Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A GUNMAN OPENED fire at a bank building in the US city of Cincinnati today, fatally wounding three people before police shot and killed him.
The incident occurred after 9am local time (1pm GMT) at the lobby and loading dock of the 30-storey Fifth Third Bank building in the city’s downtown business district.
“An individual entered the loading dock area, began firing shots,” Cincinnati Police Chief Eliot Isaac said.
Nearby police engaged the gunman in a shootout and killed him, the chief said.
Three people died of their wounds and two others remain hospitalised.
The shooter’s identity or motive were not released.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
You forgot the lost important and lasting legacy of David’s career / campaigning for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Ireland. His most important achievement. Hence why his sexuality is referenced more than other gay people in the public eye.
Absolutely fair point. Let down by age. It was decriminalised when I was a year old so it doesn’t stand out in my mind like it should but did warrant coverage.
I have to say, I found this more repetitive and longwinded than brilliantly argued.
Guilty, I’ve never been good at brevity.
Dana all of a sudden emerges as a candidate hmmm, suspect
Dont just leave us hanging. What do you suspect?
She is the last we need. To her I’d prefer Dr Zoidberg
My compliments on an excellent thought-provoking article. I agree with most of the sentiments – we get the press that we deserve, DN’s team might have been naive and let down, we don’t really put children first, etc.
However even though I don’t want him as our next President, I dearly wanted us to have the sort of country where an elderly, gay, Joycean scholar with a penchant for panto could credibly stand before the electorate. If only so that a unmarried traveller mother, a Roscommon sheep farmer, and an unemployed mechanic from Ballyfermot could also feel that they could run also if they so desired.
The whole saga reveals how unsatisfactory this part of our political system is – and I don’t just mean the process of getting on the ballot. The fact that we would prefer our President to be apolitical but will only consider those from the political elite.
Finally, I would suggest that your article grossly understates DN’s impressive political achievements. It should come as no surprise to us that good, decent men sometimes make mistakes. The measure of a republic is how was respect all our peoples – even those who we think should be well able to look after themselves.
Thanks for the reply Paige, the political achievements could’ve stood to have a few more lines about them. As to good decent men making mistakes that is how I view DN’s actions, I just think that the action and his inability to manage the situation when it came to light show a lack of the kind of good judgement a head of state needs.
A very well written, balanced piece.
Very insightful article! You have made me wiser now when I’m pondering who I should vote for. You have to ask yourself why David was such a popular choice. Was it we all wanted to be seen as a progressive country by having a gay president. People haven’t really questioned what would make him a good president.
It’s almost as though we are talking about a nominated candidate for the presidency. He was never going to get the support to even have a chance at running for president. He messed up, but he was never going to get the backing whether this letter scandal came out or not.
Let’s show the Norris knockers the level of support he has.
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
Send a message.
“Norris himself wasn’t running on a gay ticket, but it seems that’s why his supports wanted him to win, and it’s a nice idea.”
That’s the depth of this meeja organ’s perception?
I supported Norris because he is a known human rights activist, in a world where Britain and America have sponsored illegal wars for ten years.
Norris was the only presidential candidate likely to make an issue out of that when speaking to foreign heads of state and it sorely needs to be made and issue of.
“His trial wasn’t by media alone, it was by a vocal public, and the threads of an inexperienced campaign just couldn’t hang together in the face of it all.”
Norris’ “trial” was by agents of the two main government parties who instructed the councils they controlled not to sponsor Norris.
That fact that this obvious piece of information hasn’t penetrated this “lets-tidy-away-the-facts-and-clean-up-after-Norris-leaves” article to rewrite history to suit an embarrassed government machine does this organ little credit.
There’s no denying that some of Norris’ supporters including yourself had deeper reasoning for their support than the fact that he would’ve been a gay president, but i think it was the big talking point of the campaign. Nobody was saying ‘Ireland’s second openly active human rights campaigner president’.
As to the parties quashing him, without outright agreeing with you I wouldn’t say they’re above it, but it’s been said that he ran a messy campaign with obvious errors like failure to go through the basic steps of requesting support and making contact with councillors. It’s difficult for an indie candidate, gay or not, you have to prep for the battle you’re faced with
I’m not denying shades of gray Sinead, no one less likely to do so :)
Its that your main points are simply incorrect.
For many people Norris gayness simply wasn’t even an issue.
They people you say tried him were prevented from doing so by ballot.
His supporters, contrary to trying him, continue to support him with over 50% of the vote.
Let me underline this – THEY CONTINUE TO SUPPORT HIM AND THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR HIM – despite the fact that he stood down.
I cannot explain others actions in doing this but I can my own -
- I don’t want a mainstream candidate as president – they’re ALL hooks and chancers.
- I don’t want a businessman as president – pushing Ireland is the job of the Taoiseach, Táinaiste and minsters for Trade and Enterprise and Finance.
- I don’t want any other independent as president – they cannot match Norris in my estimation
(and I realize many would see that last as an insult to Michael D, but he doesn’t inspire me – never has, sorry Michael D).
Both
(i) your assertion about his gayness being a factor seems
and
(ii) that his public “tried” him
- appear to be wholly and factually INCORRECT.
Now allow me to point out something.
If you genuinely failed to understand what the continued support of 50% of those who expressed a preference for NONE OF THE ABOVE means in a poll about who you want a president, then you shouldn’t be writing political commentary, because you are giving the impression that you aren’t up to carrying our even a basic analysis of a poll result.
This isn’t my opinion of you, I think you’re much better than that.
So when I see an experienced commentator on current affairs like you apparently getting it so far wrong as to fail to recognize what the facts are strongly telling them I realize I’m either addressing someone with an agenda.
This is not an ad hominem.
If I was going to launch an ad hominem against you, it would centre on your obvious intelligence and command of English, your implied ability to correctly analyze the said poll, and your reasons for not doing so.
But I’m not.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
“This is not an ad hominem.
If I was going to launch an ad hominem against you, it would centre on your obvious intelligence and command of English, your implied ability to correctly analyze the said poll, and your reasons for not doing so.”
Actually this is a clear ad hominem attack here. In fact its a rather cynical ad hominen because you make the attack and then try to pretend that you’re not doing so by prefacing the statement with an IF. But its very clear what you are saying.
Moving back to your comment, the idea that for many people Norris’ gayness was not an issue is just ridiculous. Its has been central to his campaign and his supporters since he announced his candidacy. He may not have overtly mentioned it but its been very clear in the approach his campaign team took. The concept was that we should vote for Norris because it would show that we were an open and tolerant society. Its even clearer in the fallout from his withdrawal with veiled accusations of homophobia and witch-hunting against anybody who says they didn’t want him as president.
What bothers me is that as far as the militant pro-Norris supporters are concerned, if you don’t support him you are a bigoted, homophobic, right-wing religious conservative nut.
John Maynard Keynes once said:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
I started off supporting Norris. I thought he’d be a great candidate. I joined his Facebook group and followed his campaign. I learned a lot about his endeavours in Ireland as part of my third level education, and I thought that the country could do with someone like him.
Then I learned his policies. I actually went off him when I discovered he wants to legalise drugs. Big no-no in my books. This was before the Magill magazine interview controversy and the current one.
I now believe that Norris is far too political and controversial to be a proper presidential candidate. The recent controversies only exacerbate this situation.
I changed my views on Norris based on reasoned and informed logic.
It is immature, myopic and narrow-minded (ie, all the things his supporters are saying everyone else are) to say that people who do not think Norris would have made a suitable candidate are part of some anti-gay conspiracy or some sort of smear campaign.
He was courting a dangerous mistress in the media and he was hoisted by his own petard.
I think he is a great senator, a towering intellect and an excellent humanitarian. The work he did to pull Ireland kicking and screaming into the 20th century should never be forgotten, and his place in our children’s history books is guaranteed.
Would the Norris supporters PLEASE cop on even just a small bit and acknowledge that people have genuine reasons for not supporting Norris?
Also, quoting thejournal.ie as a source for polls is something of a quixotic enterprise. Its readership is not exactly reflective of the public at large.
In my humble opinion, he is not Presidential material.
Surely being a great senator, a towering intellect and an excellent humanitarian is good enough to get him a spot on the ballot paper, no?
@ Michael. Will you please calm down. Other people are entitled to their opinion too. You obviously feel very passionate about this subject. This does not mean you have a monopoly on the truth or facts in this discussion. You have expressed your own opinion (quite well too). People disagree. Get over it.
Even as a Norris supporter I found this piece one of if not the best piece I’ve read on the issue! Extremely thought provoking and sensible. There are holes in it but just small ones. Well done to the author!
Uh oh, mum’s been paying people to post compliments again ;p. Thanks Roy!
Excellent article Sinéad, on reading the follow on comments, still no mention of the children.
Its a fact that if Norris had been allowed to stand as a candidate before this “vocal public” that had supposedly “tried him” he would have become our next president.
Even now the “none of the above” tick box on the Journal is showing 55% and its a safe bet they are all disgruntled Norris supporters like myself who understand where the real crime has been committed.
The crime I am referring to is not ant supposed “error of judgement” [as if seeking mercy for a condemned man marks you out as anything other than a humanist] but the total undermining of the democratic process by Labour and Fine Gael whose shills and councillors were told not to sponsor Norris and whose verbal boot boys conducted a witch-hunt of the man for something he did so long ago that it would be outside the statute of limitations – TWICE!
The crime whereof I speak is the denial of the electorate’s right to vote in a democratic manner for a candidate who was far and away the people’s choice by these right of centre pseudo-moralists running the country today.
Having been sickened by the gross behaviour of Fianna Fáil and the arrogance of the banks, I now find that the current coalition may be a horse of a different colour – but its still a horse.
Are you for real. I note by your picture that you have a child. Yet all you can talk about is “the total undermining of the democratic process by Labour and Fine Gael whose shills and councillors were told not to sponsor Norris and whose verbal boot boys conducted a witch-hunt of the man for something he did so long ago that it would be outside the statute of limitations – TWICE!” Wake up and smell the roses. stop trying to make a political piece out of this. Fianna Fail made far worse decisions. This is about children. FULL STOP.
The mainstream party shills would have us believe that their undermining of the democratic process protects children.
If you disagree with their monstrous crime of undermining the electorates right to vote for a candidate of their choice they try to launch ad hominems about concern for kids.
Not one of them can show where a risk to children arises by voting David Norris into the Aras.
Its just homophobia disguised as concern about pedophilia.
Political spin, in other words.
Poisonous defamation disguised as the voice of the “Moral Majority”.
So the lesson not be learn is – people who cite morals are just crooks seizing advantage.
Dana would want to F off:)
I WOULD NOT BE VOTING FOR DANA…BUT PLEASE TELL ME .WHY U FEEL THE NEED TO SAY WHAT U SAID..SURELY SHE HAS A RIGHT TO ENTER THE RACE .IF SHE WANTS
LOUD NOISES LARRY :P
brilliant article. however. the campaign should never have been about whether or not Senator Norris was gay or not. It should have been about his suitability to be president. prior to last weekend I would have supported him all the way. However as the father of a 15 year old son and a 16 year old daughter ask yourself the question. Can I now? My reply is sorry. but not anymore
Why not?
Do you think Norris or Nawi are going to call around and try to force them to have sex with them?]
Neither Norris or Nawi stand accused of rape.
Nawi was convicted of statutory rape because minors cannot legally give consent to a partner as old as Nawi was then.
But there was no suggestion of coercion or force being used by him.
Your concerns seem to have no basis in fact.
this is one story where the messenger…GETS SHOT
I dont agree with the public outcry! On the day he withdrew 3 polls on different news websites had him still at the favorite.
And now “none of the above” is the favourite!
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
Send a message.
Sinéad obviously spent a lot of time writing this but I’m afraid she’s fallen into the trap set for her by conservative forces opposed to Norris and any progressive agenda. I’m also sorry to say that if a man had written such a flippant and poorly researched analyses of women’s politics as Sinead has about gay politics he’d find himself in deep trouble. Ask yourselves how many gay people were ever asked to comment on the national print and broadcast media on the subject? Almost zero. What effort have the journal.ie made to reach out to the gay community? None. Indeed in the last four months I got a taste of what it was like to be a woman in 70s Ireland (worth researching Sinead, as their status then is similar to our status now as gay men). Everybody feels that they can give an opinion on us, everybody has a gay friend and everybody thinks they’re an expert on how gay politics have influenced the Norris story. I’d suggest taking some time out and reading up on the mostly unwitting phenomena that you and your mates have falling victim to. We are sexualised in the way women were in the 70s. How about asking straight families the same questions? Heterosexual teenagers are having under age sex across the country but I don’t see any of the little darlings called peadophiles? Why? Because it’s straight sex. It’s a classic set-up. Ask people the question that feeds into other people’s prejudices and misconceptions and, hey presto, the questioner is forgotten and the accused stands alone. You’ve heard these questions before. “How short was the skirt the rape victim was wearing?” Thankfully we would all be disgusted by those question now, but the 21st century equivalent for gay men is to muddy up age of consent with pedophilia and pretend they’ve nothing to do with heterosexuals. The reality is that homosexuality and pedophilia are almost mutually exclusive. But there’s plenty of evidence of ‘statutory rape’ and ‘pedophilia’ amongst the youth in Ireland today – it’s called teenage pregnancy.
I don’t think I have fallen into any kind of conservative trap. Even if I agree that the letters were brought to light by a shower of right wing anti-gay no good Norris bashers, I still think writing the letters showed bad judgement unbecoming a presidential candidate. Should we all decide to ignore the letters and the resultant poor campaign management because some homophobes are getting their way? It’s a bigger issue than that.
Hands up I don’t know what it’s like to be gay in Ireland today and I’m disgusted by the idea of a double standard for straight and gay teens but there are people who hold far less concern over two 15 year old girls or boys being sexually active with each other who still have a problem with a relationship between a fifteen year old and a person more than twice their age be that relationship between two girls, two men or one of each. The point is that if David Norris was a straight man appealing for clemency for Nawi, the action still wouldn’t stand. If Nawi had raped a girl, appealing his punishment for that wouldn’t stand.
Yes there’s still a ways to go in terms of treatment of gay people in Ireland and the end of Norris’ run is a knock back for a progressive agenda, but I don’t want him to be president because I feel sorry for my gay mates and want to give two fingers to the conservatives and tell them their ploy didn’t work.
Teenage pregnancy and paedophilia have nothing to do with each other unless the power imbalance between the parties is on the side if the “perpetrator”. For example sex between two consenting 15 yr olds , although illegal cannot be classed as paedophilia. The issue is around the abuse of power and influence by an older man and a child who may groom the victim in order to take advantage of them. Maybe in a few years time we may hear from the 15yr old in the Norris case and get his side of the story. It would certainly put DNs letter in perspective then.
Ross Golden Bannon, Are you arguing in favour of a comparison between underage sex (or sex between two young people where one or both might be dicing with the age of consent) with a relationship between a 15 year old boy and a much older man? I remember David Norris’s campaign to change the law in Ireland in which he showed great courage and determination. I would not have voted for him in any election because I disagree with his stance on a wide range of issues, most notably, but not exclusively, his grossly excessive criticism of Israel, but also his arguments for legalisation of drugs and prostitution. My recollection is that a major element of his campaign on the change in the law concerning physical homosexual relations was based on the argument that the State has no business interfering in what two CONSENTING ADULTS might wish to do in private, an entirely reasonable proposition. By no stretch of the imagination was the boy concerned in this sorry affair an “adult” and laws passed in accordance with our democratic procedures have deemed that children under a certain age are legally incapable of giving consent. These are sensible rules to protect adolescents from exploitation. If anyone wants to argue against them I would suggest they would need to have pretty persuasive evidence for that argument.
I have attempted to post a response to Ross Golden Bannon but the website is telling me I’ve posted it already although I can’t see it anywhere ( I have a separate comment below-the one I’m concerned with is the direct reply to RGB.
Ross Golden Bannon, Are you arguing in favour of a comparison between underage sex (or sex between two young people where one or both might be dicing with the age of consent) with a relationship between a 15 year old boy and a much older man? I remember David Norris’s campaign to change the law in Ireland in which he showed great courage and determination. I would not have voted for him in any election because I disagree with his stance on a wide range of issues, most notably, but not exclusively, his grossly excessive criticism of Israel, but also his arguments for legalisation of drugs and prostitution. My recollection is that a major element of his campaign on the change in the law concerning physical homosexual relations was based on the argument that the State has no business interfering in what two CONSENTING ADULTS might wish to do in private, an entirely reasonable proposition. By no stretch of the imagination was the boy concerned in this sorry affair an “adult” and laws passed in accordance with our democratic procedures have deemed that children under a certain age are legally incapable of giving consent. These are sensible rules to protect adolescents from exploitation. If anyone wants to argue against them I would suggest they would need to have strong evidence.
@ Ross Golden Bannon
An excellent analysis and rebuttal.
Its time people who can think logically and dispassionately started taking back the middle ground from the wafflers the liars and the party shills.
For the record and for clarity, I don’t think Sinead is any of those, but there are plenty of others posting here who fit the bill.
Having “put on” the “hysterical homophobe” act to get their way they are now treading water and covering it over with the “concerned parents of teenagers” waffle.
I think their damning with unfounded criticism phase is even more forced and contrived than their homophob phase of the battle.
This is jut my tuppence worth to let them know their performance is being watched.
Hi Michael, it’s me again.
You’re being watched!
Watch this.
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
Send a message.
Excellent and measured analysis. Nice one.
Whoever’s in charge of this thing is removing comments saying that it was a good thing that whoever dug the dirt on Norris did so. Serious pro- Norris slant to all related articles on TheJournal.
Your one comment was removed because it was uneccessarily offensive, not because of any opinion it expressed.
I think the woman who wrote this article should run for the presidency! A clear thinker with well balanced opinions and a little dab of humour to keep us interested. I’d vote for her. :)
Hear, hear! I love the fact that she accepts that her article wasn’t perfect and that she has taken the time to respond to individual comments. If she writes one article like this, I will want her on the ballot paper. If she happens to be conservative, catholic and gay, then I will want to be her Director of
Elections! Sinead for President!
“The Nawi letters, without knowing how they came to light, are pertinent to our making up our minds on voting for Norris irrespective of the intent of those who discovered them.”
This is just the thing, the intent was that we would not get to make up our minds on voting for David Norris.
It’s clear you don’t think Norris should be president, but you don’t even think he should stand?
The letter was bad judgement but it was a matter for the electorate. Let the people view, on balance, his record and all his other achievements, and then let us turf him out.
I was always going to vote for Michael D anyway but David deserved the right to stand after a long record of public service.
His nomination was torpedoed by people who cannot bear that a gay man could run for the Aras and they used the media as a proxy. Dig for dirt, send it to some news organisations, sit back.
Why isn’t Muck-Raking Bigots Mount Clandestine Campaign To Deny Gay Man Candidacy a story?
Where’s the media on that one?
The media who “are the intermediary for when we need to know the facts but can’t do our own digging”.
They’re nowhere on it. They got played
A subversion of democracy by a hidden hateful few.
Since John Connolly who broke the story has identified his source as someone in the broader labour movement and has identified his own motivation as dissatisfaction with Norris’s stance on Israel I’d like to see your evidence that this was some sort of conservative plot to bring Norris down. What about the liberal media efforts to promote his candidacy: scheduled as guest host on VB in the heat of a presidential campaign; the pressuring of Oireachtas members and county and city councils to get him a nomination; the ready acceptance of the “ancient Greece” defence to the Magill story which defence is entirely undermined by a line of argument about “consent” in the letter to the Israeli Court ( try reading it in it’s entirety if you haven’t already) which was grounded very much in contemporary times with no reference to Plato etc.? Was the taking out of Brian Lenihan Senior for a much lesser “offense” part of a liberal conspiracy to help Mary Robinson? Or was it part of the rough and tumble of electoral politics? The media and the broader liberal movement anointed Norris to be the standard-bearer for liberalism in the forthcoming election and it blew up in their faces because of his past activities (the letter) coupled with past statements (Magill) and his poor handling of the issues when they emerged all of which made his position untenable. That’s the story. Get over it.
Nothing to get over
Your comment
“…I’d like to see your evidence that this was some sort of conservative plot to bring Norris down.”
… is utter spin.
Norris is down.
There was a known plot by Fine Gael and Labour to block him getting on the ballot.
They succeeded.
Now they have to pay for what they’ve done.
The price for undermining the electorate’s right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
What will that be?
Write “David Norris” on your ballot paper
Mark “X” on your ballot opposite his name.
Send a message.
Michael O’Neill, Is that the "conservative plot" you’re talking about-two parties one of them decidedly-liberal, both running their own candidates, deciding not to facilitate a political opponent? Well I never! How dastardly of them!
I see nothing to laugh about.
Their perfidy is every but as corrupt as anything that other shower of eejits did when they were in power.
The mainstream parties blocked David Norris from being on this ballot.
They have lost the run of themselves already and think we don’t know it.
There is a simple, eloquent, non-violent way to protest at this, their arrogant closed-shop treatment of the electorate.
Send them a message that disenfranchisement by gombeen men is not acceptable.
Next election they’ll be lucky to get 10% of the vote.
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
@Michael,
Michael, Michael, Michael.
Perhaps you’re paranoid, I don’t know, but maybe it was Opus Dei who fed the info to O Connell?
Maurice,
You’ve developed a stutter.
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
Send a message.
Excellent piece Sinead. Totally agree with you. Gonna check out culch.ie if this is the quality of writing to be expected.
There are debates here that should be kept separate.
Was Norris victim of a campaign against him from within Ireland ? I think he was, though I have no evidence to support that. This should have no part in politics.
Should a senator plea for clemency in such a way ? I don’t think so, neither does Norris apparently, so nothing much to discuss.
Is sex with a 15 year old, regardless as to gender, a terrible crime ? I think it depends on the age of the partner in crime as to how terrible that is. If I found out my 15 year old had sex with a 17 year old, I’d be concerned, if the the person concerned were my age, I’d be talking to the police.
Dissect the strands of this in any way – I have no problem with that.
I have a problem with being disenfranchised, of being prevented from casting my vote for a president for a candidate I supported.
The mainstream parties blocked David Norris from being on this ballot.
Fine Gael and Labour supporters have lost the run of themselves already and think we don’t know it.
They’ll learn.
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
Send a message.
Michael, Michael, Michael!
Still stuttering Maurice?
———————————————–
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
Send a message
A blogger responds to another blogger.
Could the Journal not get a senior lecturer from a politics department of one of our universities to write a piece?
Again, many points have been ignored especially the real background to the statutory rape case. This issue isn’t just about David in isolation to what was being done to Nawi at the time David wrote those letters and insisting that we take David’s actions out of context continues the misinformation and smear.
What context and background are you talking about?
You’re looking to be spoon-fed and I’m not going to do it. The context is all over this page in other comments and in the comments on several other articles on this subject in the last few days. Find out for yourself, if you’re really interested in being informed.
Cybernoelie,I’d say I’m pretty well-informed.Most importantly, I read Norris’s letter in it’s entirety, apparently unlike many others (perhaps you did?) One way or another you make these sweeping allegations and when challenged to back them up you run and hide.
Cast aspersions, don’t engage, run away.
Trial by soundbyte.
What I find interesting is that the Journal gave so much space to another yet blogger but hasn’t given any space to the headline article in the Irish Independent today by Dearbhail McDonald (legal editor):
I am not a paedophile, says Norris ex-partner: Activist denies child-sex claims and insists victim lied about age
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-am-not-a-paedophile-says-norris-expartner-2839306.html
“The Irish Independent has learned that the prosecution struggled from the outset to make a case against Nawi as the victim was reluctant to give evidence against the openly gay campaigner.”
I love the way ‘openly gay’ is inserted there – as if its a shocking admission, something that shouldn’t be out in the open. What does ‘openly gay’ mean anyway and what relevance does it have to anything? Who defines what ‘openly gay’ means? Are there degrees of being ‘openly gay’ like wide open, slightly ajar, shut but not locked?
They print this story today, which effectively exonerates David IMO, yet there’s no sense of irony nor any indication of remorse on the part of the Indo for the large part it played in destroying David Norris and his presidential hopes.
BTW: Most of this ‘news’ was available early on but was ignored, deliberately it seems.
+ 1 CyberNoelie
It was mentioned at the time that Nawi was the victim of dirty tricks and I still say Norris was correct in what he did.
Politicians plea for clemency for people before the courts all the time, not seek clemency after they are convicted, and both actions are fine by me.
Being merciful is something we should all aspire to, and justice without mercy is a brother to tyranny.
Sinéad, the word is “pederasty”, not “pedastry”.
I think you’ll find the word is ‘pedantic’ ;)
Well let’s see now.. Whatever interest there was in this ………..
Hi Charles Mark, I’m more or less with Geoff Boyle on this so it doesn’t really change anything I said or indeed that I contradict what you said. The issue around homophobia still hangs in the air though! It would be great if straight people started to think about that more deeply. It’s nothing to do with conspiracy: group-think, false consciousness, whatever you want to call it (we’re just out the other side of it around the value of property). That’s the problem with group-think, you don’t know you’re doing it! Anyway, I stand by the view that witting and unwitting homophobia was the root cause of the failure of the Norris campaign.
You only need to have been following the Twiiter hashtag of #Aras11 in the last few days Ross to see some seriously blatant homophobia with lots of ‘lesser’ homophobic ‘jokes’ and double entendres and adianoetas being made by a lot of people.
There was also an obvious application of far higher moral and ethical standards being applied to David compared to others (look at the defence of Gay Mitchell in contrast) as well as a total (deliberate?) lack of understanding of gay relationships and expressions of affection.
The problem, IMO, is that homosexuality is only tolerated by the majority of Irish people while it is accepted by a large minority and detested by a small (but powerful) minority and the vast majority of people just don’t seem to understand what it means to be gay in Ireland (or anywhere else for that matter).
Ross Golden Bannon, Can we forget about the "dark forces" then?
By “dark forces” you mean…. DANA ?
No Charles Mark.
The mainstream parties blocked David Norris from being on this ballot.
The only way to redress this is if they now sponsor him to be on the ballot and let the people decide.
Otherwise they will be seen as homophobic fair weather democrats, as corrupt in their own way as Fianna Fáil ever were.
Doing what you think is the right thing using corrupt methods is still undermining democracy every bit as much as doing the wrong thing using the corrupt methods.
Fine Gael and Labour supporters have lost the run of themselves already and think we don’t know it.
They’ll learn.
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
Send a message.
Ah, Michael, for Jaysus’ sake…
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
Send a message.
Hi Charles Mark, I was trying to reflect back how differently people react when it is heterosexuals who are involved. Interestingly, when Robert Ballagh was mooted as a potential candidate he was interviewed on the Pat Kenny show and they chatted happily about how he started dating his wife when she was 16 and he was 22, they marred at 18. Nobody thought it odd or strange, now if that was a homosexual relationship the reaction would have been very different. The other problem is that many people have got trapped in a circular debate over who’s homophobic and who isn’t. All very reductive and unhelpful. So lets just be really clear here. I am at times homophobic AND I am a gay man. I am also at times sexist and even racist. Nobody brought up in our society can fail to express these beliefs at sometime. The difference is I work hard to challenge myself on them and put my hand up when others catch my unwitting homophobia, etc. Has this conversation ever happened between you and your friends: “I was at the doctors.’ ‘Oh, what did he say.’ “It was a woman’ ‘Oops, sorry.’ It’s the same with homophobia, the problem is when we name it people are horrified but it is an auto-response for people brought up in a society that is intolerant. Making homophobic remarks or being part of unwitting homophobic group-think is something we are all victims of, the difference is in accepting it when you spot it in yourself. It doesn’t mean you’re a committed homophobe, just that you gave an auto-response. I’m sorry people can’t see the group-think around what happened to David Norris, and yes, he did make mistakes but please recognize the ‘dark forces’ that moved against him too and how our very own homophobia helped his demise.
Ross Golden Bannon, Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment (I read your restaurant reviews every week). I do not accept for a moment the comparison between a six-year age-gap with the younger party aged 16 and an approximately 25 year gap not least where the younger party is under the legal age of consent.The gender-mix is immaterial. As for the "dark forces" while I have no doubt that most social conservatives would not have been happy to see David Norris elected because of his hyper-liberal positions on a range of issues there is no evidence whatsoever that social conservatives brought down his candidacy (unless you believe in the power of prayer!). John Connolly who broke the story has confirmed that he was given the information by someone in the broader labour movement and he published it in turn because of personal disapproval for Norris’s stance on Israel. So, no conspiracy.
Fine Gael and Labour blocked Norris from getting on the ballot.
Their cheerleaders and shilled came out to play in homophobe outfits and badgered Norris into resigning.
I see no conspiracy there, simply – right-wing, religious-fundamentalist, conservative-heterosexual closet homophobe – fact.
You’ve outed yourselves.
Go to a gay rights group meeting if you want to get out of denial and live with “coming out” as a homophobe.
But don’t be like that crocodile in Egypt about it.
Be proud you’re a homophobe!
Excellent article on the Guardian website:
David Norris failed, yet the ‘nothing new’ system failed too
“Norris’s race for the Irish presidency was lost by his own actions, but there is a whiff of double standards about the whole affair”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/03/david-norris-irish-presidency?CMP=twt_gu
Not trial by media, the office of the president commands national & international respect, Mr Norris could not hope to ever achieve this, when he had linked himself with child sex abuse, his action didn’t even do the cause of gay rights any good. Defending the actions of pedophiles is just totally unacceptable, I do feel that senator Norris should not even be a public representative, how can he be?
Rubbish. Again with the conflating, inflating, emotive and inaccurate language.
Watch out Shay, the Homophobe-hunters will be putting you on their list (it’s easy to get onto). Or is it only conservatives who keep lists?
@ Shay
A fifteen year old is not a child and Norris is not linked tho child sex abuse.
What you have posted appears to be a gross defamation.
If its found to be so, I hope he sues you into oblivion.
———————————————–
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
Send a message.
Well balanced article, really enjoyed it. I always liked David Norris, and do agree that he did some good things for Ireland, ie. gay rights, conservation etc. but he was always going to be a disaster as president Not because he was gay or for anything in his past, he is just not a diplomat, and that is the president’s main job… I agree some issues need to be aired on the world stage, and maybe david would be a person to do it, but not as president.
Why didn’t Norris state in the letter that he was in a relationship with this man …… People are getting confused with the anti-gay thing when this gets brought up ….. Severe lack of judgement on Norris’ behalf to think this would never come out …. ( no pun intended )
Because he wasn’t in a relationship with him, at least in the way most people understand the term ‘in a relationship’. David wanted to be in a committed monogamous relationship but Ezra didn’t so they were effectively in an ‘open relationship’ or ‘friends with benefits’. David was living and working in Ireland while Ezra was living and working in Israel/Palestine, Ezra had lived with David before that and they had split up because Ezra had ‘wandered’. It only takes a little time to research this.
Cybernolie, If your point is that monogamy is essential to a relationship I’m with you all the way. I’m afraid David Norris’s own descriptions of his relationship with this individual rather undermine your central point.
Show me your evidence and I’ll show you mine.
David gave an interview to Ursula Halligan in which he states quiet clearly that the relationship was in difficulties early on. If was an off/on relationship, carried out over a great distance with large amounts of time spent apart, both men got on with their lives and work in the meantime and also Ezra was seeing other people.
I find the need for people to be so dogmatic about this ‘relationship’ very interesting.
David Norris has referred to this man as "the love of his life".Is that evidence enough for you?
No.
David admits in the interview that he had fallen madly in love with Ezra and that his heart was broken by him. ‘Love of my life’ isn’t an incriminating statement and is not an indictable offence.
You seem to have a problem with this not being a relationship as you would like to define a relationship for the purpose of your smear campaign.
Cybernoelie.You accuse me personally of running a smear campaign. I challenge you to identify one "smear" or false statement I have posted.By the way Norris in his withdrawal statement referred to his "former partner". Is he smearing himself?
You do this all the time Charles Mark. You post comments where you hound people over a certain point and then try to play innocent (act the martyr). I’ve looked over your previous comments on other articles where you defended Sarah Palin and Netanyahu Jnr., and where you attacked the ‘flotillistas’ trying to break the illegal Gaza blockade, you also use language that indicates a certain religiosity on your part – so I won’t be engaging you any further.
“Charles Mark.”
Gay rights campaigner.
It has a certain “Je ne sai quoi”.
Cybernoelie,Clearly you won’t or can’t back up your allegation that I’m a smear campaigner even though you have obviously done some research. As for the ” certain religiosity” will you say what you mean or is that to be another hit and run?
Michael O’Neill, Please point to a single “homophobic” comment I have made?
That should be “sais” not “sai”, Michael. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Drop the word “homophobic” will you? It’s getting tiresome reading you.
Stop reading me Maurice.
Write David Norris on the Ballot
Put an “X” beside his name.
Send a message.
Outstanding piece. Agree that he was his own executioner but I still feel he may have had some help from the “dark forces” lurking around this post-Catholic nation. Anyway, let’s move on. Michael D. 2011! Sorted.
Evidence?
have your say