John Waters confirms David Norris pedophilia views

Sceala Philosopher Location: Kildare

Smear campaign claims.
There is no smear campaign against David Norris, but there are many legitimate concerns about his views, especially on pedophilia and morality. There are legitimate questions and concerns regarding his views on the independence of the Republic of Ireland. His views on the British empire and commonwealth and his very bias views on religion.
David Norris lost the right to privacy and private views when he chose to run for the highest profile job in Ireland, The President of Ireland. David Norris ensured further crutiny when he chose to make his disturbing views public.
No smear campaign. Just David Norris speaking his mind before he imagined the consequences.
The views of David Norris may have been laughed at before, enjoyed by some for their pompous and screaming nature, but not any more.
David Norris wants to be President of Ireland, the time for not taking him seriously is over.
That is why any of is views, current or past, are now very relevant to us all. Fairly obvious common sense really, not a smear.
Is David Norris and his unquestioning supporters really that naive, or do they just think the rest of us are, or should be.
It is the David Norris campaign who are refusing to acknowledge reality, that needs to drop the smear tricks.

Ireland like most of Europe has adopted the American political correctness politics and life style. We have taken what should have been some common sense and a great deal of fair play to the other extremity. Political correctness in action across Europe now applies a distinct advantage for minorities over the majority. Political correctness places the minority above democracy and genuine public opinion.

We will soon be like the UK, where somehow they consider it sensible to allow and encourage
National Black Police Association
Gay Police Association
Just think about those associations.
Would it be sensible to have a
National White Police Association
Heterosexual Police Association
European Political correctness distorts equality and mutual respect. Political correctness would demand any individuals who even publicly suggested the organization of the latter Associations, dismissed without notice - unless of course the proposers were Black or Gay.
If it is not right for a National White Police Association or a Heterosexual Police Association, then how can it possibly be right for the opposite.
How is it fair for one form of obviously racist or sexist associations to exist in any democracy and against the wishes of the majority.
But, in the UK and now in Ireland this is often the situation we now have. Ordinary people of the majority opinion and community are scared to even make a comment against someone who claims a minority lifestyle or culture. Racist, homophobic are thrown as answers to fair questions.
Is Irish society also to go insane voluntarily?

The relevant point here being.
If the exact or similar claims concerning pedophilia as those currently made against David Norris, were made against someone not openly gay and a celebrity, would there be the same general media response? The same shouts of foul play?
If the exact claims were against a Catholic priest for instance, what would happen?
In such circumstances, How many Irish newspapers would be rushing to accuse any witness of attempting a smear campaign or a publicity stunt.
The response would of course have been so different, a relentless media campaign for immediate resignation, if not criminal investigation.
The Norris campaign asks why now?
Yet equivalent claims could be made from thirty and more years ago, and the media would go to work in overdrive on our behalf. The accused would not be excused by attempting to claim a supposed mistaken context for their views on pedophilia, such a excuse would only magnify attention.

Do we have no one in public office to shout stop.
If David Norris made public his views on pedophilia, which he has not denied in entirety, just some of the context, then he has no place in any public office. Not even in that talking shop for redundant politicians, they call the Senate.

John Waters confirms David Norris pedophilia views
Real story behind that Norris interview
FOR APPROXIMATELY a year in 2001/2002, I was “consultant editor” to Magill magazine, then undergoing a substantial makeover.
My role involved general creative input and supporting the newly appointed young editor, who had day-to-day editorial responsibility but would occasionally refer trickier issues to me.
One afternoon, in early January 2002, I took a telephone call from Helen Lucy Burke, an occasional contributor to Magill .
I had never, to the best of my recollection, spoken to her before.
irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0603/1224298323687.html

She was best known as a restaurant critic, and had contributed a number of such pieces to Magill.
I admired her writing style but, to be frank, couldn’t see the point of restaurant reviews.
I knew her by reputation: honest and direct to a fault, and fearless when it came to doing her job.

The purpose of her call was to ask my advice. On the basis of a commission from the editor, she had conducted an interview with Senator David Norris about his life and perspectives, and was now deeply concerned about some aspects of that interview.
I gathered that she was a friend of Norris but had been shocked by things he had said on the subject of paedophilia. At my request, she read me several extracts from the transcript of the interview.

I remember being astonished by the content. I do not recall the verbatim quotations but, in any event, these were similar or identical to the content of the interview later published in Magill.
One quotation made references to “classic paedophilia” in ancient Greece, Norris asserting that there was “something to be said” for the approach in which a young man was introduced to sexual behaviour by an older man.
I also recall something to the effect that he, Norris, would have relished such an entanglement when he was younger.

In another quotation, he proposed that there was a spectrum of child abuse, with the example of a Christian Brother putting his hand into a boy’s pocket being at the least serious end of that spectrum.
In another extract, Norris seemed to be saying that sexually abused children might suffer more from the investigation of their abuser than from the abuse.

The thrust of his argument seemed to be summed up in two phrases that also featured in the Magill article, to the effect that there was “a lot of nonsense” and “complete and utter public hysteria” about paedophilia.

My first response was that Burke must have misinterpreted Norris’s arguments, because he seemed to be engaging in inappropriate casuistry and hair-splitting on an explosive and sensitive subject.
He would need to be crazy, I told her, to say these things in public.
She was emphatic that she had not misunderstood him, and said that she had taped the interview.
She said they had had a heated argument about it and he had refused to back down. After transcribing the interview, she had called him to read him the extracts she found problematic, but he said, “Yes, that’s fine.”

In the several years I had known Norris, we’d had some public jousts on various public issues, but I had always found him personable and engaging.
I felt instantly that the interview had the potential to land him in very hot water, possibly even to bring an end to his political career.
I had no wish for this and felt that he needed to be protected from his own foolhardiness.
I suggested to Burke that she write up the article with the quotes included, and call Norris again, explaining to him the context in which his remarks would appear and offering him another opportunity to amend or retract them.
I also told her that she should tell him she had spoken to me and that I had expressed in the strongest terms that, in his own interests, he should reconsider.

Some days later Burke called me again and said that she had done as I requested and that Norris after proposing some minor amendments – which she had incorporated into the article – had pronounced himself happy for his views to go into print.
“So be it,” I said.

For several days after publication, no other media organisation picked up on the interview, and Magill received no communication from Norris.
Although the interview was in my view sensational, I proposed that no attempt should be made to promote or draw attention to it, and the editor agreed with this approach.

When the interview was finally picked up a week later by Ireland on Sunday , I heard Norris on radio claiming that he had been misrepresented.
However, he contacted neither me nor the editor of Magill to complain about the Magill article, or about any aspect of how Magill or Burke had handled the matter.

I recall these events because, last Tuesday, I was referred to in an RTÉ Radio 1 Liveline discussion as the editor responsible for the publication of the controversial 2002 interview with Norris.
This is true, to the extent I have described.
I have had no communication with or from Burke since 2002.
John Waters confirms David Norris paedophilia views
---------------------------------------------------------
Minority rights need protection, we all accept that. No one needs more protection than children and very vulnerable teenagers from lustful older people in a position of power.
David Norris should do the right thing and withdraw gracefully from the office.
What ever way David Norris now wants the public to consider his views, it is his own words that are now clouding any otherwise clear distinction between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Open Homosexuals in position of power in Ireland should speak out against the views of Norris.
Why has not one done so?

Register

The Irish Community have posted
3 REPLIES TO THIS TOPIC
for logged in members to view.

Irish Forums Message Discussion :: John Waters confirms David Norris pedophilia views

John Waters confirms David Norris pedophilia views