David Norris - Post-Revelations

Show Time

pH wrote: »

Now that Norris has been dealt with by the hysterical masses, let's see how much hysteria can be generated by these far more recent letters ...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=mhojidcwkfoj&c=ireland
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/1024/breaking80.html
http://www.tyronetimes.co.uk/news/local/mcgeough_s_royal_pardon_bid_given_td_s_support_1_2882284

Let me guess, none?

Fight one battle at a time.

Einhard

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So when does the Gay Mitchell witch hunt start? Or does he get away with it because he's straight?

Get away with what?

Chucky the tree

Einhard wrote: »

Get away with what?

Writing a letter looking for clemency for a convicted criminal in another country.

Show Time

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Lynch was never president.

With what is on offer then the bones of Jack would do a better job.

dvpower

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

If this was a letter defending a man (or woman) having sex with a girl (or boy), I would like to think the same standards would be applied by the media.

But DN's letter wasn't one defending a man having sex with a boy. It was defending a man who had sex with a boy (defending the sinner, not the sin).

Einhard

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Writing a letter looking for clemency for a convicted criminal in another country.

If it's shown that he did so, then he too should remove himself from the race. Although, in fairness, it depends on the crime committed. I read here that Mitchell sought to make representations on behalf of an abortion clinic bomber in the US- if true, then he should face the same reaction as Norris.

Chucky the tree

Einhard wrote: »

If it's shown that he did so, then he too should remove himself from the race. Although, in fairness, it depends on the crime committed. I read here that Mitchell sought to make representations on behalf of an abortion clinic bomber in the US- if true, then he should face the same reaction as Norris.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0903/deathrow.html

Show Time

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

He wasn't trying to get him off the hook, it was a plea for leniency. And 'kiddie fiddling' is hardly an appropriate way to describe a 15 year old who is acting out of their own free willl.

The free will of a 15 year old could be debated all day and night but most lads that age can't walk and chew gum at the same time so i would call a 40 year old having sex with a 15 year old kiddie fiddling. Leniency as it a lighter sentence is also a form of getting someone of the hook.

Bullseye1

I hope the other candidates get equal scrutiny. Regardless of his writing this letter there has been a concerted effort by some elements to drag him through the mud. I cannot recall such scrutiny of a Presidential candidate before.

Aldebaran

I probably wouldn't have voted for him but he should have been allowed to run, let the people decide.

UglyBolloxFace

Let's look at it this way;

Only a guilty person or a person who feels guilt regarding the current circumstances would (a) hide away all weekend from the developments like a coward and (b) end up quitting the Presidential race after finally surfacing.

Based on the above and taking the whole situation into account, Norris knows what he has done is a serious offence (the letter etc) and has rightly stepped down.

However, I am really annoyed that he disrespected us all by hiding away for so long - he could have easily said, when this news broke, that he would make a comment in the coming days, but no he didn't even bother.

Is this a man who we want/deserve as president of our country? A man who cowardly hides away when the going gets tough? We need a strong person for the presidency, not a person who cracks under pressure and, frankly, looks like he or she is in it for a nice little retirement package.

And to those who scream 'homophobia' at the first mention of criticism of Norris - you should all be ashamed of yourselves; stop playing the victim and get a grip.

carlos D

Einhard wrote: »

If it's shown that he did so, then he too should remove himself from the race. Although, in fairness, it depends on the crime committed. I read here that Mitchell sought to make representations on behalf of an abortion clinic bomber in the US- if true, then he should face the same reaction as Norris.

It was a man on death row,we don't believe in that here. So he didn't do anything innapropriate. On the contrary, we don't believe in having sex with 15 year old boys here and trying to get our lovers off the hook,that's where Norris went wrong. Face it,Boards.ie and Politics.ie have no sway in the world,you are nothing,most people go to work everyday and live honest lives,they don't have time for a tiny minority who pretend that their opinions actually matter. Norris was the darling of the Irish left and the Irish blogosphere purely because he was gay, he acted like a horrible human being (nevermind politician) through all of this and the rose tinted glasses of the left (serisouly he defended his 40 year old lover having sex witha 15 year old boy!) have shown the left's delusion and inability to deal with any matter with honesty.

CramCycle

My name is URL wrote: »

Well, let's hope people show the same sense of outrage towards Gay Mitchell, who tried to have the sentence of a double murderer reduced a few years back. It's only right that he should pull out of the race too.

PM me the start of a new thread, he too deserves to be booted out of the race, I'm liking this race by elimination we got going on.

pH wrote: »

Now that Norris has been dealt with by the hysterical masses, let's see how much hysteria can be generated by these far more recent letters ...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=mhojidcwkfoj&c=ireland

"The judge noted he had received personal letters from Labour TD, Mrs Kathleen Lynch"

Inappropriate and wrong, a woman who should be ashemed of her behaviour and should be forced to resign for apparent defence of this person, regardless of circumstances. Thankfully the judge ignored it as it made no sense.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/1024/breaking80.html

I can't access this one w/o an irish times password

http://www.tyronetimes.co.uk/news/local/mcgeough_s_royal_pardon_bid_given_td_s_support_1_2882284

Won't comment on this one as I know too little about it

Let me guess, one?

Personally any TD making representations for a local person using their position to gather favour for the persons position should be excluded from the Dail and immediately dismissed from office, TDs are meant to be for the country not the county, a pity no one realises this.

sock puppet

carlos D wrote: »

It was a man on death row,we don't believe in that here. So he didn't do anything innapropriate.

Utter crap. Mitchell defended him because of the nature of the murders. Plenty of other inmates on death row.

mikemac

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I cannot recall such scrutiny of a Presidential candidate before.

You don't remember Mary Robinson and having a new-found interest in her family comments?

Brian Lenihan attacked for being involved when Paddy Hillary was pressured to dissolve the goverment? Though this was deserved

Dana ridiculed on Galway Bay FM?

And while it happened after the election, McAleese criticized by Archbishop Connell for going to a Church of Ireland service

Norris was an innocent lamb the way he was so unprepared, elections are a lot dirtier then his vote for TCD

Show Time wrote: »

With what is on offer then the bones of Jack would do a better job.

A Corkman as President?
More chance of Norris winning that that ever happening :P

CramCycle

Has Sean Gallagher ever done anything as wrong as the other candidates? Nothing against the guy, i just don't think he is suitable but depressingly he may get in on the basis that the others are too morally inappropriate to get in.

carlos D

sock puppet wrote: »

Utter crap. Mitchell defended him because of the nature of the murders. Plenty of other inmates on death row.

Maybe,but he wasn't his lover so it's not as bad.He had nothing to gain personally from it. Norris had a lover to keep a hold of.

Einhard

Chucky the tree wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0903/deathrow.html

I don't think the two can be compared really. From reading that article, it appears that Mitchell acted because he is against the death penalty. Many people, including Amnesty and other such organisations, petition the authorities in various countries to forego the capital penalty. However, if it turns out that this was a once off on Mitchell's part, and that he acted because his religious and social beliefs are similar to the bomber's, I'd view his actions much more seriously.

Catari Jaguar

I support homosexuality, but not those who condone a pederest's abusive actions. I personally don't know the circumstances of what happened or why Norris was so certain of writing that but he shot himself in the foot. I do pity him, it's a devastating blow and is harmful to the gay community in general. As mentioned perviously, many (ignorant) people equate gays wth paedophilia.

I think he does great humanitarian work in East Timor and highlighting trafficking in Thailand.. I like his Israeli stance and opinions about abortion. So I wouldn't have known how to vote. Not that it matters now.

I hate mud slinging and dirty tactics.

dvpower

CramCycle wrote: »

Personally any TD making representations for a local person using their position to gather favour for the persons position should be excluded from the Dail and immediately dismissed from office, TDs are meant to be for the country not the county, a pity no one realises this.

Clientelism has been the backbone of our system for generations. Half the people who attend constituency clinics are looking for their TD to use their influence to get something done or some queue skipped.

KnifeWRENCH

carlos D wrote: »

It was a man on death row,we don't believe in that here. So he didn't do anything innapropriate.

True but they do believe in it in Florida. So what business had Mitchell interfering? If he, like Norris, used his position as a Government official to try and interfere with a matter that should not have concerned him then he should be held to the same standards as Norris.
And I think double murder is a worse crime to appeal for leniency for than statutory rape. Add in the fact that the convict had murdered an abortionist, and you have to wonder was this the only reason why Gay "pro life Christian Democrat" Mitchell bothered getting involved? Somehow, I don't think he'd have written that letter if an abortionist was on death row for murdering a pro-life activist.

It would be highly unfair if Mitchell (and indeed all the other candidates) is not subjected to the same scrutiny and hounding as Norris.

Sir Oxman

sock puppet wrote: »

Utter crap. Mitchell defended him because of the nature of the murders. Plenty of other inmates on death row.

That's the issue I'd like cleared up by FG and Mr Mitchell.

I think they may have a stock reply already at hand as they would be a far more professional and slick campaign than Mr Norris's - something along the lines of:

"the murderer wanted to become a martyr by dying, commuting will stop this from happening"

I'm sure that will be the line...

CramCycle

carlos D wrote: »

Maybe,but he wasn't his lover so it's not as bad.He had nothing to gain personally from it. Norris had a lover to keep a hold of.

It's equally as bad, he is interfering in another states business, making representations on behalf of the Irish people, which he had no right to do. It's not the behaviour of a future president and should not be accepted at any level in elected government, it would be acceptable if a vote was called on in the Dail, other than that he was wrong.

Chucky the tree

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think the two can be compared really. From reading that article, it appears that Mitchell acted because he is against the death penalty. Many people, including Amnesty and other such organisations, petition the authorities in various countries to forego the capital penalty. However, if it turns out that this was a once off on Mitchell's part, and that he acted because his religious and social beliefs are similar to the bomber's, I'd view his actions much more seriously.

So why hasn't he written letters for every prisoner on death row in America? There are no other news reports of him writing letters, I mean maybe it's just a big conecidence that the one time he decides to write a letter because he's happens to be against the death just happens to be for an ex-minister who religious beliefs would be very similar to Mitchell's.

Ash.J.Williams

northkildare wrote: »

DN so far has 18 votes above, Many of us stand by him, We dont complain about what straight people do so dont see why when a gay man like david has normal point of veiw he gets run over,

Many in our community still support him all the way, nobody can point out what already happens on the scene anyway regardless. try going to our clubs and see for yourself what david means and maybe youl have a better understanding

You see it's not about gay or straight in this case...peoples careers have been ruined in the past for making representations on behalf of drunk drivers, rapists, thugs etc

If a male of a mature age came onto my son OR daughter i would actually kill them to be honest.

sock puppet

carlos D wrote: »

Maybe,but he wasn't his lover so it's not as bad.He had nothing to gain personally from it. Norris had a lover to keep a hold of.

I don't see how being intimate makes it any worse although using the Seanad letterhead does imo.

Einhard

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So why hasn't he written letters for every prisoner on death row in America? There are no other news reports of him writing letters, I mean maybe it's just a big conecidence that the one time he decides to write a letter because he's happens to be against the death just happens to be for an ex-minister who religious beliefs would be very similar to Mitchell's.

As I indicated, I'll reserve judgement on this issue until I have more information. If, as appears likely, this was a once off act on Mitchell's part, motivated, at least in part, by sympathy for the bomber's ideology, then Mitchell should leave the race.

carlos D

sock puppet wrote: »

I don't see how being intimate makes it any worse although using the Seanad letterhead does imo.

There was nothing that Gay Mitchell did that was inconsistent with his beliefs.He is pro-life,there was a high profile case of a someone with similar views to his who committed a murder,and Gay Mitchell hearing of it opposed it on the basis that he is opposed to the Death Penalty. Seems fairly straight forward.

Whereas Norris and his supporters repeatedly and (as evident from the vitriol on these forums) consdescendingly tried to call anyone who dared to question him a homophobe and a bigot. I know with all fibre of my being that I am not a homophobe or a bigot, however when it comes to sexuality I don't think being gay gives you a free pass to behave irresponsibly or recklessly. This is especially true when it comes to the case of a child being groomed for sex. Norris tried to claim that all of his opponents were smearing him by suggesting that he had bizarre views on the age of consent, this story came out and we saw that it was questionable. He lost because he lied,simple as. Mitchell has nothing to hide, you can disagree with it alright, but he has done nothing to be contradictory or embarrassing, simply embroiled himself in a complicated debate when he didn't have to. From having Mary McAleese as President we should know that that is not necessarily the anthithesis of being a respected President of Ireland. Lying and serving friends and lovers are something we've had enough of though.

dvpower

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think the two can be compared really. From reading that article, it appears that Mitchell acted because he is against the death penalty. Many people, including Amnesty and other such organisations, petition the authorities in various countries to forego the capital penalty. However, if it turns out that this was a once off on Mitchell's part, and that he acted because his religious and social beliefs are similar to the bomber's, I'd view his actions much more seriously.

That's the problem when we get into good representations and bad representations; we now have to make value judgements about the nature of the crime itself and the motivation for the representation (and look far into the future to guess if what is acceptable now, will remain acceptable later).

Perhaps we should require that any representations our elected officials make using their elected offices should be published for all to see.

Anyway, do we know did Gay Mitchell use any official capacity to add weight to his representations or was it a private matter?

K-9

CramCycle wrote: »

Has Sean Gallagher ever done anything as wrong as the other candidates? Nothing against the guy, i just don't think he is suitable but depressingly he may get in on the basis that the others are too morally inappropriate to get in.

What has he actually achieved though?