David Norris - Post-Revelations

Happyman42

wonderfulname wrote: »

Did you even read that? Or did you just google "Norris Ó Searcaigh" and post the first thing that came up, wrongly assuming it would support your viewpoint?
1. He did not attempt to cover anything up.
2. There is a very serious difference between sexual abuse and consensual sex with a minor, neither are acceptable, but one is considerably worse than the other.Could you explain how you arrived at such an conclusion? Because from my own experience it's blind assumption, the rest of the country isn't that far out of kilter with Dublin at all.As above, there is a serious difference between "grooming young vulnerable boys" and consensual sex with a minor. As of yet, nobody has managed to even show if the man was aware of the crime at the time, and yes it is possible he wasn't, as a 15 year old girl I would have gone out, drank in pubs, had the craic and been hit on by older guys who assumed I was about twenty, at that age I had the capacity to say no, nobody should be making assumptions as to the nature of the crime, not least because it is completely irrelevant.

The calibre of the other candidates is quite frankly appalling, with the exception of Higgins, although he isn't the most presidential either... hopefully the media scrutinises them all with the vigour they did Norris, is there any possibility of another potential candidate joining the fray at this stage?

In light of what we as a country have been through it is downright disgusting to see how far people will go to attempt to exonerate and excuse this man.
THERE CAN BE NO AMBIVALENCE ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF MINORS.

AudreyHepburn

I am really gutted at this whole thing. I still think he is a good man at heart.

To judge from his speech earlier it does not seem that he was actually defending what his boyfriend did, but just making a desperate attempt to help some-one he loved.

I do not see his actions as condoning child abuse at all however I do agree he was right to pull out of the race.

I really don't know who to vote for now :(

Caulego

whydoibother? wrote: »

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.

Right, it is a matter of choosing what we do with our minds, and that is why we bring judgement on ourselves, as we are the ones doing the thinking and acting. We do what we want to do, so we are to blame, and there are no extenuating circumstances where it comes to sex between adults and children.
Therefore, just like any and all of us when we exercise choices, individually, Ezra Nawi decided, as an adult, to engage in sex with a minor, knowing of the possible consequences of what David Norris today himself described as being his "disgraceful behaviour", which I agree with. However, David Norris then immediately followed up by saying "I do not regret supporting and seeking clemency for a friend...", which seems to be a contradiction, as he admits that the fact that the sex act with a minor was "disgraceful". This I cannot reconcile as making any sort of logical reasoning, as it appears to say two opposing things at the same time. Here is the link to the RTE broadcast LINK, so maybe someone could comment on what he is actually saying.
Children's minds are pliable, and they often haven't sorted out their thinking and reasoning till at least their late teens (also applies to some adults too), so any covert manipulation by an adult can only be considered, in my opinion, to be perverted, as it takes unfair advantage of an unformed mind.

wonderfulname

Happyman42 wrote: »

In light of what we as a country have been through it is downright disgusting to see how far people will go to attempt to exonerate and excuse this man.
THERE CAN BE NO AMBIVALENCE ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF MINORS.

I'm not protecting him, you're just making that assumption so you can ignore what I'm saying.

I have already posted elsewhere as to my opinions:

wonderfulname wrote: »

I feel incredibly sorry for the man, I understand his motivations, and knowing little of the true situation surrounding his ex-partners conviction I do not feel it fair to jump to conclusions good or bad. However Norris used his position, and indeed this country's name secretively in order to give what should have been a mere character statement additional weight, and in a far too heavy handed manner. In effect he attempted to use his position in order to sway a judiciary, it is very unlikely there is anything he can say in order to regain my vote, such a shame because now there is no potential candidate I see fit to be our head of state.

Once again, the question of the nature of the crime is not relevant, although yes there is a difference between sex with a minor and rape, and I am quite frankly disgusted at the suggestion there isn't, but nobody should be judging Norris by the actions of his ex-partner, they should be judging him by his own actions, in interfering in the justice system of another country, using his public office, for purely personal reasons.

The Chessplayer

Get over yourselves lads, everyone in here preaching from the pulpit. Bloody shame about Norris, a real legend of a man. So what, he asked for clemency for his ex boyfriend, he didn't ask for him to be exonnerated. He should still be in the race, this country needs a character like him in the presidency (which is a completely irrelevant role by the way). 5 or 10 TD nominations should be all that is required.

As long as we don't get a boring FF conservative type as president I don't mind. Come on Michael D.

Norris was my first choice, Gerry Adams number 2 (until it was clear he was running in Louth).

wonderfulname

Caulego wrote: »

...so any covert manipulation by an adult can only be considered, in my opinion, to be perverted, as it takes unfair advantage of an unformed mind.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions and more bloody assumptions, show me where this statement can be proven, show me where it is relevant to the situation under discussion, once again, consensual sex with a minor is not the same as grooming and manipulating a child, it is not the same as aggravated rape, it does not necessarily involve any wrongdoing other than shagging somebody below an arbitrary age, nobody has shown that anything other than the latter happened, the conviction is for nothing but the latter, in fact, given the nature of the laws in Israel it may even be for oral sex, would people stick to the facts and stop sensationalising everything.

Happyman42

wonderfulname wrote: »

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions and more bloody assumptions, show me where this statement can be proven, show me where it is relevant to the situation under discussion, once again, consensual sex with a minor is not the same as grooming and manipulating a child, it is not the same as aggravated rape, it does not necessarily involve any wrongdoing other than shagging somebody below an arbitrary age, nobody has shown that anything other than the latter happened, the conviction is for nothing but the latter, in fact, given the nature of the laws in Israel it may even be for oral sex, would people stick to the facts and stop sensationalising everything.

He was charged with STATUTORY RAPE he pleaded GUILTY. Therefore he himself believed he had committed a CRIME.
Norris used his office to intervene in the sentencing of his lover. He used no objective thought....I DEMAND objectivity of all elected officials in everything they do in OFFICE.

Caulego

Will wrote: »

The things he has done far outshine any politician currently around so they're trying to focus on a headed letter... wow. A headed letter. This pales in comparison to the things other politicians have done to us and our country.

If you can't get the principle behind the fact that he used his official political office to make and support a representation for a 45 year old man who admitted to raping a young boy, then maybe you need to think again. Using other's bad behaviour as some sort of excuse is a form of mental self-trickery, and is symptomatic of a very suspect mindset, and very poor judgement, just like DN.

wonderfulname

Happyman42 wrote: »

He was charged with STATUTORY RAPE he pleaded GUILTY. Therefore he himself believed he had committed a CRIME.
Norris used his office to intervene in the sentencing of his lover. He used no objective thought....I DEMAND objectivity of all elected officials in everything they do in OFFICE.

Yes, he PLEAD guilty to having sexual contact of a certain nature with a minor, it is a crime, I never ONCE questioned that, nobody here did, WHY are we typing like a bad DAILY Mail article?

The rest of your point is just agreeing with me*

*Although the objective thought point is bloody ironic

HarryPotter41

tayto lover wrote: »

How would you describe a 14 year old then or 13, 12, 11 etc. If they are underage they are underage. It is 17 years here by the way and 18 in some places and may have something to do with their maturity or mental capacity to make proper and informed decisions.

If it ever starts going completely by maturity or mental capacity, most Americans will never get laid. I do agree though that underage is underage, this "its only a couple of months" stuff is nonsense when the age gap is 30 years.

HarryPotter41

wonderfulname wrote: »

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions and more bloody assumptions, show me where this statement can be proven, show me where it is relevant to the situation under discussion, once again, consensual sex with a minor is not the same as grooming and manipulating a child, it is not the same as aggravated rape, it does not necessarily involve any wrongdoing other than shagging somebody below an arbitrary age, nobody has shown that anything other than the latter happened, the conviction is for nothing but the latter, in fact, given the nature of the laws in Israel it may even be for oral sex, would people stick to the facts and stop sensationalising everything.

Do you deal with many 15yo children? It is very easy for anyone in a position of trust to manipulate them in such a subtle manner that they will agree to what you want. Thats why the onus is on the adult not to take advantage of that.

Happyman42

wonderfulname wrote: »

would people stick to the facts and stop sensationalising everything.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Yes, he PLEAD guilty to having sexual contact of a certain nature with a minor, it is a crime, I never ONCE questioned that, nobody here did, WHY are we typing like a bad DAILY Mail article?

The rest of your point is just agreeing with me*

*Although the objective thought point is bloody ironic

My objectivity informs me that pleading clemency for a 40 yr old man GUILTY of statutory rape is a sensational abuse of your position as a Senator.

Caulego

Happyman42 wrote: »

He was charged with STATUTORY RAPE he pleaded GUILTY. Therefore he himself believed he had committed a CRIME.
Norris used his office to intervene in the sentencing of his lover. He used no objective thought....I DEMAND objectivity of all elected officials in everything they do in OFFICE.

Exactly. He admitted guilt to the crime of rape, and Norris supported him by saying that Ezra Yitzhak Nawi was a “good and moral person”, despite this own admission of his being a rapist. Norris used his influence as a public representative, as Senator, on official State documentation, to try to influence the courts. These are the facts, the cold and hard facts, which is what counts, not the selectively blind idea that gays, or any 'minority' are somehow any more moral than anyone else. Being a member of a minority group does not automatically make you 'right' or 'moral' - period. If you don't like facts, you can of course create beliefs that they are not in fact facts, but that is madness, which is not a clever option, though it is a national credo in this country of ours i.e. belief is good. No, it is not - it is blind, just like it says on the tin.
Time for people to grow up and distill their beliefs from their realities. If nothing else, this event, like much of the revelations of the abuse of power by the religious denominations etc, it just shows that the disease of lust for and the abuse of power and privelege, which the distracted and gullible citizenry predictably turn a blind eye to, is endemic in all levels of our apparently schizophrenic society. Belief, be it personal, religiously indoctrinated, schooled, via the media, has left us all in a vacuum of confusion and disarray, and we have no one to blame but ourselves for slurping up what passes as being 'informed' opinion, but in fact is based on emotional and self-serving notions.

Caulego

wonderfulname wrote: »

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions and more bloody assumptions, show me where this statement can be proven, show me where it is relevant to the situation under discussion, once again, consensual sex with a minor is not the same as grooming and manipulating a child, it is not the same as aggravated rape, it does not necessarily involve any wrongdoing other than shagging somebody below an arbitrary age, nobody has shown that anything other than the latter happened, the conviction is for nothing but the latter, in fact, given the nature of the laws in Israel it may even be for oral sex, would people stick to the facts and stop sensationalising everything.

OK, let's stick to the hard and actual facts then. It appears that David Norris would not agree with you on the points he made in his speech today, where he said:
"I deeply regret the most recent of all the controversies concerning my former partner of twenty five years ago, Ezra Nawi. The fallout from his disgraceful behaviour has now spread to me and is in danger of contaminating others close to me both in my political and personal life. It is essential that I act decisively now to halt this negative process.
I do not regret supporting and seeking clemency for a friend, but I do regret giving the impression that I did not have sufficient compassion for the victim of Ezra’s crime.


So, do you have any other facts to deny what Mr Norris emphatically stated himself? He admits that Nawi comitted a crime, and that the child was a victim, a young person who was caused to suffer through no fault of their own. Let's stick to the cold, hard, unsensationalised facts, as you suggest, OK?

carlos D

wonderfulname wrote: »

Did you even read that? Or did you just google "Norris Ó Searcaigh" and post the first thing that came up, wrongly assuming it would support your viewpoint?
1. He did not attempt to cover anything up.
2. There is a very serious difference between sexual abuse and consensual sex with a minor, neither are acceptable, but one is considerably worse than the other.Could you explain how you arrived at such an conclusion? Because from my own experience it's blind assumption, the rest of the country isn't that far out of kilter with Dublin at all.As above, there is a serious difference between "grooming young vulnerable boys" and consensual sex with a minor. As of yet, nobody has managed to even show if the man was aware of the crime at the time, and yes it is possible he wasn't, as a 15 year old girl I would have gone out, drank in pubs, had the craic and been hit on by older guys who assumed I was about twenty, at that age I had the capacity to say no, nobody should be making assumptions as to the nature of the crime, not least because it is completely irrelevant.

The calibre of the other candidates is quite frankly appalling, with the exception of Higgins, although he isn't the most presidential either... hopefully the media scrutinises them all with the vigour they did Norris, is there any possibility of another potential candidate joining the fray at this stage?

There is no difference in reality between 'consensual sex with a minor' and a 40 year old man preying on some confused 15 year old. Absolutely bizarre that anyone, even the most out of touch intellectual such as David Norris, could have a view like that and not see the absolute cynicism behind it. Had the 15 year old been a girl I wouldn't have any respect for him so the fact that it was a bo does not change that for me. This is no different from the Roman Polanski case, liberals lining up to pledge their allegiance to some dirty old man while alienating and ignoring the victim of said crime simply because that does not fit in with their ideology.

Caulego

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.

Interesting outlook indeed. So you, like Norris, think that the laws of a democratically governed and sovereign nation, Isreal, should be influenced by your personal opinion and latent bias? If it were to happen that a Jewish senator did as Norris did in the case of an Irish minor, would you think likewise?

Norris himself described the child as a victim "I do not regret supporting and seeking clemency for a friend, but I do regret giving the impression that I did not have sufficient compassion for the victim of Ezra’s crime." So, Norris accepts the 'event' as a crime, with his ex-lover being a criminal, with a resultant 'victim'. A victim is one who is caused harm by another through no fault of their own.
Even apart from all that, your statement is objectionable from the point of view of saying "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." You could at least ask them what age they were, no? Or do you think they spontaneously has sex without the adult finding out? That makes it even worse, and further exacerbates the stereotyped idea of gays being promiscuous, so you can't have it both ways, can you? Maybe you think otherwise?

philologos

wonderfulname: In Cathal Ó Searcaigh's case the minors consented but were also manipulated into doing so. We don't know the variables behind this case and we can't make any coherent judgement on it as a result.

A Disgrace

We've all stood up for people we love, in spite of their 'crimes', and it's only natural that he did too.. In fact, sometimes (as I have been) you get so blinded by love that you only want to believe the improbable, and continue to hang on to it, whilst the obvious hits you in the face. (I once made multiple excuses for an ex who was sleeping with someone else for months, if only to make myself feel better and not to face up to the truth - and even after it all came out and we broke up, we got back together) Norris' only real crime here is of being in love, and he has paid the price (not that he hadn't already by being in relationship with this guy)

Min

philologos wrote: »

wonderfulname: In Cathal Ó Searcaigh's case the minors consented but were also manipulated into doing so. We don't know the variables behind this case and we can't make any coherent judgement on it as a result.

David Norris also said they could have been the legal age of consent, even though homosexual sex is illegal in Nepal.
He argued RTE should not show the program.

skregs

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.

Yeah, I completely agree. That's why Tom Humphries still has a cushy job and gets high fives from Brian Dobson on the news every night, even though he was having (consensual!) sex with a sixteen year old girl.


Oh wait, no. Tom Humphries is now on the sex offenders register, the first article on googling him says "Tom Humphries Journalist Accused of Child Rape", his career is destroyed, and he is utterly, utterly vilified.



But by no means don't let that stop you claiming the only reason people are criticising Norris is because of homophobia and not because of condoning child rape

philologos

Min wrote: »

David Norris also said they could have been the legal age of consent, even though homosexual sex is illegal in Nepal.
He argued RTE should not show the program.

Even so. I'm just saying that just because something may seem to be consensual doesn't necessarily mean that other factors don't come into consideration.

The Israeli authorities deemed him guilty, and he was guilty according to their laws. There is no justifiable means for excusing such behaviour. The full weight of that law was brought upon him and should have been brought upon him. For Norris love got in the way in respect to what should have been his better judgement.

fryup

did anyone recognise Mr Pussy on the news at nine

XxMCRxBabyxX

A Disgrace wrote: »

We've all stood up for people we love, in spite of their 'crimes', and it's only natural that he did too.. In fact, sometimes (as I have been) you get so blinded by love that you only want to believe the improbable, and continue to hang on to it, whilst the obvious hits you in the face. (I once made multiple excuses for an ex who was sleeping with someone else for months, if only to make myself feel better and not to face up to the truth - and even after it all came out and we broke up, we got back together) Norris' only real crime here is of being in love, and he has paid the price (not that he hadn't already by being in relationship with this guy)

Ah but Norris knew his lover was guilty. He wasn't hiding from any truths. Only attempting to "justify" them

And you didn't pledge your support for your ex as a public representative of this country

Liam Byrne

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,

"to a lesser extent" ?

What a load of absolute rubbish!

What the hell gives you the right to claim the above ?

Unregistered.

Yes.

Orizio

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"to a lesser extent" ?

What a load of absolute rubbish!

What the hell gives you the right to claim the above ?

Just be glad you aren't a culchie mate.

dvpower

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"to a lesser extent" ?

What a load of absolute rubbish!

What the hell gives you the right to claim the above ?

I think he might be playing games.

K-9

Orizio champion troll mod vs. King of self righteousness and Boards very own Joe Duffy, Liam Byrne.

Liam Byrne

Orizio wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"to a lesser extent" ?

What a load of absolute rubbish!

What the hell gives you the right to claim the above ?

Just be glad you aren't a culchie mate.

I'd rather be a culchie than someone who makes false obnoxious claims.

Going Forward

Wouldnt have gotten behind him anyway.

Michael D. is the man.