David Norris - Post-Revelations

Kanoe

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

So I return again to the question, where were all the men coming out defending Tom Humphries? I didn't hear a single man speak up for him, not one. Did you?

I don't know what the Tom humphries story is I haven't been following it but it doesn't involve 15 year old boys. Of course they are going to jump to the defense of 15 year old girls and if it is the case that Tom Humphries has been "grooming" hundreds of young girls than it's a very very different situation.

You continue to think I'm all for statutory rape anyway. I'm not. this is about public perception. Once again, I'm not referring to the involvement of young females.
I'm stating that if the case involved a 15 year old boy and an older woman, half the people who have been quick to condemn Norris would be cheering him on.
Why? Even though it's statutory rape, they still consider themselves ready and able at 15 to have sex with an adult female, in fact for may it would be a dream come true. They just are not able to consider this would have been the case for the 15 year old boy here. Why?


[i'm done discussing the issue, I'm happy with my decision]

Pompey Magnus

Einhard wrote: »

It's very simple really- what Norris' ex-partner did was wrong, and Norris was wrong to use his position to influence the Israeli court. I fail to see how people can have any issue with that assessment. Apparently though, some people think that the concept of gay rights should include a moral and legal double standard, whereby a gay person can never be criticised by a hetero person.

I would be hesitant to label it double standards but I must be bog thick because, for the life of me, I cannot understand how the act of an adult man having sex with an underage girl is rightly viewed with horror and revulsion but the act of an adult man having sex with an underage boy is given tacit approval. Then when someone condemns both acts equally they get accused of discrimination even though it is the complete opposite. It seems almost Orwellian to me.

Perhaps someone more enlightened than me can just give a clear explanation why Tom Humphries is seen as a sex fiend and Ezra Nawi isn't.

Pompey Magnus

Kanoe wrote: »

Of course they are going to jump to the defense of 15 year old girls

Yes, of course they would jump to the defense of a 15 year old girl and condemn Humphries because it is the right thing to do. Norris however jumped to the defence of Ezra Nawi.

I'm stating that if the case involved a 15 year old boy and an older woman, half the people who have been quick to condemn Norris would be cheering him on.
Why? Even though it's statutory rape, they still consider themselves ready and able at 15 to have sex with an adult female, in fact for may it would be a dream come true. They just are not able to consider this would have been the case for the 15 year old boy here. Why?

Well here is my attitude: If a 15 year old boy wants to have sex with an adult woman and finds one stupid enough to have sex with him then I can't blame the boy but I would fully support the adult woman being prosecuted as she should have known better.

If a 15 year old boy wants to have sex with an adult man and finds one stupid enough to have sex with him then I can't blame the boy but I would fully support the adult man being prosecuted as he should have known better.

I am completely consistent with my attitude irregardless of the sexual preference involved.

Adults having sex with minors is a game of Russian Roulette, they might have a string of underage partners who experience no adverse consequences but by the law of averages they will eventually meet one who wasn't ready and the damage to that person's life will be done.

Kanoe

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

blah blah blah.

He did not seek to diminish responsibility.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/wallace-pledges-his-continued-support-to-norris-campaign-2836684.html

But blogger John Connolly (22), based in London, said he had not been in contact with the Israeli authorities before publishing details of Ezra Nawi's conviction.

Instead he said he felt a "bit betrayed" and now believes the person who tipped him off about Nawi's past was a supporter of Michael D Higgins.

"I think now that in fact this person was sympathetic to Michael D Higgins, and perhaps had the idea of getting Norris out of the race for Higgins to eat up his votes," he said last night.

I guarantee there is more to this story than is in the public eye. good night.

Elba101

Good balanced piece here by Fintan O'Toole in the Irist Times today:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0802/1224301718769.html#.Tjc1XWiTy30.twitter


THERE IS a simple principle to be applied to the case of David Norris’s pleas on behalf of a man convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old boy.

He should be treated exactly like any other politician caught doing the same thing. He should not be given a free pass because of his immense contribution to the cause of equality and decency in this society. Neither should his actions be used to vent the closet homophobia that lies behind so much of the antipathy to him. Let’s try, rather, to be dispassionate and morally consistent.

Let’s start with the obvious. Politicians should not be trying to influence sentences for those convicted of serious crimes. Full stop. No qualifications, no excuses. (Sexual crimes obviously have a particular emotional resonance, but the principle should be no different for any serious offence.) David Norris used his position as a member of the Oireachtas to try to influence a court.
His first letter was on Seanad notepaper and signed in his capacity as a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. His second, longer letter made extensive reference to his public positions and even to the possibility of him running for the presidency.

This is inexcusable. It is quite understandable (even admirable) at a human level that he would have wished to make a plea for mercy for someone he loved. But to do so in an official capacity is an abuse of public office. Public representatives must know how to distinguish the personal from the official. If he is ever to be president, David Norris has a big job to do in convincing the Irish people that he fully understands that distinction.

Given that Norris was completely wrong in this case, what are the consequences of treating him exactly the same as anyone else in his position? Let’s look at the precedents.

My educated guess – based on the exceptional cases that have been exposed – is that, since 1997 when Norris wrote the Israeli letters, hundreds of similar letters have been written to Irish courts by other members of the Oireachtas.

In 2002, when it emerged that the then junior minister Bobby Molloy had intervened in a much more serious way on behalf of a child rapist, Patrick Naughton, the then taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, defended him on the basis that “that’s what politicians do. A Teachta Dála is a public representative and you make representations.” There is nothing to suggest that Ahern was wrong about this. In relation to child rape alone, we know of three specific cases of TDs making pleas on their behalf. In 2007, it emerged that Fianna Fáil TD Tony Killeen had twice written to the minister for justice seeking early release for a heinous double rapist, Joseph Nugent. Fine Gael’s Pat Breen went so far as to put down a parliamentary question about when Nugent would be released. The Cork Labour TD Kathleen Lynch wrote a letter to a judge in 2008 to tell him that a convicted rapist of two children came from “a good family”.

What happened when these interventions came to public attention? Molloy eventually resigned – but that was because his office had gone even further and tried to contact the judge directly. The other three subsequently gained political promotion: Killeen to the cabinet as minister for defence; Breen to the chairmanship of the Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs; and Lynch to a junior ministry with responsibility for disability and older people. It is absolutely clear that the existing standard in Ireland is that making representations on behalf of a child rapist does not debar you from public office.

So, is Norris’s offence worse than these others? Hardly. It relates to a crime that, while utterly inexcusable, is less violent and brutal than the others. And, on a human level, it is considerably less cynical. Killeen, Lynch and Breen made their interventions purely as part of the demented system of clientelism. They did it to get votes. Norris did it out of a misguided sense of loyalty to someone who had been the love of his life.

It is also relevant that a plea to a foreign court was much less likely to result in improper influence than an intervention by a TD in Ireland’s intimate nexus of local and political connections.

So, we come to the key question: should David Norris be the one who takes the hit so that this kind of abuse is ended once and for all?
There is certainly a case to be made that he should be – sometimes, a high-profile casualty is needed to scare other politicians into righteousness. But isn’t it just a bit too convenient for our system that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour TDs should get away with it while the Independent gets hammered? And shouldn’t we feel uneasy at the notion that the gay man whose own sexuality was criminalised for so long is held to a higher standard than straight politicians?

David Norris has a lot of explaining to do, but he should be allowed to do it in a free electoral debate.

super_furry

I think this is a bridge too far for Norris to cross now. However it should be the Irish public passing the verdict on whether they want him to represent him, not a bunch of senators elected by an elitist minority.

Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, the nominations process needs to be overhauled in a big way/

Toby Take a Bow

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?

So, we should elect more people of questionable character? That doesn't make any sense. I'm torn about the whole issue, but I do think if it was a bishop who was writing on behalf of some priest who had been having sex with a 15 year old, we'd be up in arms. And, you know, rightly so.

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.

Hmm. He probably didn't mean elect them to president.

Caulego

Elba101 wrote: »

Let’s start with the obvious. Politicians should not be trying to influence sentences for those convicted of serious crimes. Full stop. No qualifications, no excuses. (Sexual crimes obviously have a particular emotional resonance, but the principle should be no different for any serious offence.) David Norris used his position as a member of the Oireachtas to try to influence a court.
His first letter was on Seanad notepaper and signed in his capacity as a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. His second, longer letter made extensive reference to his public positions and even to the possibility of him running for the presidency.

This is inexcusable. It is quite understandable (even admirable) at a human level that he would have wished to make a plea for mercy for someone he loved. But to do so in an official capacity is an abuse of public office. Public representatives must know how to distinguish the personal from the official. If he is ever to be president, David Norris has a big job to do in convincing the Irish people that he fully understands that distinction.

Well written post, and fair points.

Chairman Meow

So basically, this guy was doing what the catholic church was trying to do in Cloyne, i.e. cover up sexual abuse?

Yeah i want this guy as president, what a great ambassador he'd be. "Hello Mr. Obama, this is our paedophile enabler err sorry i meant President"

HarryPotter41

super_furry wrote: »

I think this is a bridge too far for Norris to cross now. However it should be the Irish public passing the verdict on whether they want him to represent him, not a bunch of senators elected by an elitist minority.

Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, the nominations process needs to be overhauled in a big way/

David Norris has been quite happy to operate within that elitist minority for quite some time, I am sure it doesn't bother him now that they provide nominations.

Elba101

Chairman Meow wrote: »

So basically, this guy was doing what the catholic church was trying to do in Cloyne, i.e. cover up sexual abuse?

Yeah i want this guy as president, what a great ambassador he'd be. "Hello Mr. Obama, this is our paedophile enabler err sorry i meant President"

I think Cloyne was a hell of a lot worse to be fair. And to clarify, he's not a paedophile, could you give me an example of when he was caught in the act?? He defended a friend, who wouldn't? He used his stance as well which was wrong. BUT, compared to other Irish politicians he's a saint. I would trust him over any of the scum that has been elected in the past to run this country.

Pompey Magnus

Elba101 wrote: »

He defended a friend, who wouldn't?

If a friend of mine committed statutory rape of a minor I couldn't in good conscience defend him, could you?

denhaagenite

Personally, I would not have voted for Norris. I think it would be quite interesting to have a gay president, but he is not exactly indicative of the general Irish public and to be honest sounds like he is an English aristocrat- not an issue in general but not really a suitable accent for the Irish president to have. I would like to see him continue to promote gay rights and perhaps have someone in media or hospitality take up the position. Imo the Irish Presidancy is more of an ambassadorial role and it's not necessary to have someone involved in politics take it up. I think all of the candidates are a bit rubbish. I've been racking my brains trying to come up with candidates that I would like to see. If only Gay Byrne would do it :rolleyes:

I do think he should have adopted common sense with regard to his ex partners crime. What happened was illegal and immoral and it is not the first time that an Irish politician has been condemned for attempting to sway a conviction for a friend/ family member/ constituent.

Elba101

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If a friend of mine committed statutory rape of a minor I couldn't in good conscience defend him, could you?

Nope But in the heat ot the moment, yes. Becasue accused or not, I wouldn't believe a friend of mine would do that. That's what I would do.

Pompey Magnus

Elba101 wrote: »

Nope But in the heat ot the moment, yes. Becasue accused or not, I wouldn't believe a friend of mine would do that. That's what I would do.

That is fair enough, but what if it wasn't in the heat of the moment but was instead after your friend already admitted doing it, as was the case with Norris?

Sir Oxman

Fintan O'Toole is correct in drawing attention to the fact that TDs have done this regularly through the years - the Killeen & Breen double-pronged attempt to lobby on behalf of a double rapist is uniquely disturbing and even moreso because both suffered zero consequences and in fact Ahern shrugged it off as saying 'that's what we do'

But that doesn't let David off the hook, IMO. He's not in the slightest way different than Killeen or Breen or Lynch and while he's facing the consequences of his actions in the here and now, primarily due to him being involved in a presidential election which has the habit of being the ultimate mudslinging fest, the rest of us should be using this as another item on the political reform agenda this little country so badly needs.
Reform of the nomination process for pres. elections should also be on that agenda.
And accountability of past offenders like Lynch and Breen - we should have recall elections for this type of stunt.

Elba101

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

That is fair enough, but what if it wasn't in the heat of the moment but was instead after your friend already admitted doing it, as was the case with Norris?

Yes, obviously wrong. Was caught up in my own heat of the moment! Everything that I have read about this, that is the one bit I missed. This does change my opinion, but I would still pick him over other politicans.

Elba101

gambiaman wrote: »

Fintan O'Toole is correct in drawing attention to the fact that TDs have done this regularly through the years - the Killeen & Breen double-pronged attempt to lobby on behalf of a double rapist is uniquely disturbing and even moreso because both suffered zero consequences and in fact Ahern shrugged it off as saying 'that's what we do'

But that doesn't let David off the hook, IMO. He's not in the slightest way different than Killeen or Breen or Lynch and while he's facing the consequences of his actions in the here and now, primarily due to him being involved in a presidential election which has the habit of being the ultimate mudslinging fest, the rest of us should be using this as another item on the political reform agenda this little country so badly needs.
Reform of the nomination process for pres. elections should also be on that agenda.
And accountability of past offenders like Lynch and Breen - we should have recall elections for this type of stunt.

Absolutely it doesn't! But it does show the hypocrisy that is truely alive in Irish politics.

HarryPotter41

Elba101 wrote: »

Nope But in the heat ot the moment, yes. Becasue accused or not, I wouldn't believe a friend of mine would do that. That's what I would do.

The moment lasted a long time to write that self indulgent, narcissistic mini novella he wrote, he would have plenty of time to think through his actions while writing that.

ixoy

Chairman Meow wrote: »

So basically, this guy was doing what the catholic church was trying to do in Cloyne, i.e. cover up sexual abuse?

He wasn't trying to cover anything up - after all he did write on official paper. He was trying to plead for clemency. There's a difference.

Norris, from his perspective, knew his friend had erred (to say the least) but couldn't reconcile it with what he knew of his friend. So he went to defend him... he just shouldn't have done it in the capacity of his role at all as from the outside it can only appear morally repugnant.

Interesting article by Fintan O'Toole there - where's the calls for the resignations of those TDs who tried to impose on other convicted rapists?

Hail 2 Da Thief

Norris always came across as a jackass to me!
I wouldn't have voted for him anyway but these revelations are truely disgraceful.

goat2

Elba101 wrote: »

Good balanced piece here by Fintan O'Toole in the Irist Times today:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0802/1224301718769.html#.Tjc1XWiTy30.twitter


THERE IS a simple principle to be applied to the case of David Norris’s pleas on behalf of a man convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old boy.

He should be treated exactly like any other politician caught doing the same thing. He should not be given a free pass because of his immense contribution to the cause of equality and decency in this society. Neither should his actions be used to vent the closet homophobia that lies behind so much of the antipathy to him. Let’s try, rather, to be dispassionate and morally consistent.

Let’s start with the obvious. Politicians should not be trying to influence sentences for those convicted of serious crimes. Full stop. No qualifications, no excuses. (Sexual crimes obviously have a particular emotional resonance, but the principle should be no different for any serious offence.) David Norris used his position as a member of the Oireachtas to try to influence a court.
His first letter was on Seanad notepaper and signed in his capacity as a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. His second, longer letter made extensive reference to his public positions and even to the possibility of him running for the presidency.

This is inexcusable. It is quite understandable (even admirable) at a human level that he would have wished to make a plea for mercy for someone he loved. But to do so in an official capacity is an abuse of public office. Public representatives must know how to distinguish the personal from the official. If he is ever to be president, David Norris has a big job to do in convincing the Irish people that he fully understands that distinction.

Given that Norris was completely wrong in this case, what are the consequences of treating him exactly the same as anyone else in his position? Let’s look at the precedents.

My educated guess – based on the exceptional cases that have been exposed – is that, since 1997 when Norris wrote the Israeli letters, hundreds of similar letters have been written to Irish courts by other members of the Oireachtas.

In 2002, when it emerged that the then junior minister Bobby Molloy had intervened in a much more serious way on behalf of a child rapist, Patrick Naughton, the then taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, defended him on the basis that “that’s what politicians do. A Teachta Dála is a public representative and you make representations.” There is nothing to suggest that Ahern was wrong about this. In relation to child rape alone, we know of three specific cases of TDs making pleas on their behalf. In 2007, it emerged that Fianna Fáil TD Tony Killeen had twice written to the minister for justice seeking early release for a heinous double rapist, Joseph Nugent. Fine Gael’s Pat Breen went so far as to put down a parliamentary question about when Nugent would be released. The Cork Labour TD Kathleen Lynch wrote a letter to a judge in 2008 to tell him that a convicted rapist of two children came from “a good family”.

What happened when these interventions came to public attention? Molloy eventually resigned – but that was because his office had gone even further and tried to contact the judge directly. The other three subsequently gained political promotion: Killeen to the cabinet as minister for defence; Breen to the chairmanship of the Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs; and Lynch to a junior ministry with responsibility for disability and older people. It is absolutely clear that the existing standard in Ireland is that making representations on behalf of a child rapist does not debar you from public office.

So, is Norris’s offence worse than these others? Hardly. It relates to a crime that, while utterly inexcusable, is less violent and brutal than the others. And, on a human level, it is considerably less cynical. Killeen, Lynch and Breen made their interventions purely as part of the demented system of clientelism. They did it to get votes. Norris did it out of a misguided sense of loyalty to someone who had been the love of his life.

It is also relevant that a plea to a foreign court was much less likely to result in improper influence than an intervention by a TD in Ireland’s intimate nexus of local and political connections.

So, we come to the key question: should David Norris be the one who takes the hit so that this kind of abuse is ended once and for all?
There is certainly a case to be made that he should be – sometimes, a high-profile casualty is needed to scare other politicians into righteousness. But isn’t it just a bit too convenient for our system that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour TDs should get away with it while the Independent gets hammered? And shouldn’t we feel uneasy at the notion that the gay man whose own sexuality was criminalised for so long is held to a higher standard than straight politicians?

David Norris has a lot of explaining to do, but he should be allowed to do it in a free electoral debate.

The Cork Labour TD Kathleen Lynch wrote a letter to a judge in 2008 to tell him that a convicted rapist of two children came from “a good family”..[/QUOTE]
what happened in her case, when it was found out that she did similar back then, did she try to use her power to get her friend a lenient sentence

annascott

I still think that the reason so many are jumping on this 'defending a rapist' bandwagon is because it is linked with a homosexual relationship. When referring to the 'rapist' that Mr Norris was defending , the media conveniently forget to add the word 'statutory'. This was not an attack or an abduction but an encounter with a willing participant. Yes, legally the boy was underage but as with heterosexual encounters, I think that the term 'rape' should be taken out of the equation. It can be quite difficult to tell the difference between a 15 and an 18 year old. Or a 13 and a 16 year old. If it was some guy with a reputation for the ladies, things would be different. After all, most don't think any worse of Roman Polanski or Billy Wyman.

yutta

annascott wrote: »

I still think that the reason so many are jumping on this 'defending a rapist' bandwagon is because it is linked with a homosexual relationship. When referring to the 'rapist' that Mr Norris was defending , the media conveniently forget to add the word 'statutory'. This was not an attack or an abduction but an encounter with a willing participant. Yes, legally the boy was underage but as with heterosexual encounters, I think that the term 'rape' should be taken out of the equation. It can be quite difficult to tell the difference between a 15 and an 18 year old. Or a 13 and a 16 year old. If it was some guy with a reputation for the ladies, things would be different. After all, most don't think any worse of Roman Polanski or Billy Wyman.

Mealy-mouthed defending the indefensible.

Pompey Magnus

ixoy wrote: »

Interesting article by Fintan O'Toole there - where's the calls for the resignations of those TDs who tried to impose on other convicted rapists?

Here are some of them:

Taoiseach ignores calls for Killeen to resign.

Minister resigns over call to judge

Should Kathleen Lynch Resign

Were you concerned this was a particular agenda the Irish people have taken against Norris just because he is gay which would have been ignored if he was straight?

goat2

Elba101 wrote: »

Good balanced piece here by Fintan O'Toole in the Irist Times today:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0802/1224301718769.html#.Tjc1XWiTy30.twitter


THERE IS a simple principle to be applied to the case of David Norris’s pleas on behalf of a man convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old boy.




hundreds of similar letters have been written to Irish courts by other members of the Oireachtas.

In 2002, when it emerged that the then junior minister Bobby Molloy had intervened in a much more serious way on behalf of a child rapist, Patrick Naughton, the then taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, defended him on the basis that “that’s what politicians do. A Teachta Dála is a public representative and you make representations.” There is nothing to suggest that Ahern was wrong about this. In relation to child rape alone, we know of three specific cases of TDs making pleas on their behalf. In 2007, it emerged that Fianna Fáil TD Tony Killeen had twice written to the minister for justice seeking early release for a heinous double rapist, Joseph Nugent. Fine Gael’s Pat Breen went so far as to put down a parliamentary question about when Nugent would be released. The Cork Labour TD Kathleen Lynch wrote a letter to a judge in 2008 to tell him that a convicted rapist of two children came from “a good family”.

What happened when these interventions came to public attention? Molloy eventually resigned – but that was because his office had gone even further and tried to contact the judge directly. The other three subsequently gained political promotion: Killeen to the cabinet as minister for defence; Breen to the chairmanship of the Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs; and Lynch to a junior ministry with responsibility for disability and older people. It is absolutely clear that the existing standard in Ireland is that making representations on behalf of a child rapist does not debar you from public office.

So, is Norris’s offence worse than these others? Hardly. It relates to a crime that, while utterly inexcusable,

and it had been happening all the time

starbelgrade

I think the whole argument is fairly pointless. I don't think Norris ever stood a chance off being elected even if he did have enough nominations... his appeal pretty much stops at the boundaries of Dublin County, where less than half the population of the country live.

Even if he received the majority of the Dublin vote, he would have gotten very few votes outside Dublin.

And this latest story has scuppered his chances of getting any votes at all.

ixoy

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Should Kathleen Lynch Resign

So a politics thread where half the people are saying she shouldn't resign is your basis?

Were you concerned this was a particular agenda the Irish people have taken against Norris just because he is gay which would have been ignored if he was straight?

I did wonder if people were so up in arms against similar cases in the past - some of those threads linked above certainly don't convince me otherwise.
If people here are calling for his resignation, would they have been equally as vocal in those other incidents?

thebigbiffo

Wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Defending a 40 year old who had sex with a 15 year old is not on, simple as that, doesn't matter what sexes were involved.

Seeing as Cowen hasn't thrown his hat in the ring - I'll probably go with Mickey D...

HarryPotter41

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Defending a 40 year old who had sex with a 15 year old is not on, simple as that, doesn't matter what sexes were involved.

Seeing as Cowen hasn't thrown his hat in the ring - I'll probably go with Mickey D...

Cowen tried, but after 20 pints of Guinness he missed the bloody ring by a mile with the hat.