David Norris - Post-Revelations

CrystalLettuce

CramCycle wrote: »

Thats what he is saying, he is promoting the idea that inIreland, despite being guilty, he would have gotten away with it.

That's purposely framing in a manner that it looks ridiculous (Reductio ad absurdum).

It's not "despite being", it's regardless. He just made the point that the poor handling of the case would have gotten it thrown out, he wasn't saying "because you did this, you should let him get away with it." You are using weighted and somewhat incorrect language.

He plead guilty. I can't really say more than that, even David admitted his guilt (or by your definition "not beyond a shadow of a doubt") today.

He clearly did not admit such guilt in the letter in question, so clearly he did not send it with the same judgement he has now. He said something to that effect, but I guess it went under your radar. New evidence can come to light, or people can just get less passionate about a cause over time.

He offers a criticism of a foreign states punishment for statutory assault/rape/whatever, it is unreasonable.

It does matter, Norris lent the weight of the Irish people (without their permission) in a quest for leniency towards to a man who admitted the crime, a crime that Norris today admitted happened (although he wasn't there, he seems sure enough of it to make it a mater of record)

I don't see him saying "The Irish people said", he made some comparisons with the system, so obviously he was judging the case on an Irish basis and being an Irish senator, he may well be an advocate of the Irish law he fought to help shape. If you can prove these comparisons wrong, then by all means do it.

He was acting as a personal advocate. He used the office to back him up as a reputable individual, which may have been inadvisable, but was not completely wrong. It's hardly a widescale abuse of power.

Also, pleading guilty and actually committing the crime are two different things, something you continually ignore. The man was refused advice from his lawyer.

You are wrong as I pointed out in the case of the media (and me not reading any for a few days). It is called assault when the crime of statutory rape does not exist, it's a technicality, it still shows that a 40yo having sex with a 15yo is wrong, regardless of what either party say due to the simple fact that, in the few cases the 15yo is mature enough to make the choice, the 40yo should certainly be mature enough to realise that there is no way for them to know wether the 15yo is ready. Simple as that.

Then what about countries where the age of consent is lower? Is it assault then?

The issue is that most adults don't really remember when they were younger as well as they think too. A lot of people are stupid when they're younger, but this isn't something that changes at 17.

CrystalLettuce

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

No come on now, if a 40 year old man and an underage girl consent to sex would you defend the act? Lets say the girl in the Tom Humphries case suffers no long term emotional damage, does that make what he did okay in the mind of a social liberal?

If it causes no damage, then nothing "bad" has occurred. However if there was a serious risk of something bad could happen, and he took it knowingly, then he was probably in the wrong.

However assessing such a risk is very difficult. Even if a 15 year old is "stupid" in some regards, doesn't mean they can't have sex, as again, plenty of older people are "stupid". This is really something for the psychologists and sociologists, not some armchair conservative. I am not qualified to say exactly what the age of consent would be. I am merely pointing out that it is lower in other countries so relations with a 15 year old are not considered universally abhorrent.

Also, you have no right to pull this "Come on now" **** with me after you misrepresented my position completely in the most dishonest manner.

As usual the "critics" here act like they're inherently fair arbiters of justice just for commenting on some **** they read in the paper, and cannot be wrong themselves.

Social conservatives work backwards from the fact that their views are traditional and therefore correct so don't really feel the need to defend them.

CramCycle

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I wonder if anyone even listened to the "Victim" in this case? What if when the victim is an adult, he thinks "Well, actually, I'm quite glad I did that."

You really are missing the point that the onus is on the 40yo man to prove the boy is mature enough and that is almost impossible to do until he is older ergo out of decency's sake a 40yo man will not have sex with someone of that age, he will wait till he is older.

It's also questionable whether what you say is true or not. If Sen. Norris really did feel that, and felt he was taking a stance to improve the treatments of peace activists or homosexuals in Israel, was he wrong to do that? Is there an absolute rule that says he can't?

He can, that is not what he was doing though, he was trying to alter the decision of a foreign state in a case of statuatory rape, being a peace activist or a homosexual had nothing to do with it and trying to make it sound like it had is a lazy argument.

When you're deeming things right and wrong, you have to show exactly what they help or hurt, and I think you've failed to do this.

I believe I have, I have mentioned over and again what the issue is, the law is there to protect those who cannot protect themselves or those who may not realise they need protecting.

This is what I hate - you're accusing Norris supporters of not being able to admit to his mistake, yet you refuse to admit to the perhaps more grave sins of misrepresentation on your own side.

Please point them out, I am on no ones side as you put it. I represent all I say as my own views and no one elses, let everyone else make their own point if they feel it necessary.

But you've listened to the radio, had contact with other people, etc.

I heard DNs speech after it was pointed out that it was on, the people I work with have said nothing on the case to me

I have read the letter too, and I think you are projecting wrongly into it.

I don't think I am, I believe it is clear what he is alluding to (such is the benefit of being such a scholar).

Also, please take note Cramcycle that your buddy here is doing EXACTLY what I said people were doing, that you said they weren't. Own up to this please.

Buddy? I don't know this person nor do his views influence my own and I doubt mine influence theirs.

Please remind me what People are doing so i can own up to the thing that I do not know about.

Einhard

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

As usual the "critics" here act like they're inherently fair arbiters of justice just for commenting on some **** they read in the paper, and cannot be wrong themselves.

Social conservatives work backwards from the fact that their views are traditional and therefore correct so don't really feel the need to defend them.

Norris has stated that Nawi's actions were reprehensible, so I presume he too is part of this homophobic, socially conservative brigade that you're railing against.

Also, sexual relations between older adults and younger teens, particularly adult men and teenage girls, has a long tradition, and has only come in for criticism in the past few decades. I fail to see how us "social conservatives" can appeal to a tradition that doesn't even exist! You seem to be working backward from your own arse to be perfectly honest.

Pompey Magnus

am merely pointing out that it is lower in other countries so relations with a 15 year old are not considered universally abhorrent.

Why the hell should we go by what is considered "universally abhorrent"? That is basically saying look for the country with the lowest possible age of consent (perhaps 12 in Angola) and then say sex under this age is universally considered abhorrent so this is our marker point when considering our modern, liberal attitude to sexual relations with a minor. Preposterous.

CramCycle

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

That's purposely framing in a manner that it looks ridiculous (Reductio ad absurdum).

It's not "despite being", it's regardless. He just made the point that the poor handling of the case would have gotten it thrown out, he wasn't saying "because you did this, you should let him get away with it." You are using weighted and somewhat incorrect language.

You will find that I am not, his language insinuates that regardless of guilt he would have gotten away with it. The most disturbing thing is that he is probably right, that does not mean he was justified in what he done and it does not mean my statement was framed to look ridiculous.

If you re read what you are saying, he is saying that "because you did this, you should let him get away with it." we would have let him in Ireland.

He clearly did not admit such guilt in the letter in question, so clearly he did not send it with the same judgement he has now. He said something to that effect, but I guess it went under your radar. New evidence can come to light, or people can just get less passionate about a cause over time.

So he did? today he admitted his guilt in the radio statement form what I heard (He called him guilty, admitted there was a victim etc. minor points like that).

I don't see him saying "The Irish people said", he made some comparisons with the system, so obviously he was judging the case on an Irish basis and being an Irish senator, he may well be an advocate of the Irish law he fought to help shape. If you can prove these comparisons wrong, then by all means do it.

He done it on Seanad paper, as a senator. He never said "The Irish people said", but his position means that when he talks in an official capacity (and usually the rest of the time whether he likes it or not) and when he sent the letter on official headed paper, he was doing so as a representative of the Irish people.

He was acting as a personal advocate. He used the office to back him up as a reputable individual, which may have been inadvisable, but was not completely wrong. It's hardly a widescale abuse of power.

But it is an abuse and you seem unable to accept this fact.

Also, pleading guilty and actually committing the crime are two different things, something you continually ignore. The man was refused advice from his lawyer.

I know they are different things but David himself proclaimed him guilty today, if he believed him to be innocent surely he would have had the backbone of a future president and said it.

Then what about countries where the age of consent is lower? Is it assault then?

Thats up to the authorities but i imagine in the case where the child is still under parental guidance/control it would be construed as such.

The issue is that most adults don't really remember when they were younger as well as they think too. A lot of people are stupid when they're younger, but this isn't something that changes at 17.

True, I never said ****ing a 17 yo at the age of 40 was OK either.

Pompey Magnus

CramCycle wrote: »

So he did? today he admitted his guilt in the radio statement form what I heard (He called him guilty, admitted there was a victim etc. minor points like that).

Oh come, that is such a Socially Conserative thing to say, everyone knows now that someone can be guilty of something which results in a victim without a "crime" being caused...you got to get with the times. Liberal Doublespeak is the lingua franca of the intellectual elite in their Ivory Towers and you have to get used to it.

Jesus Wept

annascott wrote: »

Yes, I would still vote for him. He is a wonderful, intelligent and articulate man. This has all been a horrid smear campaign which is targeted at homophobes and people too dumb to think for themselves. The things that have been highlighted have all been taken completely out of context and twisted. It would be laughable if people weren't stupid enough to believe everything that they read...

Pull the other one.

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

It says 14 where I am reading.
http://www.sundayworld.com/columnists/index.php?aid=7412

CramCycle

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

If it causes no damage, then nothing "bad" has occurred. However if there was a serious risk of something bad could happen, and he took it knowingly, then he was probably in the wrong.

It was someone of an age that there was no way he could have known, thats the point, if a 15yo says they are mature enough to have sex it does not mean they are, its not impossible but there is no way to tell. Your argument reads as if we should only jail this man if it turns out he picked someone not emotionally ready, everyone elses argument (and the laws) is that statistically he probably isn't ready and doesn't understand what ready even is.

CramCycle

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Oh come, that is such a Socially Conserative thing to say, everyone knows now that someone can be guilty of something which results in a victim without a "crime" being caused...you got to get with the times. Liberal Doublespeak is the lingua franca of the intellectual elite in their Ivory Towers and you have to get used to it.

I had a response written to this (I get your point) but the response took the level of sarcasm so far I felt sick (who knew there was a line on the internet). I feel I have argued my points reasonably well but CrystalLettuce does not seem willing to listen or even argue with any level of proficiency.

If you are human I pity you, if you are a troll, congratulations, you have wound me up Crystal and done so expertly. More importantly, if you are human, when you are older than 15 by a few years or you have kids of your own come back and read this thread, if you still agree with your statements, do the future children/teenagers of Ireland the world a favour, hand your children over for adoption/foster care and stay away from schools etc.

Liam Byrne

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Do you support the right of adult men to have sex with underage girls too? Will you be campaigning for the cause of Tom Humphries?

I never said I supported the right for adult men to have sex with minors. I just asked a question. As it happens, I think it's highly situational, something social conservatives wouldn't understand.

This just shows the level of dishonesty present here. Why should I even bother with someone like you?

Pompey didn't suggest that you did; they ASKED a question.

If you do, then your views are objectionable but consistent.

If you don't, then you're not only inconsistent, but also anti-equality.

40 year olds should not be having sex with 15 year olds. End of story. Regardless of sexual preference.

Norris should not have written the letter.

Chairman Meow

I love seeing people here trying to justify a grown man having sex with a 15 year old. If it was a priest instead of Norris' gay lover that had rode a 15yr old, hoo boy, this thread would be filled with nothing but HANG THE BASTARD or PAEDO SCUM accusations.

But no, this guy mustve actually been in love with the boy, and the boy could make the decision himself, and probably really enjoyed it, so no harm done right? :rolleyes:

K-9

Chairman Meow wrote: »

I love seeing people here trying to justify a grown man having sex with a 15 year old. If it was a priest instead of Norris' gay lover that had rode a 15yr old, hoo boy, this thread would be filled with nothing but HANG THE BASTARD or PAEDO SCUM accusations.

But no, this guy mustve actually been in love with the boy, and the boy could make the decision himself, and probably really enjoyed it, so no harm done right? :rolleyes:

Well a priest is a different level again to what seemed to happen in this case. That isn't condoning it but it's a bit of an over the top comparison.

Show Time

K-9 wrote: »

Well a priest is a different level again to what seemed to happen in this case. That isn't condoning it but it's a bit of an over the top comparison.

It's still sex with a minor either way and if it had been a priest then you could bet the reaction would be a whole lot different.

HarryPotter41

neantog wrote: »

David Norris was shafted by those in the political establishment who consider that they have an exclusive right to the presidential contest : Fianna Fail and Fine Gael : ruthless, power-hungry, unscrupulous, hypocritical and right-wing.

Fianna Fail and Fine Gael will always pull the levers of power to ensure that no political outsider can become a candidate in the presidential election.

Fianna Fail and Fine Gael will dig through the political and personal histories of undesirable election candidates - that is, independent candidates, popular with the general public, who have a strong chance of winning.

They will dig for any evidence of corrupt practices - not in the interests of promoting higher moral or ethical standards in politics, but rather for the pragmatic purposes of removing the undesirable from the race.

The morals and ethics of the politics practiced by all politicians in leinster house are of great concern to the general public.

Unfortunately for the vast majority of politicians morals and ethics have been long ago discarded in the mad scramble for power and money.

So it was FF and FG that wrote the letter for their partner seeking clemency?

denhaagenite

Did anyone hear him on Matt Cooper (with Anton Savage) yesterday? As I understood it, he was never in an intimate relationship with this guy, had wanted to be but was knocked back. The way he put it was "Oh people just assume that a relationship means a sexual relationship, I don't distinguish between these". Before this I would have had some respect for him but this is now gone. He sounded like a teenage girl.

He was never the best man for the job, not even the best gay man. I am just sorry that the lines and agendas have become so blurred and that some are painting him a martyr. I don't know anyone, straight or gay, who would hang onto someone that long even sacrificing their own morals in the hope that something might blossom. Quite frankly I'm sickened.

dvpower

Chairman Meow wrote: »

I love seeing people here trying to justify a grown man having sex with a 15 year old. If it was a priest instead of Norris' gay lover that had rode a 15yr old, hoo boy, this thread would be filled with nothing but HANG THE BASTARD or PAEDO SCUM accusations.

I don't think so. The catholic church have been guilty of actively covering up child abuse and we have many decent Catholics that stick with their church, acknowledging that it is a deeply flawed organisation but at the same time pointing out that it has many good aspects; giving it a character reference so to speak.

It wouldn't be right to call them all 'paedo scum'.

Morlar

dvpower wrote: »

I don't think so. The catholic church have been guilty of actively covering up child abuse and we have many decent Catholics that stick with their church, acknowledging that it is a deeply flawed organisation but at the same time pointing out that it has many good aspects; giving it a character reference so to speak.

It wouldn't be right to call them all 'paedo scum'.

There is a difference between the Church and a priest.

In this case Norris' partner is not a centuries old institution. There is absolutely no meaningful comparison whatsoever between Norris' partner and the Catholic Church.

HarryPotter41

denhaagenite wrote: »

Did anyone hear him on Matt Cooper (with Anton Savage) yesterday? As I understood it, he was never in an intimate relationship with this guy, had wanted to be but was knocked back. The way he put it was "Oh people just assume that a relationship means a sexual relationship, I don't distinguish between these". Before this I would have had some respect for him but this is now gone. He sounded like a teenage girl.

He was never the best man for the job, not even the best gay man. I am just sorry that the lines and agendas have become so blurred and that some are painting him a martyr. I don't know anyone, straight or gay, who would hang onto someone that long even sacrificing their own morals in the hope that something might blossom. Quite frankly I'm sickened.

He just seems to want to blur the lines between him and his former partner, shown by the inconsistency of when the relationship actually finished and now to claim that he wasn't in an intimate relationship? If I fancy one of my friends do I say I am in a relationship with them even though there is no sex involved, just that we hang around together all the time? I think not. The waffle around this whole thing gets more bizarre as it progresses.

dvpower

Morlar wrote: »

There is a difference between the Church and a priest.

In this case Norris' partner is not a centuries old institution. There is absolutely no meaningful comparison whatsoever between Norris' partner and the Catholic Church.

You could replace 'the Church' with 'the Pope', a man who bears personal responsibility in his own actions and as the head of his organisation. Or you could take the people who continue to hold, for example, Bishop Magee in high regard, despite his failings.

We don't see these people being called 'paedo scum'. Thankfully there is a more measured response than that.

Android 666

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

So it was FF and FG that wrote the letter for their partner seeking clemency?

Where's the uproar about Gay Mitchell seeking to have a double murderer taken off Death Row in 2003?

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

denhaagenite

Also, he tried to draw a comparison between writing letters to highlight the plight of jailed Tibetan monks with the letter that he wrote in support of Ezra... WTF???

dvpower

Android 666 wrote: »

Where's the uproar about Gay Mitchell seeking to have a double murderer taken off Death Row in 2003?

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

Why do you want uproar? What did he do wrong?

Android 666

dvpower wrote: »

Why do you want uproar? What did he do wrong?

He's guilty of the same thing as Norris - using his position to look for clemency for somebody in a different country. In this case an anti-abortionist who killed two people outside an abortion clinic in Florida.

dvpower

Android 666 wrote: »

He's guilty of the same thing as Norris - using his position to look for clemency for somebody in a different country. In this case an anti-abortionist who killed two people outside an abortion clinic in Florida.

Do you want uproar because you think his case deserves uproar or because Norris got uproar?

Are you just looking for equality of overreaction?


Edit: Did he use his position as FG Foreign Affairs spokesperson, or as a TD or as a private individual? What position did he abuse?

Was he not authorised by the party (or whatever position he used) to make his representation?

HarryPotter41

Android 666 wrote: »

He's guilty of the same thing as Norris - using his position to look for clemency for somebody in a different country. In this case an anti-abortionist who killed two people outside an abortion clinic in Florida.

I am no fan of Gay Mitchell, but he did not seek clemency in the way David Norris did, he asked that a man not be put to death and given a custodial sentence, which in America is life ( and when they say life they mean life ). As many people are against the Death penalty ( including myself, the state punish murder by committing the same crime themselves ) many would not see this as an issue. Also did Gay Mitchell do it on any form of Oireachtas notepaper? There is no comparison between asking somebody not to be put to death and asking a court for a light sentence.

Android 666

dvpower wrote: »

Do you want uproar because you think his case deserves uproar or because Norris got uproar?

Are you just looking for equality of overreaction?

No, I'm looking for clarification. If one person has do step down over a breach of power then should the same standard not be applied to everyone equally? Hence why I wondered why there was so little being said about Gay Mitchell's call of clemency for a double murderer.

dvpower

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

There is no comparison between asking somebody not to be put to death and asking a court for a light sentence.

Mitchell asked for a decrease from Death to Life Imprisonment.
Norris asked for a decrease from Custodial to Non Custodial.

I see some comparison.

dvpower

Android 666 wrote: »

No, I'm looking for clarification. If one person has do step down over a breach of power then should the same standard not be applied to everyone equally? Hence why I wondered why there was so little being said about Gay Mitchell's call of clemency for a double murderer.

Well lets at least get the facts of the case on the table before we go calling for uproar.

HarryPotter41

dvpower wrote: »

Mitchell asked for a decrease from Death to Life Imprisonment.
Norris asked for a decrease from Custodial to Non Custodial.

I see some comparison.

You see a comparison between being killed by the state and spending the rest of your life in prison and being in jail to not being in jail. Can I have some of what you're taking?