Really?? So if a loved one of yours sexually assaulted a child would you write a letter? I certainly wouldn’t A friend or family member.
There has been three cases of Norris and under age children. Ezra Nawi.Magill report and his defence of the Peado poet in Nepal.

The international media would have a field day if after all the sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic Church we elected Norris.

He has more skeletons in the closet according to a interview on Radio 1.A guy tried to get his campaign team to deal with them,But they DIDN’T WANT TO.

Norris is in a real campaign not a Trinity election for a Seanad seat. Stuff was going to come out .He should now step out of the race and have some standards and step down as a Senator.

Lets remember something here. Senator Norris didn’t abuse anyone here. Not his powers as a Senator or any underage kid. His partner is completely at fault and deserves to given a hefty sentence for his crime. This incident however should not hinder Norris’ chances of becoming an Uachtarán as I believe he has the personality to be our head of state.

He wrote a letter asking that a statutory rapist get a lenient sentence on Seanad notepaper… Is that appropriate behaviour for an Uachtarain?

@Patrick coffey.
No it is not. However, he wasn’t an Uachtarán then was he… (Neither is he now at the moment).

The letter that he wrote was not at all presidential and shows that he is not suited for the job because of his complete lack of cop-on. He has made great speeches in the Seanad, railing against paedopholia and rape in the Church. How come he doesn’t when it comes to an ex-lover?

That’s a question you’ll have to ask him personally Patrick.

The big word in play here is Credibility – something that the two Mary’s shared in abundance .
Afraid not now in David’s case – you have lost my vote and I will now have to begin the search again in my head to decide where my vote will go !
Pull the plug now Senator , so as help to restore it sometime , into the future!

What a disgusting man. To think that he could even be considered for president is so wrong.

Did any of the contributors to this thread actually read the documents?

The first was a fax cover note to a person in Israel
The second was a letter of reference “to whom it may concern”
The third was an appeal to the Israeli Court, fairly balanced and citing Irish case law precedent.

At no point did Norris seek to hide the facts, or fail to take action against people under his control who were known child abusers – unlike the Bishop of Cloynes, for example!

I read the letter. Statutory rape is a serious crime. Ezra Nawi took advantage of a young person who couldn’t possibly be able to consent. To appeal to a court for clemency for a crime like that is nothing short of disgusting. I was a huge Norris supporter- I’d signed up to volunteer. I was so impressed by his record in the Seanad and the fact that he has always stood up for the poor and downtrodden. But after this I can’t support him. His actions were wrong.

@Emma
I’ve noticed that from other articles that you’re not a huge fan of Norris. Whatever your reasons are for disliking him, I believe are without foundation and probably to do with ethics. Please don’t use this as an excuse to hate on him. Anybody wondering why, read her other posts to do with Norris. She is a hater, and Gaga hates haters.

@ Patrick Coffey

The young man was fifteen.
The age of consent in Israel is sixteen, but can be as low as fourteen provided three conditions are met.

————————-

Israel

According to the Israeli Penal Code of 1977 the age of consent in Israel is 16 for any form of sexual relations. A special case arises when a person between ages 14–16 had sexual relations with an older partner; in this case the older partner would be exempt of criminal liability if three conditions are met: The age difference between the partners was less than three years, the younger partner gave consent and the act was done out of “regular friendly relations” and without the abuse of power.[27]

————————-

It is quite clear that under Israeli law the young man could have given consent had his partner satisfied all three requirements above.
While I appreciate your sentiment, if you intended it to be the absolute statement of the young man’s incompetence to consent which I read it as, then its not entirely borne out by the facts.

@ Partick Coffey.

You wrote:

“He wrote a letter asking that a statutory rapist get a lenient sentence on Seanad notepaper… Is that appropriate behaviour for an Uachtarain?”

I pointed out that he apparently did not write the appeal to the Israeli Court on Seanad Notepaper.

You replied stating that you had read the letter but failed to acknowledge that you had apparently willfully misrepresented what Senator Norris had done.

Do you now acknowledge that he did not write to the Israeli Court on Seanad Notepaper and will you now withdraw your comments?

Bollocks; @ Michael O’ Neill;

Does the fact that both covering letters were prefaced with *our* harp, (mine and yours, too-gawdhelpus!) and the submission too continued with such ingratiating nonce sense as the fact that Dorris was the highest garnering elected to the upper house of the Oireachtas as well as other such chest swelling rubbish escape you?

Are you deliberately missing the point are you, like so many others blinded by your rush to blinkered openness?

the important question is who is behind this campaign to discredit Norris. also who benefits most from his withdrawal?

Easy answer there Stephen, the entire country benefits from his withdrawal and would benefit even further if he decided to leave politics altogether.

I think the real issue is that Norris, only a few weeks back, stated unequivocally that he abhorred anyone who had anything to do with the sexual abuse of minors.
It now appears that he believes there are exceptions to that stated opinion. Basically we are back to where we were a few ago – where does Norris stand when it comes to sexual relations with minors?

@ Stephen Downey

Are we back in 1950′s America where everyone under 18 was a child?

If anyone called me a minor or treated me like a kid from the age of 14 and upwards they would have had their ears scalded for a week.

The only reasons the moral Mary’s on this thread aren’t getting similarly pasted is because teenagers don’t read the Journal.ie!

@Elaine – That is some seriously good argument you’ve constructed there. Although I agree with none of it, I still think its well thought out.

To address some of your points:

1/ His arguments regarding the implementation of a non-custodial sentence included that Nawi was the main source of support for his mother and that he was a suicide risk if incarcerated. I too am the main source of support for my mother and as an adult I realise my responsibilities each time I decide on a course of action. Hence there are things I will not do for fear of how they will affect my parent’s quality of life. Nawi obviously didn’t think about this as an adult who is much older than I am. Nor do I engage in activities that would have me incarcerated, because I don’t know how well I would survive the event.

2/ Have you ever noticed the disclaimer on certain commerical emails, which state the views of the person are not necessarily the views of the company. That because people equate letterheads with official policies. Norris, I would surmise, knew full well that using Oireachtas letterhead created the impression of legitimacy to his petition that a personal letterhead would not.

Norris was making a personal petition, and therefore had no right to intimate the involvement of the Irish government. He should have used personal notepaper.

3/ I’ve noted some of the names of Nawi’s supporters and the list is quite illustrious, with Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein amongst the signatories. However, they support Nawi for an entirely different reason, his alleged assault on an Israeli police officer and participation in a riot, of which he was likewise found guilty by an Israeli court. I’d be interested to get the reference of your NY Times article as I believe the support is in reference to this incident and not his sexual assault of a minor.

4/ Point taken, but I wonder if he would have had the same inclination to hold the documentary if the crime had been an alleged rape or if the sex with minors had been heterosexual. He has since claimed he never knew O’Searcaigh, and I’ve yet to see him jump to the defence of others alleged of criminal activities he does not know.

5/ So how many times has he petitioned courts for clemency, and what were the circumstances of the cases? I mean if I was running his political campagin and he had a history of petitioning courts, I would raise that history to downplay this incident. But the only petitions we currently know he has made to any body of authority were one involving a poet he hardly knew and the other for a close friend and ex-partner, both of whom were accused of the same offence.

6/ I’m glad to see someone mentioned homophobia today, I was beginning to miss it. You’re right, this incident cannot be attributed to any sexual preference. This incident does however add to an emerging pattern of support, tacit or otherwise, for pederasty. Norris is vague regarding his official stance for the practice, yet he has thrown his support behind does who find themselves in difficulty because of it. Homosexuality I have no issue with, pederasty however is not a Presidential quality I support.

I do however agree wholeheartedly with your wish that each candidate’s past, and present, is scrutinzed under a political and moral microscope. The problem with being the media darling is you’re always in the limelight, blemishes and all. I’m sure none of the candidates are lily-white.

Complete and utter nonsense I’m afraid Elaine.
1; Norris’s partner pleaded guilty so had to have a sentence passed on him. The fact that Norris continued the relationship with him for a decade afterwards says everything.
2; It is completely unacceptable for a member of the Oireachtas to overtly use their position to support a child abuser.
3; None of these people want to be Head of State, so the point is totally facetious.
4; He didn’t ask for it to be delayed he asked for it not to be shown that is cenship of something which is in the public interest. Would he use his position to interfere with other documentaries until the case had gone through court?
5; Why didn’t Norris see fit to mention his long term relationship to the child abuser, in the course of an 8 page letter?
6; The only intolerance is to someone who by heir statements blurs the lines between homosexuality and child abuse.

Elaine,

Well reasoned post, unfortunately you’re posting to a crowd of Neo-conservatives who think people are children until 12.01am on their eighteenth birthday. Its 1950′s morality all over again.

The Palestinian boy was 15 – courtesy of the BBC.

Yes, the BBC are running the story.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14357589)

In the light of the comments passed by some posters on me and on a member of my family, I note the following -

There are two primary issues -

Q1Was David Norris wrong in law to lobby for a reduced sentence for Ezra.
A1 No, he wasn’t.

Q2 Was David Norris using Seanad headed paper to do appeal to the Israeli court.
A2 No, he wasn’t. It appears from the RTE documents that he used headed paper to write a fax cover note and a letter of reference, but the letter to the Israeli Court was written on plain paper.

Then there are the associated issues and here the issues of clemency, mercy and personal beliefs and mores come into play – in other words, these are societal values, not matters of fact of law.

Q3. Was David Norris morally wrong to lobby for a reduced sentence for a man convicted of statutory rape?
Q4. The teen-ager in question was 15. This in and of itself raises several serious questions about whether he was a child or not. Coming of Age in Israel for both communities is based partly on societal and religious mores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_age

Judaism

In the Jewish faith, boys reach religious maturity at age thirteen and become bar mitzvah, “Son of the Commandments”. Girls mature earlier at age twelve and become bat mitzvah, “Daughter of the Commandments”.[3]

Islam

Children are not required to perform any obligatory acts of Sharia prior to reaching the age of puberty, although they should be encouraged to begin praying at the age of seven. Before reaching puberty it is recommended to practice Sharia rituals in obeisance to Allah and to exemplify Islamic customs, but as soon as one exhibits any characteristic of puberty, that person is required to perform the prayers and other obligations of Sharia.[4]

Related to this the issue of the age of consent.
Despite the blustering of contributors here this is not written in stone.

In Europe it ranges from 13 to 17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

In Asia it ranges from 13 to 19 with many Muslim countries prohibiting sex outside marriage for anyone of any sexual orientation.

In Israel the age of consent is 16 with a special exemption

According to the Israeli Penal Code of 1977 the age of consent in Israel is 16 for any form of sexual relations. A special case arises when a person between ages 14–16 had sexual relations with an older partner; in this case the older partner would be exempt of criminal liability if three conditions are met: The age difference between the partners was less than three years, the younger partner gave consent and the act was done out of “regular friendly relations” and without the abuse of power.[27]

I am not arguing the case for Ezra Yizhak, nor was David Norris.
David Norris argued for clemency for Ezra Yizhak.

To sum up -

The crime was statutory rape.
Bar Mitzvah can occur at the onset of puberty, and for males this may occur before fourteen.
The legal age of consent is sixteen and there is no suggestion that the contact was forced or coerced.
The age difference is a significant factor.

In my opinion Norris had reasonable grounds to seek clemency under Israeli law, given the circumstances.

As for the comments expressed here about me and my family and the sly insinuations -

Is THAT the best you can do?

@Michael – Wow, you really go all at it don’t – Wikipedia references and all.

The boy was a 15 year old Palestinan, which information, despite your thesis above regarding age of consent and religious and social mores amongst Jews and Muslim, was enough to convince an Israeli court (whose knowledge of Israeli laws, I would suggest, far exceed yours or mine) to prosecute.

Was Norris wrong to plead clemency, legally no. But then why hide the facts? I can only surmise something was amiss to cause him not to mention it to at least the people he entrusted his campaign to.

<>

I like to back up my comments with research. We’d have a better quality fo public debate if more people did that.

<>

This is a straw man argument. I didn’t argue the case against Ezra Yizhak. I made the case that Norris had reasonable grounds for asking for clemency. And you ignored that fact.

<>

This is another straw man argument. You question why he hid this while no-one suggested he hid anything. Except you, by inference.

I have already given my opinion as to why Norris behaved as he did in reply to another post.

You posted some interesting points to another poster. I respectfully suggest that you back to that mode and play the straw man game with opponents who won’t spot them and out them for what they are.

Not me.

Lets see Finlay, who is part of Barnardos, which supports sick children, distances himself from David Norris, who is under attack from right wing conservatives over allegations that his lobbying for clemency for an ex-partner somehow suggest he condones sex between older men and under age males.

Finlay, had close ties to the Labour Party, whose candidate Michael D Higgins is also running for President and who would (like all the other candidates) benefit hugely if Norris was removed from the race.

I think its fair to say that Finlay has at least two agendas motivating him to make his comments.

It is wrong for a politician to do it as it smacks of interference when a member of the legislature tries to influence the courts. Norris isn’t the first politician to do it and others like former TD Bobby Molloy resigned when caught at it. It is an abuse of power in the same way the Catholic bishops shielding child abusers is an abuse of power. Let’s hope Norris has a sufficient grasp of reality to understand what he did was wrong and not to continue to put pressure on the welling meaning but misguidd people who supported him.

There is no similarity in type or degree between

(i) a politician lobbying for clemency for a convicted criminal (which is not a crime) and

(ii) a person in authority impeding a garda investigation and aiding and abetting abusers of children (which is a crime).

One person is committing a crime, the other is not – it is simply not comparable. People may wish it were but it is not in law.

As for the ethical argument, politicians lobby for things all the time, at home and abroad and for lesser reasons than they used know the convicted person intimately. There were definitely no votes in this for David Norris, then or now.

For the relevant definitions of coming of age and age of consent as they related to the Ezra Yizhak case, my other post refers.

Totally agree, Oisín!!

I’m afraid you may be quite correct, but I suspect that the supporters of David Norris who have seen the Moral Mary’s do down someone widely respected will be sharpening the long knives for any perceived beneficiary of this smear campaign.

The clemency plea was not written on Seanad notepaper according to the documents online from RTE. Please check your facts before posting again.

If there are more revelations to come as you suggest I would hope that people will judge them on the facts but the showing thus far from the moral majority suggests that this will not be the case.

They say you get the government you deserve and we will get the President we deserve.

But if smear campaigns with little enough substance are used to guide public opinion then I doubt that the president we elect deserves the office.

Agree

Michael
Get your facts right before you start defending DN, the character reference or whatever you wish to call it WAS written on Seaned paper, it was on a thread here at theJoirnal. Nobody guilty of such a heinous crime, be they gay, heterosexual or a cleric, should be afforded this kind of support. It’s disgusting full stop!

In which case, why not raise it as a possible talking point with his campaign staff at the start so they could have prepared a crafted response prior to the issue arising in the press?

Norris is not a stupid individual, he knew this kind of story could damage his chances and alienate his support, which is why he kept it hidden even from his own team.

@ Loiuse see my other posts on what was written on the headed paper and what wasn’t otherwise I agree.

@ Oisín I also cannot account for his behaviour – I don’t know David Norris well enough to gauge his mind on this, having only met him in person twice, though on both occasions he impressed me with his personal charm, wit and knowledge of the subject under discussion.

Most politicians personal lives are not dragged into politics and it is considered bad form to do so.

It is also a well known that politicians lobby for far worse criminals than Norris’s former partner.

Given these factors (and what follows is mere speculation on my part) I don’t think that David Norris saw this issue as being as serious a threat to his presidency as it has since become.

I hope the hate and bile shown by some posters to the Journal doesn’t sour him on politics altogether.

@Michael – “Most politicians personal lives are not dragged into politics and it is considered bad form to do so.”
Seriously, where do you live? Talk about living in the 1950s.

Charlie Haughey, Albert Reynolds, Bertie Ahern, Brian Lenihan Jr., David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, David Cameron, Peter Donaldson, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Kerry, half the Houses of Commons and Lords (MPs expense scandal), Sarah Palin.

Any of these names sound vaguely familiar to you?

“It is also a well known that politicians lobby for far worse criminals than Norris’s former partner.”
So its really all a matter of degree then? Everybody does it, and most do much worse. I mean its not like he’s advocating genocide or anything, right? Didn’t ruin the country economically so he’s still in with a chance? Very magnanimous of you.

“I hope the hate and bile shown by some posters to the Journal doesn’t sour him on politics altogether.”
Really? I doubt he even knows the URL to this site. I wouldn’t say he’s crying too many tears into his pillow. He wouldn’t have lasted in the political arena so long if he cried everytime someone passed a nasty remark.

@Elaine –

1/ There may be precedents in Irish Law, but this was tried in Israel, where our standards of practice are irrelevant.

2/ I would have to see the other petitions and I would also ask if they were made with Oireachtas knowledge. If Oireachtas members use the Government of Ireland’s letterhead to advance personal agendas, I would say that’s reprehensible, regardless of who they are. So if this is a common as you maintain, then it should definitely be investigated.

3/ Thank you for the link. I see it was a general piece detailing his work for the Palestinians and contained no reference to the topic of discussion here. It did mention “relationship with a Palestinian from the West Bank” which ended with a conviction “on charges of allowing his companion to live illegally in Israel” but I’d say that was a different relationship.

4/ Point taken. But it is a huge coincidence that the crime involved sexual relations with minors in both instances and that Norris has stated a wish to see pederasty practised again.

5/ I would argue that Norris has been involved in politics for many, many years, his work advocating the legalisation of homosexuality should have taught him that events from a person’s past can damage them, as he garnered a lot of animosity back then. He’s also an educated and intelligent individual and I would surmise his keeping schtum about Nawi was a calculated risk on his part, so as not to alienate more conservative potential supporters.

6/ Anything I’ve read from Norris with connection to pederasty has been vague. He has described how he would have appreciated been taken under an older man’s wing while in his teens and mentioned a longing for the return of pederasty. He has also commented on his abhorrence of sex with those under the age of consent, but he has never quite commented on whether he approves of the age of consent as it stands or where he would draw the line.

I can appreciate that supporting a friend is not condoning their actions, but I keep getting drawn back to the fact that there’s been a pattern of support that revolves around those accused of sexual relationship with minors. He’s been quite vociferous against crimes perpretrated against women and prostitutes which is why I questioned whether he’d be willing to support a friend accused of rape.

As for missing homophobia, I think you misread my comment. I stated I missed the mention of homophobia. I was speaking in reference to supporters of Norris failing back on the trusted gem of “You’re just a bigoted homophobe”. I appreciate you said no such thing in your initial comments, but as you mentioned homophobia in passing, I couldn’t resist.

Personally, as I’ve stated elsewhere, I couldn’t care less about the sexual preferences of the President. I do care that they represent us with as little tarnish as possible however, and I can’t see that happening with Norris.

Pure and unsullied might be a little much to hope for. Boring and with skeletons securely closeted will do fine.

“6/ Anything I’ve read from Norris with connection to pederasty has been vague.”

I would have to agree, and I think this witch-hunt is down to people sniffing around in the hope of finding something to nail him with.

The motivations I suspect are those right wingers whose noses were bloodied by the divorce referendum, further bloodies by the fact that Irish society didn’t collapse as they predicted and now see the insult to injury (in their eyes) of same sex marriage creeping in to undermine the fabric of society.

They refuse to see that its their own intolerance which divides society, a society on which at present a 17 year old male having carnal knowledge of a sixteen year old girl with her consent is guilty of a criminal offence -

————————————————————-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0015/sec0003.html#sec3

3.— (1) Any person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (3), be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or
(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(2) Any person who attempts to engage in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (4) be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or
(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years.

(3) A person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection (1) shall, in respect of any subsequent conviction of an offence under that subsection, be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or
(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years.

(4) A person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection (2) shall, in respect of any subsequent conviction of an offence under that subsection be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years, or
(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

————————————————————-

I don’t agree that making criminals out of teenagers doing what comes naturally benefits society, nor does it prevent teenage pregnancy.

I do agree that preventing older adults preying on younger teens is a good thing and does benefit society overall.

The former cannot be equated to the latter.

@Michael – The discussion is not about a 17 year old having sex with a 16 year old. Its about a 40 year old having sex with a 15 year old, and Norris’ subsequent petition for clemency. Likewise its not a discussion about our laws. The laws of Israel were violated, not the laws of Ireland.

Where on earth do to get the whole “right wing” conspiracy theory from? In case you haven’t noticed the political parties are all pretty centrist here. As far as political leanings in this country goes we’re all pretty left wing by other nation’s standards. So please, you need to put down the John Grisham novel.

Just one more question, if everything is above board, why then did senior campaign staff walk out?

[@Michael – The discussion is not about a 17 year old having sex with a 16 year old. Its about a 40 year old having sex with a 15 year old, and Norris’ subsequent petition for clemency. Likewise its not a discussion about our laws. The laws of Israel were violated, not the laws of Ireland.]

Thank you for raising straw man arguments and nailing them cold.
Now address the points I’ve raised – do you support criminalization of teenagers engaging in consenting sex?
Hint: the answer to this will lead into the next paragraph

[Where on earth do to get the whole “right wing” conspiracy theory from? In case you haven’t noticed the political parties are all pretty centrist here. As far as political leanings in this country goes we’re all pretty left wing by other nation’s standards. So please, you need to put down the John Grisham novel.]

Again you expertly defeat your own straw man arguments.

My reference to “right wing” was specific to the conservative attitude to Norris’ actions, which ranged from simple lies (he didn’t actually write to the court on header paper, he wrote a fax cover note and a letter of reference on headed) to unfounded defamatory comments (seeking leniency in sentencing does NOT make him a pedophile).

Just one more question, if everything is above board, why then did senior campaign staff walk out?

Do you have any actual arguments to make, or is it just these straw man arguments?

I am on record as calling them spineless, without the bottle for this.
If they went into his campaign without fully researching his background, then they were clueless and spineless.
And if they actually thought they would be sailing into harbour on election day with a fair wind behind them instead of battling through a stormy sea to get there, they seem to be politically gormless as well.

Clueless, spineless, gormless. A dismal bunch.

But I suspect that in the heel of the hint we’ll just find that Norris’s alleged arrogance got their backs up.

Assuming you’re going to reply, please make an effort to comment on what I asked you to comment on – don’t do a Charlie McCreevy and comment on something I didn’t raise at all.

It’s just Western politics Natalie. He’s never before run for president, so there was no need to scrutinize him so thoroughly, was there? Now that he wants to be the President of an EU country, he must be squeaky clean or no go. And he’s not squeaky clean – he’s embroiled in things that normally outrage all decent people. Child abuse, misrepresenting the Govt (letter on headed paper from the Seanad), defending an admitted paedophile (O Searchaigh – poet in Nepal). There are no “certain powers that be”. It’s just people who don’t support him telling it as it is. He just step down from the Seanad if he had any interest in what is best for this sorry little nation!