David Norris - Post-Revelations

Caulego

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)

I can see how many people express things like you just said, and there are few of us who have not been stupid when it comes to what is popularly called 'love'. However, if we take a minute to think about it, there is reasoned love, based on understanding and reality, and there is unreasoned love, which is based on self-serving belief and self-interest. Many people only look at the version that suits them, mostly for primal and emotional needs, but then we pay the price for being so biased, when the very foundations upon which we plant our delusions and misunderstandings collapse under us, and when reality comes knocking. Some choose to learn to tell the difference, and some still continue to repeat the process over and over, with predictably negative consequences, blindly charging about looking for a security that we don't actually understand, and therefore can't find, due to its non-existence.

When we are young and impressionable, or bullied, or emotionally compromised by some need, or by a person in a position of authority, our emotional need for secuity, even the promise of non-existent security, can often lead to our judgement being compromised. Sometimes it is unmercifuly played upon by those who know what buttons to press, what words and enticements to use, purely for cold-blooded motives that have nothing to do with respect. They do it because they can, and have no sentiment or motivation beyond that animalistic need to manipulate and feel in control. Such animals actually have no real control of themselves, so they find it an easier choice to practice their art on someone else, and manipulate them to do what they want, with no regard for the feelings of the victim.

In this case, as in many other sordid stories that litter our media-driven landscape, we are dealing with sex here, not actual love (reasoned respect)
A good and wise friend of mine, while discussing this very subject, said, "If sex and love where one and the same, how would prostitutes ever make money?" Makes one think, doesn't it? This, in my opinion, clarified what is at the very root of the problem we have with understanding what it is that we are saying to ourselves, and being brainwashed into accepting, as love and sex, respect and fear of authority, are merged into a twisted outlook that keeps on coming up like a plague of weeds in practically every strand of our society: individuals, family, churches, schools, legal and political.

Sex, when all the flowery stuff is taken away, is basically humping someone, whilst true love is reasoned respect, period, and should never be confused with sex, as they are completely unrelated. If sex and love are synonomous, then a dogs or rabbits are the most loving creatures on earth.
To find the truth of something, we have to give up false and self-comforting beliefs, but in a society and world where we are taught to think that belief (unfounded opinion) is the thing to buy into and never allow it to be questioned, is it any wonder it's ended up the way it is? We are trained like chimps to accept belief as fact, as it plays on our deepest need for security, even if it causes us to sell our moral integrity in the pursuit of it. In this way is love, the noblest emotion of the human form, reduced to nothing more than a humping session.

old hippy

Caulego wrote: »

...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?

Only simple minded bigots buy into stereotypes

starbelgrade

:eek:

Who let David Norris on Boards?

Going Forward

starbelgrade wrote: »

:eek:

Who let David Norris on Boards?

:D:D

dvpower

skregs wrote: »

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.

Hardly utterly, utterly vilified. Do a google news search and its hard to find any mainstream reporting on him at all.

Of course, Norris is not accused of anything like what Humphries is accused of. Far, far from it.

KeithM89_old

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

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"to a lesser extent" ?

What a load of absolute rubbish!

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

Orizio wrote: »

Just be glad you aren't a culchie mate.

K-9 wrote: »

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

Play nice or youre gone.

Caulego

old hippy wrote: »

Only simple minded bigots buy into stereotypes

That may be quite true, but giving your enemies rocks to throw at you, by contradiction, is not clever either. If gays, or any other supposed 'minority' group want due respect, all I'm saying is then they must act accordingly, and don't contradict themselves by abusing State privelege to represent an ex-lover when you know has admitted to and had pleaded guilty to a crime. Sauce for the gooose is sauce for the gander. Minorities should not be given any higher recognition than any other individual, as it is how we all behave that is the leveler of our reward or punishment.

Pompey Magnus

Chucky the tree wrote: »

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

Complete nonsense. If Ezra Nawi had been on death row for the crime of statutory rape and Norris was seeking to have the death penalty commuted to a suitably strict term of imprisonment there is not a person in this country who would have condemned him for it, not one.

If Gay Mitchell had attempted to influence a judge into giving a friend an easier sentence for statutory rape of a minor he would have the exact same questions to answer as Norris had.

This comparison between the two cases is a desperate attempt to tarnish the reputation of decent Irish people as homophobes by Norris supporters who are too blind to see the real reason for his fall and is completely disgraceful behaviour in my opinion.

Caulego

Chucky the tree wrote: »

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

What is Mitchell being accused of? I hadn't heard?

Pompey Magnus

Caulego wrote: »

What is Mitchell being accused of? I hadn't heard?

Of having a man taken off death row (not to be released early though, just to recieve a different form of punishment).

Caulego

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Of having a man taken off death row (not to be released early though, just to recieve a different form of punishment).

I see. I presume that the death row guy was not his ex-lover. Fair is fair, so let the facts be dragged out for scrutiny, just as in the case of Norris.

Ruki

Sorry if this is repetition, as I haven't read all the thread, but Norris made a truly revealing remark on The Last Word this evening: he would only attend to criticism if it was Swiftian in its wit... Well, his "naivete" has been mentioned left, right, and centre, yet arrogance is surely closer to the mark? His disdain for how ordinary people express concerns over his action is only a small matter in comparison with the fundamental fact of Nawi's crime, but it's an important bit of mask-slippage. And so much for those bloody annoying impressions he does of Real Dubs - now we know what he really thinks of the man on the street...

A Disgrace

Okay, time for a real poll.. if Norris HADN'T sent that letter, but still news came out about an ex-lover in a statutory rape case, how would you all feel?

carlos D

Ruki wrote: »

Sorry if this is repetition, as I haven't read all the thread, but Norris made a truly revealing remark on The Last Word this evening: he would only attend to criticism if it was Swiftian in its wit... Well, his "naivete" has been mentioned left, right, and centre, yet arrogance is surely closer to the mark? His disdain for how ordinary people express concerns over his action is only a small matter in comparison with the fundamental fact of Nawi's crime, but it's an important bit of mask-slippage. And so much for those bloody annoying impressions he does of Real Dubs - now we know what he really thinks of the man on the street...

We always knew,anyone who enthuses about the merits of pedastry when so many of the population are on the dole,emigrating and killing themselves has no place as our representative.He didn't want to be a representative,only our superior.

sollar

Going Forward wrote: »

Wouldnt have gotten behind him anyway.

:D:D

Childish i know sorry....

Einhard

wonderfulname wrote: »

it does not necessarily involve any wrongdoing other than shagging somebody below an arbitrary age

Are you for real?

dvpower wrote: »

Hardly utterly, utterly vilified. Do a google news search and its hard to find any mainstream reporting on him at all.

Google news search can't be specifically tailored to Irish media, and as there are other Tom Humphries of note in the world, it's hardly surprising that he is not prominent in the results. I don't think the Youngstown Vindicator is going to be all that interested in the sexual acts of an Irish sports journalist.

I don't have to do any such search though to recall the reporting of Humphrie's crime. It was all over the media at the time, and was reported in very sensationalist manner in he tabloids. I can't believe that people are attempting to make out that Humphries wasn't the subject of extensive coverage in the media.

Of course, Norris is not accused of anything like what Humphries is accused of. Far, far from it.

No, but Ezra Nawi was convicted of exactly what Humphries is accused of, and yet we have people here attempting to minimise the the charges. Would the same people come out in support of Humphries, or is it just gay people who qualify for this special dispensation?

Pompey Magnus

Einhard wrote: »

Would the same people come out in support of Humphries

I asked earlier why there was this effort to down play the statutory rape of a 15 year old boy but to rightfully denounce the statutory rape of a 14 year old girl bearing in mind the fact that even though there was 1 year in the difference it is well established that girls mature much more quickly at that age than boys and so they could easily be considered comparible cases.

I am still waiting for someone who defends Norris to explain what the difference is and hopefully they can clear it up soon because at the minute they are advocating the belief that the statutory rape of a homosexual minor is to be less deserving of condemnation than the statutory rape of a heterosexual minor which is, well, nothing more than a discriminatory position to hold at the expense of the protection of gay adolescents.

7sr2z3fely84g5

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I asked earlier why there was this effort to down play the statutory rape of a 15 year old boy but to rightfully denounce the statutory rape of a 14 year old girl bearing in the fact that even though there was 1 year in the difference it is well established that girls mature much more quickly at that age than boys and so they could easily be considered comparible cases.

I am still waiting for someone who defends Norris to explain what the difference is and hopefully they can clear it up soon because at the minute they are advocating the belief that the statutory rape of a homosexual minor is to be less deserving of condemnation than the statutory rape of a heterosexual minor which is, well, nothing more than a discriminatory position to hold at the expense of the protection of gay adolescents.

i posted an story of a similar scenario earlier in the thread-
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/exfair-city-star-and-courier-jailed-for-sex-with-schoolboy-1672769.html

What the judge said which was odd-

[Rogers picked up the boy at a shopping centre and brought him to his own home where they had sex. He later dropped him back and gave him gay pornographic DVDs "as a gift".
He picked the boy up a second time and brought him to a nearby lake and they engaged in sexual activity before he again dropped him back at the shopping centre. He gave the boy €10 to buy phone credit.
The boy's mother learned of the meetings after she found suggestive text messages from the men and nude photographs of her son on his phone. She contacted gardai who then launched an investigation.
Garda Hynes said the boy had declined to make a victim impact statement.
Judge Martin Nolan said that neither Dunleavy nor Rogers "groomed this young man or enticed him to meet them", before sentencing them both to two years in prison. He also ordered that both men be registered as sex offenders.

dvpower

Einhard wrote: »

Google news search can't be specifically tailored to Irish media, and as there are other Tom Humphries of note in the world, it's hardly surprising that he is not prominent in the results. I don't think the Youngstown Vindicator is going to be all that interested in the sexual acts of an Irish sports journalist.

I don't have to do any such search though to recall the reporting of Humphrie's crime. It was all over the media at the time, and was reported in very sensationalist manner in he tabloids. I can't believe that people are attempting to make out that Humphries wasn't the subject of extensive coverage in the media.

He does appear in search results. The Sunday World have a pretty sensationalist piece, but after that, all I can find is some bits in IrishCentral.com (the wikipedia references the IrishCentral pieces) and the Irish Observer (who?). I simply can't find the extensive coverage you talk about, nor can I remember it.

It didn't even get a run out on boards (but maybe they have a policy about discussing cases that may come before the courts).

But it may be just me. Maybe he was utterly, utterly vilified and I missed it.

CrystalLettuce

I think the reversal of opinion displayed between these threads is disgusted and I bet most of you didn't even take the time to read up on the incident. You caved into the smear campaign when this sort of things is pretty common behaviour for TDs/Senators in the first place. I'm sure you all think you're mature and doing the right thing too, like good little sheep.

I hate the Irish people and it's disgusting that this happened.

This kind of bull**** makes me angry -

Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy .... If it were a TD he would be expelled for the party...

TDs do **** like this all the time!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0802/1224301718769.html?via=rel

I get tired of all this "it's not because he's gay" ****. Do you really think an openly gay man would catch no flak for it in a catholic conservative nation? Get real. It's obvious a lot of this was just because of who he was and what he stood for, they were just lucky enough to be able to dig up enough on him and twist it in the right way.

Enjoy your no doubt morally bankrupt FF/FG alternatives. ****ing joke. Why do Irish people care about things like morals all of a sudden? I could forgive a man like Sen. Norris for making an honest human mistake(and how much of a mistake that was is debatable) but many people in this thread will have no problem with or will even defend some of the near sociopathic decisions made by those in power or have been in power.

Everyone in this thread who changed their view so easily without properly researching the issue should be ashamed. This lack of backbone is what's wrong with this country. We hear cuts back to me made, **** has to happen, and don't question it, and even dismiss those that do. We are a corrupt people and have no right making these kinds of moral judgements on people.

CrystalLettuce

Ruki wrote: »

Sorry if this is repetition, as I haven't read all the thread, but Norris made a truly revealing remark on The Last Word this evening: he would only attend to criticism if it was Swiftian in its wit... Well, his "naivete" has been mentioned left, right, and centre, yet arrogance is surely closer to the mark? His disdain for how ordinary people express concerns over his action is only a small matter in comparison with the fundamental fact of Nawi's crime, but it's an important bit of mask-slippage. And so much for those bloody annoying impressions he does of Real Dubs - now we know what he really thinks of the man on the street...

Because most of these "Ordinary" people are reactionary idiots. There is nothing wrong with demanding a higher level of intelligence and intellect here, and there is nothing stopping the ordinary person from accessing information in this day and age. If people are going to continue to make thoughtless, reactionary comments, then they can't complain about someone more rational than them not having time for their remarks.

CrystalLettuce

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Complete nonsense. If Ezra Nawi had been on death row for the crime of statutory rape and Norris was seeking to have the death penalty commuted to a suitably strict term of imprisonment there is not a person in this country who would have condemned him for it, not one.

If Gay Mitchell had attempted to influence a judge into giving a friend an easier sentence for statutory rape of a minor he would have the exact same questions to answer as Norris had.

This comparison between the two cases is a desperate attempt to tarnish the reputation of decent Irish people as homophobes by Norris supporters who are too blind to see the real reason for his fall and is completely disgraceful behaviour in my opinion.

But Ireland is still quite a conservative nation. Are you seriously saying we DON'T have a problem with homophobia? the idea of an openly gay man, not only that but one that actively campaigned for gay rights and is completely unapologetic about his progressiveness, becoming president was at least a little shocking - you have to admit it.

It's fundamentally dishonest to act like his sexuality had NOTHING to do with it.

CrystalLettuce

skregs wrote: »

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

Yes, because asking for some degree of clemency towards someone accused of having relations with a minor by a government who is rather notoriously intolerant of people like him(activists, not gays) is exactly the same as having those relations with the minor.

Idiot.

Kanoe

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I hate the Irish people and it's disgusting that this happened.

me too, but I think I always have.

CrystalLettuce

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.

Pleading guilty doesn't mean you believe you did it. Some time it's the better option, as you get a reduced sentence and less ****ing around in court. It's amazing how things like this go out the window though when society looks to justify it's internalised prejudice against both homosexuals and intellectuals.

Plus it's Israel we're talking about.

Pompey Magnus

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

But Ireland is still quite a conservative nation. Are you seriously saying we DON'T have a problem with homophobia? the idea of an openly gay man, not only that but one that actively campaigned for gay rights and is completely unapologetic about his progressiveness, becoming president was at least a little shocking - you have to admit it.

It's fundamentally dishonest to act like his sexuality had NOTHING to do with it.

There are people in Ireland who were against Norris simply because he is gay, just like there were people who were in favour of Norris simply because he is gay. His sexuality shouldn't have been a consideration for either side and both were wrong to do so, he should have been judged on his character and his history.

However I honestly believe these views were very small minorities in both sides and the vast majority of people made their mind up about him based on legitimate grounds.

CrystalLettuce

goat2 wrote: »

i also read those posts, making out that the country cousins are backward, stupid, i am disgusted with that old kind of attitude

But unfortunately, the country is where a lot of "Old" kind of attitude comes from. If you're a gay person living in a small town, you'll know what I'm talking about. Since you're probably not, you probably shouldn't comment on it.

I'm from the country myself, and there are plenty of intolerant dickheads in the city, but no way could I survive in the country.

Happyman42

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Pleading guilty doesn't mean you believe you did it. Some time it's the better option, as you get a reduced sentence and less ****ing around in court. It's amazing how things like this go out the window though when society looks to justify it's internalised prejudice against both homosexuals and intellectuals.

Plus it's Israel we're talking about.

Funny how it became a 'disgraceful act' in the mouth of your winged hero today. And how he had failed to express his compassion for the 'victim'....are you saying now that David believes Nawi to be innocent????

His ambivalence about the seriousness and effect of the crime committed by Nawi, in his letters is what undone him, not his sexuality.
Get over it, he didn't pass muster, he failed to even get on the nomination papers.

CrystalLettuce

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

There are people in Ireland who were against Norris simply because he is gay, just like there were people who were in favour of Norris simply because he is gay. His sexuality shouldn't have been a consideration for either side and both were wrong to do so, he should have been judged on his character and his history.

However I honestly believe these views were very small minorities in both sides and the vast majority of people made their mind up about him based on legitimate grounds.

Him being gay or not was not the main consideration - but him being a huge proponent of gay rights of course, was a huge issue for me. I also read what he said about Cyber bullying among other things and I was taken by what he said.

I strongly disagree with your later assessment. I do not think the Irish people are capable of free thought on that scale. Most people in any given culture really aren't. Most people made up their mind on what they heard from friends or the media. Even I cannot claim to be completely free of bias.

CrystalLettuce

Happyman42 wrote: »

Funny how it became a 'disgraceful act' in the mouth of your winged hero today. And how he had failed to express his compassion for the 'victim'....are you saying now that David believes Nawi to be innocent????

His ambivalence about the seriousness and effect of the crime committed by Nawi, in his letters is what undone him, not his sexuality.
Get over it, he didn't pass muster, he failed to even get on the nomination papers.

The issue is I refuse to believe you care about the victim either, and are just using it as a standing point against him.

It was the smear campaign against him by the media, and the misrepresentation of the letter and the events surrounding it that cost him his running. You and several others have shown a poor understanding of it - so you can't claim the events themselves caused it when you were not supporting him based on a twisted account(many saying rape rather than statutory rape, etc.). Whether these were because he was gay, or a progressive, or an intellectual(Ireland hates intellectuals), who knows, but there was obviously some element of all 3 in there.