logical Fallacy

Orizio wrote: »

I think you need to show a bit more faith in David. We can do our bit - however if we want David to become President we need to destroy the homophobic culchie media that is doing its utmost to destroy him.

I think you are overestimating the reach of the Farmers Journal.