Sunday Times has new revelations on you know who....NOT letter related!

Bannasidhe

orourkeda wrote: »

Surely we should make an infomed determination on the full extent of a candidates stance on these issues. Religious belief isnt the be all and end all but it is a factor nonetheless.


Mary McAleese is a catholic who is opposed to divorce and abortion and divorce. It didnt impair her ability to do her job.Perhaps Dana is different but if enough people have an issue with this then she wont get elected and I dont expect that she will.

The arguments are all based on the assumption that those constitutional reforms would be passed in a referendum which is another issue entirely and the further assumption that Dana is elected.

Dana stated publicly during her campaign she would refuse to sign anything that was in opposition to her religious views - so what exactly does she think the role of the President is - Guardian of the Constitution or Guardian of Public Morals?

Regardless of her chances of election - it is important.

Biggins

Just to let ye all know - The so called The Times (England) story is up.
Won't repeat word for word (copyright issues) but basically they have dug up an old story that Ezra Nawi assisted a sick man that was dying (in pain filled terminal stages) of AIDS, to take his own life.

Norris stated in a speech to the Seanad (on June 3, 1993) apparently:

“I am aware of situations where assistance in suicide was not only honourable but was also a morally desirable act,” he said. “It is one I would not have the courage to perform, but I know people who have.”

The Times once again is just focusing on Norris and no one else.
After all there is no one else in this presidents race that has questions to answer!

Wolfe Tone

What a sh!t story.

You should have made up something more interesting Biggins

Pro assisted suicide might get some traction though

Gummy Panda

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dana stated publicly during her campaign she would refuse to sign anything that was in opposition to her religious views - so what exactly does she think the role of the President is - Guardian of the Constitution or Guardian of Public Morals?

Regardless of her chances of election - it is important.

I assume if she did refuse to sign she would be made leave her role considering the role of the president is just verify that the proposed law isn't against the constitution

Biggins

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What a sh!t story.

You should have made up something more interesting Biggins

Pro assisted suicide might get some traction though

Well The Times attempt last week apparently didn't stop Norris getting enough nominations from the County Councils (with their VERY amazingly timed sting about letters just at what most would consider the exact right time to do the most damage) so I guess they are now digging up old stories to try and stop his campaign!

nice_very

so................. who does "the media" want as our next president? obviously not DN or MMG (2 of the front runners, following recent polls)

also, why are the media allowed to hound and analyse everything about these 2 candidates, and barely anything said about the rest?

Biggins

nice_very wrote: »

...why are the media allowed to hound and analyse everything about these 2 candidates, and barely anything said about the rest?

Now THATS a good question!!!

BQQ

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If there is a referendum on Gay Marriage and the majority vote in favour - will Dana refuse to sign? Or abortion (it could happen!)? Would she have refused to sign the act allowing divorce?

I don't think it's fair to single out Dana. Everyone has strong personal views. Just because hers stem from a religious belief doesn't make her any different from the others.

For example, if the majority wanted to make homosexuality illegal, would Norris refuse to sign it?

mikom

More smearing of Norris.
There is a certain circle of hell dedicated to some of these "article" writers.

If there is a hell.

sdanseo

My vote in this election is going to be narrowed down to a process of elimination.

Norris - Inpropeity many times over and a horriffic lack of judgement NO
McGuinness - Republican, seemingly reformed but with IRA past. Recently muted on here, quite correctly, you can move on from IRA but not from thinking statutory rape is OK. - MAYBE
Dana - Religious nutjob who really does come across as deluded - NOT A HOPE
Mary Davis - been on more "state boards" than if the government had its own forum on here - NO
Michael D - squeaky clean, but also squeaky in general. Leprechaun for president, a bad thing? - MAYBE
Sean Gallagher - Supports FF. - NO & CLOSE THE DOOR AFTER YOU
Gay Mitchell - Religious nutjob, FGer and likes cheap jibes. - NO

Biggins

BQQ wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to single out Dana. Everyone has strong personal views. Just because hers stem from a religious belief doesn't make her any different from the others.

For example, if the majority wanted to make homosexuality illegal, would Norris refuse to sign it?

He already said I think, a number of times that he would abide by the wishes of the people - as have a number of others.

Everyone does has strong personal views - but not everyone will allow them to interfear with the running of a state and override a possible voted for issue, one considered and voted for by an Irish majority in a democratic held referendum!
Dana said she would!

Spread

Biggins wrote: »

Just to let ye all know - The so called The Times (England) story is up.
Won't repeat word for word (copyright issues) but basically they have dug up an old story that Ezra Nawi assisted a sick man that was dying (in pain filled terminal stages) of AIDS, to take his own life.

Norris stated in a speech to the Seanad (on June 3, 1993) apparently:



The Times once again is just focusing on Norris and no one else.
After all there is no one else in this presidents race that has questions to answer!

Again, Norris is sailing close to the wind. In this case, so close that there could be a whiff of wills, insurance payments etc. Does his humongous ego rule out clear thinking? Can he not keep his trap shut on any issue? Do we need a President like that? If euthanasia was then banned ...... it was a criminal offence. Norris consorting with crims? He himself said,"that I'm already acting in a Presidential way". Goodnight!

finbarrk

nice_very wrote: »

so................. who does "the media" want as our next president? obviously not DN or MMG (2 of the front runners, following recent polls)

also, why are the media allowed to hound and analyse everything about these 2 candidates, and barely anything said about the rest?

Kind of obvious?

Biggins

Spread wrote: »

Again, Norris is sailing close to the wind. In this case, so close that there could be a whiff of wills, insurance payments etc. Does his humongous ego rule out clear thinking? Can he not keep his trap shut on any issue? Do we need a President like that? If euthanasia was then banned ...... it was a criminal offence. Norris consorting with crims? He himself said,"that I'm already acting in a Presidential way". Goodnight!

In fairness, we have other runners sailing close to the wind too - but is the Times regurgitating up stories about them?
Now resorting to having to try dig up old stuff in order to have a go!

* After all we only have one candidate that stated she won't sign things into law that she don't agree with personally! That stated on one hand "I want to work with everyone" but then won't work with the EU!

* Another that stated he wants a British head of state to run Ireland - and other apparently 'out-there' notions!

* A third (and the previous too) that has switched from one load of committees to others for years - with their MASSIVE wages to boot and perks/expenses/junkets!

* Another that outright LIED on national TV (The Late Late Show) saying "I do not come from a political background" but has!

* Another that is very anti-American and is so far left in some ideas, he'll take us over the cliffs of Donegal like lemmings!

Acting in a presidential way? Would the first person that is actually decent or supposedly snow white, please stand up for gawds sake!
...In the meantime - is The Times hounding them?

Spread

This is from Ireland.com

One of the most intriguing partnerships in the campaign is Mary Davis and her media-savvy husband Julian. He is an executive with PR and marketing firm Fleishman-Hillard and is well versed in political image-making. Speaking yesterday, he said he would be out on the hustings with his wife and their four children.
A spokesperson for Sean Gallagher said: "Yes, his wife will be with him. They are only just married a year or so and she has been canvassing for Sean a lot.''
So far, the most high-profile partner has been Michael D Higgins's wife, Sabrina, who is regularly seen in the background at media briefings, particularly during television appearances.
Dana Rosemary Scallon's husband, Damian, has also been very much in the public eye in recent days as she battled to get a last-minute nomination from various local authorities.
David Norris yesterday indicated he will not have a partner living with him in the Aras, should he be elected.
And indications are that the wife of Fine Gael nominee Gay Mitchell will not be taking a frontline role on the hustings.


Good God, I hope he'll not have a coven of pretty boys gambolling around in the undergrowth

Biggins

Spread wrote: »

..David Norris yesterday indicated he will not have a partner living with him in the Aras, should he be elected.

That was said two days ago (here)
Frankly, its a non-issue with me anyway. Its none of my business what he does relationship-wise.

Spread

Had not seen that Biggins. Surely with his mellifluous tones he should be able to pull a nice Irish boy. But his tastes seem more exotic. Parsimony doesn't help!

sdanseo

A view I don't agree with, but nonetheless it's on public record and despite my support in another thread which quickly turned to a retraction of my support for Norris, I still think there's a bit of an unfair witch-hunt. Nothing underhand about this in that it was as noted at the time, not in a letter.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/1993/06/03/00005.asp wrote:

I was very moved when a close friend of mine in Israel, who is a most fastidious person, gave up his job when one of our friends, called Rafi, developed AIDS. [960] Rafi's friend was in the airforce and could not look after him. My friend looked after him for six weeks in situations of considerable discomfort and uncleanliness. The man became incontinent and so on and died. A second friend of ours became ill with AIDS. He believed he was in a monogamous relationship, but unfortunately his partner was not monogamous and both of them contracted AIDS. This man died on his own, apart from the assistance which my friend Ezra gave to him. In the terminal stages, when he was no longer physically capable of administering whatever poisons he had accumulated with the intention of giving himself a dignified exit, he asked my friend to assist him to die, which he did. I found that an act of extraordinary courage and moral nobility.

I do not believe that I would have the courage to assist at a suicide, although I have never been placed in that situation. I believe it was the right thing to do in that case. If somebody whom one really cares about is in extraordinary distress, pain and discomfort, and if they know clearly what they are doing and they beg one to help them to end their life in dignity, which may be just a matter of 24, 36 or 48 hours, I believe it is a moral act to do so and I do not believe that it should be punished. I accept that there are arguments in this matter but on balance I would come down on that side.

lynski

you know what the more i see of Norris the more i like him. I have examined my conscience again and again in the past few weeks, but i cannot find in me to withdraw my support and i think i know why. like him or dislike him he actually is an open book, what he says can be taken at face value and he is honest. I cannot take anything said by any of the others on any such level of trust.
MMG - i am not sure he even knows when he is lying anymore
Dana - probably the only other one tellign the truth, but mad as a box of communion wafers
MD - know nothing about her but so far not inspiring trust
SG - do like him but he is trying to be a 'cute hoor'
GM and MDH - too long in the party political game no idea, no trust either.

SeaFields

It has come to the point that with much of the media in Ireland not wanting me to vote for Norris it is inclined to make me vote for Norris.

Min

Dana said the Irish constitution allows for religious freedom and it is her view that the seal of the confessional comes under religious freedom.
A lot of misinformation being spread about what Dana actually said.

Here is an Irish Times articles, which shows it is not a black and white issue.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0722/1224301127590.html

However, for the proposed legislation to enjoy the protection of this proviso to the guarantee of freedom of religion, it may be necessary to show, inter alia, that the legislative interference with the seal of the confessional is necessary in order to prevent the concealment of child abuse and that the proposed interference impairs the right of free practice of religion as little as possible.
I am far from suggesting that such legislation would be unconstitutional. However, the matter is a bit more complicated than simply ensuring the applicability of State law to the members of a private club.

Dana is more knowledgeable than some here who simply dismiss her.

For one to say they would sign it without consideration is to show they are not going to do a good job.
It could be unconstitutional and it is the job of the President to uphold the constitution.

dvpower

Spread wrote: »

Again, Norris is sailing close to the wind. In this case, so close that there could be a whiff of wills, insurance payments etc. Does his humongous ego rule out clear thinking? Can he not keep his trap shut on any issue? Do we need a President like that? If euthanasia was then banned ...... it was a criminal offence. Norris consorting with crims? He himself said,"that I'm already acting in a Presidential way". Goodnight!

Whiff of wills, insurance payments"???

The only whiff is that of your own excrement you are attempting to smear on this story.

Min

As for David Norris and the story, I don't think anyone could be surprised his former lover/convicted rapist friend, helped murder someone, sorry kill someone, sorry assist their death.

Sonnenblumen

darkman2 wrote: »

This has just been tweeted.





Should have the story before midnight. What could it be? Joe Jackson, Norris biographer, claims there are 3 "scandals" not letter related to come. Maybe this is the first of them.

Ah yes, The Sunday Times doing its best to become The Sunday Sun replacement for The News of the World?:eek:

Sam Vimes

Min wrote: »

As for David Norris and the story, I don't think anyone could be surprised his former lover/convicted rapist friend, helped murder someone, sorry kill someone, sorry assist their death.

Honestly now, you don't think that sentence is a little bit misleading no?

These threads are becoming pathetic. Half of it speculating something based on a tweet just designed to get more readership. How about next time just wait for the actual article to be published?

Biggins

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Ah yes, The Sunday Times doing its best to become The Sunday Sun replacement for The News of the World?:eek:

I think they are trying to fill in the gossip/back-stabbing gap till the stink dies down a bit more over the phone hacking scandal and a lot knowing the Sunday Sun will be the NOTW replacement.

rc28

Min wrote: »

As for David Norris and the story, I don't think anyone could be surprised his former lover/convicted rapist friend, helped murder someone, sorry kill someone, sorry assist their death.

Wow :rolleyes:

Lord TSC

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Honestly now, you don't think that sentence is a little bit misleading no?

The entire media campaign against Norris has been based on taking a true story and sensationalising it anyway. Which I think is funny cause most of the stuff doesn't need to be sensationalised to be damamging anyway....

weldoninhio

sdeire wrote: »

A view I don't agree with, but nonetheless it's on public record and despite my support in another thread which quickly turned to a retraction of my support for Norris, I still think there's a bit of an unfair witch-hunt. Nothing underhand about this in that it was as noted at the time, not in a letter.

Is assisted death legal in Israel?? If not, did Senator Norris report this to the relevant authorities in Israel?? If not, why??

Sam Vimes

weldoninhio wrote: »

Is assisted death legal in Israel?? If not, did Senator Norris report this to the relevant authorities in Israel?? If not, why??

Norris was also a gay man when being gay was illegal in Ireland. Should he have turned himself in to the authorities for violating an unjust law?

gbee

I am appalled at the roll out of allegation against Norris. If there is a constitutional reason that he should not proceed then the election must be halted and this processed in a court of law.

I work in the newspaper business, though laid off at the moment so not active, but I do have an inkling as to how they work.

They amass 'evidence' be that real or substantial, their readers will believe it anyway, they threaten to write if the candidate or subject does not to what they ask, like resign or make a statement.

they then 'go public' with the story but keep back some more 'evidence' just in case what they have is not strong enough ~

After a while is just becomes persecution and character assassination ~ if there is a case, make it, put it to the judge.

Otherwise I WILL vote Norris even if it's sympathy vote.

prinz

Min wrote: »

Dana said the Irish constitution allows for religious freedom and it is her view that the seal of the confessional comes under religious freedom. A lot of misinformation being spread about what Dana actually said..

+1, not to mention of course the little fact that laws requiring breaking the seal of confession were suggested in a number of US states (Maryland and New Hampshire IIRC) in recent years and have been rejected at state level as it was deemed to break the freedom of religion guarantee in the States. Won't stop plenty of gob****es still clamouring for the same thing to be done here, what Dana actually said (on that issue) has been supported in the US court.

As for the presidency where is the none of the above option. Currently I'm tiering the candidates..
Tier 1: M D Higgins, S Gallagher, M Davis, G Mitchell
Tier 2: D Norris, Dana
Non-runner: M McGuiness

Preferred option: None of the above.

Biggins

prinz wrote: »

+1, not to mention of course the little fact that laws requiring breaking the seal of confession were suggested in a number of US states (Maryland and New Hampshire IIRC) in recent years and have been rejected at state level as it was deemed to break the freedom of religion guarantee in the States. Won't stop plenty of gob****es still clamouring for the same thing to be done here, what Dana actually said (on that issue) has been supported in the US court.

Question: Why does it matter, what the hell what America does/thinks?
Whats that got to do with our state and constitution?
America can reject all the fcuk it wants - it makes no blind bit of difference or effect to Ireland!

prinz

Biggins wrote: »

Question: Why does it matter, what the hell what America does/thinks?
Whats that got to do with our state and constitution?
America can reject all the fcuk it wants - it makes no blind bit of difference or effect to Ireland!

Whatever you say...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0124/1224288161789.html

amacachi

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Norris was also a gay man when being gay was illegal in Ireland.

I wasn't aware of that.

Biggins

prinz wrote: »

Whatever you say...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0124/1224288161789.html

I think we need new judges if a few of our own lot can't think and assess our own laws/constitution for themselves - but thats a subject for another thread isn't it?

prinz

Biggins wrote: »

I think we need new judges if a few of our own lot can't think and assess our own laws/constitution for themselves - but thats a subject for another thread isn't it?

Don't you mean we need new judges if they don't do whatever you agree with? Interestingly for the Eight Amendment to the Bunreacht people were arguing that the Irish Supreme Court should have adhered more closely to the American decision on Roe v Wade. Can never win apparently.

Biggins

prinz wrote: »

Don't you mean we need new judges if they don't do whatever you agree with?

No, we need new judges if a few of our own lot can't think and assess our own laws/constitution for themselves.

Read as its written above - not as you like to spin it.

Our own laws are so far out of date in a number of areas that there are MANY backed-up policy documents submitted, suggesting appropriate changes and and where to exactly, to the legal authorities of Ireland for assessment.
Its a damn sad day that they ignore them all so far and look instead to the states for some reason!

Sam Vimes

amacachi wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that.

I'm confused. Is my sarcasm detector broken or were you genuinely not aware that Norris was gay before 1993 when homosexuality was made legal in Ireland?

Phill Ewinn

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

The entire media campaign against Norris has been based on taking a true story and sensationalising it anyway. Which I think is funny cause most of the stuff doesn't need to be sensationalised to be damamging anyway....

Conspiracy theories

---

>

prinz

Biggins wrote: »

No, we need new judges if a few of our own lot can't think and assess our own laws/constitution for themselves.
Read as its written above - not as you like to spin it.

It's written exactly as I 'spun it'. On the one hand you'd argue they should ignore international decisions and legal understandings. Come the next topic you'd be arguing preceisely the opposite that they should be following legal decisions in other countries if they 'thought for themselves' and made a decision you objected to. You can't have it both ways.

dotsman

As of today, I am now voting Norris.

If this is the best that the media can come up with, then he's probably best of the lot.

amacachi

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm confused. Is my sarcasm detector broken or were you genuinely not aware that Norris was gay before 1993 when homosexuality was made legal in Ireland?

I didn't think being gay was illegal. Certain actions were but was the state of being illegal?

maygitchell

I havent bought the Sunday Times nor care for what any of its articles say ever since they trimmed down the InGear supplement into a few pages, tossers

Biggins

prinz wrote: »

...Come the next topic you'd be arguing preceisely the opposite that they should be following legal decisions in other countries if they 'thought for themselves' and made a decision you objected to. You can't have it both ways.

Now your just going off on one... whats in gods name are you going on about?
...and you can see into the future now, as well as to others actions and thoughts? Amazing!

I'm going back to debating the current topic here.

Sam Vimes

amacachi wrote: »

I didn't think being gay was illegal. Certain actions were but was the state of being illegal?

Ah now I follow you. Yes it was the acts that were illegal. Now I haven't been following Norris and monitoring his every activity since he was born but I would assume that, being a gay man, he engaged at some stage in sexual acts with another man prior to 1993. I could be wrong though

Biggins

dotsman wrote: »

As of today, I am now voting Norris.

If this is the best that the media can come up with, then he's probably best of the lot.

Todays Indo' is saying/spinning(?) that Higgins will win it on transfers.

For the first time the 500 people polled nationwide were also asked for their second preference: analysis shows that Mr Higgins is by far most the most transfer friendly candidate, which presents a conclusion that the election is his to lose.

For example, according to the poll, Mr Higgins will win the second preferences of supporters of Ms Davis (29 per cent), Mr Gallagher (27 per cent), Mr McGuinness (23 per cent), Mr Mitchell (28 per cent), Mr Norris (45 per cent) and Dana Rosemary Scallon (22 per cent).

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/phil-hogan-warns-no-terrorist-in-the-aras-2893648.html

prinz

Biggins wrote: »

Now your just going off on one... whats in gods name are you going on about?

= Fingers in ears..la la la la la. It's a simple concept Biggins, judges pay heed to the decisions of other judges, even internationally. It's kind of key to our judicial system.

Biggins wrote: »

...and you can see in to the future now as well as to others actions and thoughts? Amazing!

Apparently you can. Deciding what certain candidates would and wouldn't sign into law and when.

Min

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Honestly now, you don't think that sentence is a little bit misleading no?

rc28 wrote: »

Wow :rolleyes:

No.

Ezra Nawi is Norris's former lover.
Ezra Nawi is a convicted rapist.
Ezra Nawi did assist in the death of another person, I don't know the law in Israel but in Ireland he would be convicted of an intentional plannedkilling which would be murder and one can say he helped kill someone if he did assist their suicide.

Misleading in what way?

David Norris would tell an Israeli about the law in Ireland...