I’d never heard of Niall O’Dowd until reading that statement. I still don’t know who he is. Does this make me ignorant?
Yes.
He is the most quintessential Irish American since JFK.
Brother of brave Fergus O’Dowd who wailed like a baby when the truck rammed into Dail Eireann last year. He was all of 500 yards away !!!
Fine Gael have chosen Gay Mitchell :lol:
:lol:
Didn’t see that coming. Will make for a more entertaining campaign than either of the other two would anyway.
So Norris is against gay?
30/07/2011 - 13:23:45
Support for Senator David Norris’ presidential campaign appears to be wavering after the latest controversy to hit his campaign.
Concerns have been raised regarding the 1992 conviction of Mr Norris’s former partner, Ezra Yizhak Nawi, for having sex with an underage Palestinian youth.
Independent TD Thomas Pringle, one of 15 Oireachtas members to pledge their support for Mr Norris, said that he needs more information on the subject before making a decision.
Senators Marie-Louise O’Donnell and John Crown also reportedly considering their position on Senator Norris’ nomination.
It has also been reported that two key figures in the campaign have stepped down - director of communications Jane Cregan and director of elections Derek Murphy.
Senator Norris has previously defended controversial remarks on sexuality that he made in an interview with Magill Magazine in 2002, stating: “During the course of a comprehensive conversation, Miss Burke and I engaged an academic discussion about classical Greece and sexual activity in a historical context; it was a hypothetical, intellectual conversation which should not have been seen as a considered representation of my views on some of the issues discussed over dinner.”
“The references to sexual activity were what were emphasised and subsequently picked up and taken out of context in other media.”[left][left]
Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/norris-nominators-consider-withdrawing-support-514810.html#ixzz1Tb6RNej0[/left][/left]
Looks as if Norris may be pulling out.
It looked at one stage as if he wasn’t going to go down without a fight, but it looks like he’s just going to take it now.
Norris is a fucking pervert who should be jailed. 
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0802/1224301718769.html?via=mr
The Irish Times - Tuesday, August 2, 2011
[size=4]Norris acted wrongly but should not be scapegoat[/size]
[size=4]FINTAN O’TOOLE[/size]
THERE IS a simple principle to be applied to the case of David Norris’s pleas on behalf of a man convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old boy.
He should be treated exactly like any other politician caught doing the same thing. He should not be given a free pass because of his immense contribution to the cause of equality and decency in this society. Neither should his actions be used to vent the closet homophobia that lies behind so much of the antipathy to him. Let’s try, rather, to be dispassionate and morally consistent.
Let’s start with the obvious. Politicians should not be trying to influence sentences for those convicted of serious crimes. Full stop. No qualifications, no excuses. (Sexual crimes obviously have a particular emotional resonance, but the principle should be no different for any serious offence.) David Norris used his position as a member of the Oireachtas to try to influence a court.
His first letter was on Seanad notepaper and signed in his capacity as a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. His second, longer letter made extensive reference to his public positions and even to the possibility of him running for the presidency.
This is inexcusable. It is quite understandable (even admirable) at a human level that he would have wished to make a plea for mercy for someone he loved. But to do so in an official capacity is an abuse of public office. Public representatives must know how to distinguish the personal from the official. If he is ever to be president, David Norris has a big job to do in convincing the Irish people that he fully understands that distinction.
Given that Norris was completely wrong in this case, what are the consequences of treating him exactly the same as anyone else in his position? Let’s look at the precedents.
My educated guess – based on the exceptional cases that have been exposed – is that, since 1997 when Norris wrote the Israeli letters, hundreds of similar letters have been written to Irish courts by other members of the Oireachtas.
In 2002, when it emerged that the then junior minister Bobby Molloy had intervened in a much more serious way on behalf of a child rapist, Patrick Naughton, the then taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, defended him on the basis that “that’s what politicians do. A Teachta Dála is a public representative and you make representations.” There is nothing to suggest that Ahern was wrong about this. In relation to child rape alone, we know of three specific cases of TDs making pleas on their behalf. In 2007, it emerged that Fianna Fáil TD Tony Killeen had twice written to the minister for justice seeking early release for a heinous double rapist, Joseph Nugent. Fine Gael’s Pat Breen went so far as to put down a parliamentary question about when Nugent would be released. The Cork Labour TD Kathleen Lynch wrote a letter to a judge in 2008 to tell him that a convicted rapist of two children came from “a good family”.
What happened when these interventions came to public attention? Molloy eventually resigned – but that was because his office had gone even further and tried to contact the judge directly. The other three subsequently gained political promotion: Killeen to the cabinet as minister for defence; Breen to the chairmanship of the Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs; and Lynch to a junior ministry with responsibility for disability and older people. It is absolutely clear that the existing standard in Ireland is that making representations on behalf of a child rapist does not debar you from public office.
So, is Norris’s offence worse than these others? Hardly. It relates to a crime that, while utterly inexcusable, is less violent and brutal than the others. And, on a human level, it is considerably less cynical. Killeen, Lynch and Breen made their interventions purely as part of the demented system of clientelism. They did it to get votes. Norris did it out of a misguided sense of loyalty to someone who had been the love of his life.
It is also relevant that a plea to a foreign court was much less likely to result in improper influence than an intervention by a TD in Ireland’s intimate nexus of local and political connections.
So, we come to the key question: should David Norris be the one who takes the hit so that this kind of abuse is ended once and for all?
There is certainly a case to be made that he should be – sometimes, a high-profile casualty is needed to scare other politicians into righteousness. But isn’t it just a bit too convenient for our system that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour TDs should get away with it while the Independent gets hammered? And shouldn’t we feel uneasy at the notion that the gay man whose own sexuality was criminalised for so long is held to a higher standard than straight politicians?
David Norris has a lot of explaining to do, but he should be allowed to do it in a free electoral debate.
[quote=“sid waddell, post: 596959”]http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0802/1224301718769.html?via=mr
The Irish Times - Tuesday, August 2, 2011
[size=4]Norris acted wrongly but should not be scapegoat[/size]
[size=4]FINTAN O’TOOLE[/size]
THERE IS a simple principle to be applied to the case of David Norris’s pleas on behalf of a man convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old boy.
He should be treated exactly like any other politician caught doing the same thing. He should not be given a free pass because of his immense contribution to the cause of equality and decency in this society. Neither should his actions be used to vent the closet homophobia that lies behind so much of the antipathy to him. Let’s try, rather, to be dispassionate and morally consistent.
Let’s start with the obvious. Politicians should not be trying to influence sentences for those convicted of serious crimes. Full stop. No qualifications, no excuses. (Sexual crimes obviously have a particular emotional resonance, but the principle should be no different for any serious offence.) David Norris used his position as a member of the Oireachtas to try to influence a court.
His first letter was on Seanad notepaper and signed in his capacity as a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. His second, longer letter made extensive reference to his public positions and even to the possibility of him running for the presidency.
This is inexcusable. It is quite understandable (even admirable) at a human level that he would have wished to make a plea for mercy for someone he loved. But to do so in an official capacity is an abuse of public office. Public representatives must know how to distinguish the personal from the official. If he is ever to be president, David Norris has a big job to do in convincing the Irish people that he fully understands that distinction.
Given that Norris was completely wrong in this case, what are the consequences of treating him exactly the same as anyone else in his position? Let’s look at the precedents.
My educated guess – based on the exceptional cases that have been exposed – is that, since 1997 when Norris wrote the Israeli letters, hundreds of similar letters have been written to Irish courts by other members of the Oireachtas.
In 2002, when it emerged that the then junior minister Bobby Molloy had intervened in a much more serious way on behalf of a child rapist, Patrick Naughton, the then taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, defended him on the basis that “that’s what politicians do. A Teachta Dála is a public representative and you make representations.” There is nothing to suggest that Ahern was wrong about this. In relation to child rape alone, we know of three specific cases of TDs making pleas on their behalf. In 2007, it emerged that Fianna Fáil TD Tony Killeen had twice written to the minister for justice seeking early release for a heinous double rapist, Joseph Nugent. Fine Gael’s Pat Breen went so far as to put down a parliamentary question about when Nugent would be released. The Cork Labour TD Kathleen Lynch wrote a letter to a judge in 2008 to tell him that a convicted rapist of two children came from “a good family”.
What happened when these interventions came to public attention? Molloy eventually resigned – but that was because his office had gone even further and tried to contact the judge directly. The other three subsequently gained political promotion: Killeen to the cabinet as minister for defence; Breen to the chairmanship of the Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs; and Lynch to a junior ministry with responsibility for disability and older people. It is absolutely clear that the existing standard in Ireland is that making representations on behalf of a child rapist does not debar you from public office.
So, is Norris’s offence worse than these others? Hardly. It relates to a crime that, while utterly inexcusable, is less violent and brutal than the others. And, on a human level, it is considerably less cynical. Killeen, Lynch and Breen made their interventions purely as part of the demented system of clientelism. They did it to get votes. Norris did it out of a misguided sense of loyalty to someone who had been the love of his life.
It is also relevant that a plea to a foreign court was much less likely to result in improper influence than an intervention by a TD in Ireland’s intimate nexus of local and political connections.
So, we come to the key question: should David Norris be the one who takes the hit so that this kind of abuse is ended once and for all?
There is certainly a case to be made that he should be – sometimes, a high-profile casualty is needed to scare other politicians into righteousness. But isn’t it just a bit too convenient for our system that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour TDs should get away with it while the Independent gets hammered? And shouldn’t we feel uneasy at the notion that the gay man whose own sexuality was criminalised for so long is held to a higher standard than straight politicians?
David Norris has a lot of explaining to do, but he should be allowed to do it in a free electoral debate.[/quote]
good balanced article by otoole. i do think norris should walk away from the race now after reading his letters to the court in israel. mind you, i see that yerwans tapes never turned up and then after he survived that court documents turned up from israel leaves me with little doubt there was a smear campaign although norris put most of those skeletons in the closet
Watch the smear campaign move onto Higgins if Norris does pull out.
Excellent article from O’Toole.
I heard rumours that Robert Ballagh was considering running. I wonder how true this is.
He was considering it, but I saw an interview with him recently where he had said he decided against it.
Yeah Ballagh declared himself out recently.
Decent article from O’Toole alright. Norris is representative of a wider problem but part of the reason he would have attracted some votes was because he’d be expected to not have that type of lobbying background. Definitely the victim of a deliberate smear campaign alright so he’ll join Lenihan and Roche in that respect.
Would have been 7 good years of these if he won.
Norris has officially pulled out of the race.
Smear campaign or not he tried to get some zionist paedo off the hook. He’s a fucking pervert.