Presidential Campaign Hots Up as Norris Nominated

So, despite the best efforts of assorted political fantasists, craw-thumpers and straightforward homophobes, David Norris has managed to secure a place on the ballot sheet for the presidential election.

Good.  That’ll give the holy joes something to think about as they gnaw at the feet of their statues.

Imagine what Archbishop McQuaid would be saying if he could only see the state Ireland has got itself into, saints preserve us.  But wait.  Of course he can see.  Didn’t he pass into everlasting life when he cast off these mortal bonds and doesn’t he now sit beside the Mayor of Heaven at all important meetings and dinners?

Of course he does.   There’s only one JC who matters up there and it isn’t that hippie guy.

It’ll give Dana something to think about too as she wanders around Knock with Susan Boyle.  Did you see that?  The presidential candidate whose major achievement in life was to win a very dodgy song contest 41 years ago with a decidedly dodgy song, was photographed blundering around the heart of all Irish religious fakery with poor old Susan Boyle, the new face of Gillette.

What the hell could they have been talking about together as they stared at the sun and tried to make out the Virgin Mary in the clouds and the tree-stumps?

Isn’t that a grand wee wall over there Susan, right enough?

Why does the sun go on shining?

So we can stare at it Susan.  

Cry me a river. 

Look, Susan.   That’s where the visionaries saw the wee lamb and St John and Our Lady.  Right there on that wall.  There.

I dreamed a dream.

What’s that you say Susan?

It’s a perfect day.  Don’t say it’s the end of the world.

What on earth are we talking about here? What exactly is the list of people who think they should be president of Ireland?

Dana, an ultra-right evangelical whose main fan-base is in the American bible belt.  Dana hopes to be President in order to be a President before her close friend Sarah Palin.

Sean Gallagher, a mythical fire-breathing TV lizard.   Sean’s main purpose in the election is to promote his deeply-held belief in Sean.

Mary whose name I can never remember, the Quango Queen.  Fianna Fáil’s professional chairwoman.

Michael D, the man with no surname, who recites Poetry as long as it has a capital P.

Gay Mitchell, the Willie O Dea of West Dublin, but with extra Miraculous Medals, whips and possibly some painful leg-chains. In a world of comb-overs, Mitchell created a new hair look: the Mitchell swipe-aside.

Martin McGuinness, a man who never, ever headed the IRA, but who still refuses to discuss what he didn’t do.

And finally, of course, the dreaded arse-bandit Norris, whose campaign threatens to destroy civilisation as we know it.  A man who once wrote a letter.







Schrödinger’s Pervert – no agreed age of consent in Europe

Now that the David Norris case has hit the front pages, the Interwebs are alive with all manner of speculation and allegation, and the most common accusation is that he defended a paedophile.

Now, that would be fine if we all had a common definition of a paedophile, but after a quick scan of European laws, I’ve discovered that we have no such agreement.  Ezra Nawi would not be considered a paedophile in France, Germany, Italy or the Czech Republic.  On the other hand, a man legally married to a 17-year-old wife here in Ireland could be convicted of child abuse in Malta.  More to the point, a man with a 16-year-old girlfriend would be acting legally in Israel, but a criminal in this country.

Furthermore,  when Ezra Nawi was convicted in 1992, Israel operated two different ages of consent : 16 for heterosexuals and 18 for homosexuals.

Even within Europe, there’s no agreed age of consent, which means that, in theory, a person could simultaneously be a paedophile and not a paedophile simply by standing with a foot on each side of a national border — in other words, Schrödinger’s Pervert, somebody both depraved and virtuous at the same time.

Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens when we project the social mores of one society onto another.  Here in Ireland, for instance, we have set the age of consent at 17, which seems rather high by comparison with other jurisdictions, but not as high as Malta where the limit is 18.  And while there might have been a time when our teenagers were a little coy and sexually repressed, I suspect those days have long fled.

Of course, the issue isn’t really about sex between teenagers, but instead about situations when a great age difference exists — except in Ireland where we prosecute 17-year-old boys for having sex with 16-year-old girlfriends because, as you know, we have more morals than anyone else.  We have so many morals, we’ve even exported them. A morals mountain.

Within one jurisdiction, the paedophile definition is consistent, enabling us to define what we consider acceptable or not in our society.  That’s why, for instance, we can say with certainty that some convicted priests are paedos, but we must always remember that they would not be criminals in other countries.  In Spain, for instance, the age of consent is 13, which seems a bit pervy by any standards, but it’s a fact all the same.

I find it creepy to think that a man of 40 would want anything to do with a prattling teenager of either sex, but that’s just me, that’s my own prejudice, and my personal hang-ups don’t make the law.

However, it’s a different matter when people use the word Paedophile, not least because it has a reassuringly scientific sound to it, even though it was invented by perverts to justify what they do.

The problem is this.  If Nawi had sex with a 15-year-old in Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Holland, Malta, Norway or Russia, he’d be a paedophile.  If he had sex with a 15-year-old in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Poland or Austria, he’d be a healthy, sexually-active adult.  Therefore, without a commonly-agreed age of consent, calling somebody in another society a paedophile simply has no meaning, other than as an expression of our personal revulsion.

How can this be resolved?  I don’t know.  Maybe you do.




Here’s a table of countries grouped by age of consent.  It could contain some errors, so feel free to correct any you notice.


Age of Consent Country
13 Spain
14 Albania
15 Czech Republic
16 Belgium
United Kingdon
17 Cyprus
18 Turkey




All posts on David Norris






David Norris Presidential Campaign in Disarray

The presidential election campaign seems to be coming off the rails for David Norris, but nobody has yet said exactly why, though there are hints that he may have written an inapproriate letter to Israeli authorities in 1992, requesting clemency for a former lover, Ezra Nawi, convicted of sex with an under-age youth.   Various members of his election team seem to have quit, either by text or on Twitter, but there’s almost no hard information. The article states that Nawi, an outspoken Jewish critic of Israeli policy in Gaza and the West Bank, was convicted of sex with a minor in 1992, but information on this conviction seems to be scant.  Norris broke up with Nawi due to his persistent infedilities.

I have been unable to find any details of this conviction on line, apart from a post on by our old friend, TheSystemWorks, who was banned from this site for attempting to derail criticism of Israeli policy regarding Palestine.  This individual had a clear policy of promoting Israeli government policy, not just on this site, but on many others, and used many dishonest and disruptive tactics while he was allowed to take part in discussions here.  As I said, he is no longer tolerated, due to his disrespect for those who disagreed with his government’s actions.

This isn’t to say that reports of the conviction are invented, but the timing is certainly suspicious, to say the least.   I can’t find anything about the trial, but maybe some vigilant reader might be able to provide more details.

There is no suggestion that Norris had anything to do with Nawi’s actions, apart from seeking clemency in sentencing, but the campaign team seems to be disintegrating around him.

Maybe more information will emerge as time goes on but if this information has been leaked by the Israeli embassy, we’re looking at a clear interference in Irish affairs by an external agancy.





Our little friend, thesystemworks, posting as @mendingtheworld,  tweeted as follows:

The Israeli embassy had no interest in this until I broke the story to them. Screw you.

No change there, then.


More factoids emerge as the day wears on.  Some stories indicate that Norris wrote to the Israeli authorities on Oireachtas notepaper in 1992, requesting lenient treatment for Ezra Nawi, although it’s not yet clear if he wrote in respect of the sex offence or one of the political charges he faced for his opposition to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.  If so, Norris wouldn’t be the only Irish politician to lobby the Israeli government on its policy, but it raises another question.

Why did the Israeli authorities keep such a letter quiet until right now, nineteen years later, as Norris enters the last lap of his quest to secure a nomination?  It’s hard to escape the conclusion that they chose the moment to cause maximum damage.

It’s also hard to escape the conclusion that Israel used the letter tactically to influence an election in this State.




Text of Norris letters


While the letter to the high court is in parts cringe-inducing, it is not on Oireachtas stationery as charged.


Independent Political Editor Knifes David Norris

David Norris is doomed, in my opinion.

From the moment Helen Lucy Burke slid the knife in, assisted by the weasel words of Fionnán Sheahan, Ireland’s premier journalist, Norris had no hope.

Burke, who still can’t produce the tape of the interview, claims that Norris endorsed sex with minors.  Norris denies it.

Sheahan, in typical Independent style, came up with an article so full of slithery two-faced evasion that I can barely bring myself to read it again.  After I read it the first time, I felt like I’d been offered sweets out of a car, but as an example of journalistic dishonesty, it should be taught in schools across the world, and for this alone it’s worth revisiting.

Let’s examine how an honest man’s reputation can be taken away from by a cynical journalist without leaving room for legal action.

Why don’t we dissect the article?  Here it is, in its entirety.  We’ll boldface doubtful statements by Fionnán.  Some of them are meaningless journalistic puff which still serve to smear Norris subliminally. Others are statements held out as fact.

SENATOR David Norris’ (sic) prospects of being a presidential election candidate were thrown into doubt [in whose mind?] last night as controversial comments [things he said ten years ago] came back to haunt him. [were produced to shaft him].

The Independent candidate went to ground [wouldn’t talk to me] after his Presidential campaign was dealt a blow [after we decided to get him] by the return [repeating of inaccurate statements] of a controversy over past comments about paedophilia.

The comments by the senator, dating back a decade, returned [were repeated by journalists with a political agenda] as he entered a crucial stage in his bid to secure a nomination for the Presidential election.

Mr Norris’s original comments [according to Helen Lucy Burke] in 2001 were: “I haven’t the slightest interest in children, or in people who are considerably younger than me.

“I cannot understand how anybody could find children of either sex in the slightest bit attractive sexually. . . but in terms of classic paedophilia [disputed by Norris], as practised by the Greeks, for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man to adult life, there can be something said for it. Now, again, this is not something that appeals to me.

“Although when I was younger I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man [Translation : Queers are bad] taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, treating me with affection, teaching me about life.”

The resurrection [digging up by journalists with a political agenda] of the comments pose a major challenge [is a knife in the back] to Mr Norris and how he handles the fallout may determine if he gets on the Presidential ticket at all. Supporters [Who?] or Mr Norris admitted to being “worried“and said he would have to “clean up” the controversy if he hoped to secure a nomination. [What supporters said this?  Who are they?]

But Mr Norris faces a difficult task in trying to explain [avoiding the mud thrown by the  Independent] his original comments, with an old political rule being quoted [by Tony O Reilly]  last night: when you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Mr Norris helped launch a garden design competition [he’s a homo] yesterday for the forthcoming Bloom festival alongside Environment Minister Phil Hogan and rugby pundit Brent Pope before the controversy reignited [before we stirred it up again] yesterday. Afterwards, the senator’s campaign spokesman said Mr Norris was unavailable for comment: “Not at this time.” [Go away you pondlife hack.]

The senator issued a statement in response to criticism [from who?] of his candidacy claiming his 2001 comments about sexuality were misleading.

“The presentation of references to sexuality in the article attributed to me were misleading in that they do not convey the context in which they were made,” he said.

Notably [what?], the senator does not claim he was misquoted. [He does]

The original controversy arose in 2001 from a magazine interview where Mr Norris said he “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,” he said in the statement.

“People should judge me on my record and actions as a public servant, over the last 35 years and on the causes and campaigns, for which I have fought, and not on an academic conversation with a journalist over dinner. I did not ever and would not approve of the finished article as it appeared,” he said.

However, Mr Norris’s reluctance yesterday to make a public comment on the affair was viewed [by who?] as an indication the controversy has damaged his campaign.

The senator is seeking a nomination from 20 TDs and senators or the backing of four city and county councils.

In a fortnight’s time, he will address three councils on one day, which he has described as ‘Super Monday’

Fionnán Sheahan, astoundingly or not, is the Independent’s political editor, which seems fair enough.

When the Beano covers politics, who else would it employ but Dennis the Menace?

Dear God.  Welcome to Irish journalism.



Darwin has an interesting take on the subject.




[Translation : The Indo doesn’t like queers]

David Norris and the Spectrum of Child Abuse

There’s uproar over comments attributed to David Norris in which he referred to a range of severity in child abuse.  He said that offences varied in gravity, with rape at one end of the scale, and at the other a Christian Brother putting his hand in a boy’s pocket.

People are saying that he shouldn’t make such a distinction, and that all child abuse is a heinous crime.

It’s a cop-out.  If all crimes are of equal gravity, we must apply the maximum sentence every time someone is convicted.

In reality, the matter has already been decided in law.  Sexual assault  has degrees of seriousness and every time  the courts try a person for child abuse, they make exactly this assessment.  That’s why a perv who feels up a kid  gets a lighter sentence than a rapist.

It’s also why the courts take into account various other aggravating circumstances in deciding on a sentence.

If a rapist is on the same level as a perv copping a feel, is it not a fact that rape is downgraded to become the equivalent of a creep getting a cheap thrill?  Is this not a dangerous blurring of a crime that deserves the closest examination and the worst possible punishment?

Should David Norris have pretended that the courts don’t place sexual crimes on a scale of severity?


David Norris on the Campaign Trail at Limerick’s Milk Market

What the hell is this? I grunted, as I crammed the last of the delicious lamb Rogan Josh down my throat.  I was only wandering around the market as part of my weekly ritual in anticipation of an enjoyable day at Thomond Park when out of the corner of my eye, I noticed — what?  That’s right.  A well-known, flamboyant Presidential candidate.  On the stump.

Here, David, I said, shaking his hand.  Go for it, kid!

I wish him well, and I hope he makes it.  Here’s a few pics and a little video.

[scrollGallery id=39]




Evil Sex-Obsessed Religious Fundamentalists Set Up Anti-Gay Website to Attack David Norris

Some time ago, I wrote about the demented Burke family who picketed the Dáil in protest at the civil partnership law.

These appear to be a family whose only interest is sex.  Other people’s sex.

Now they’re at it again with two websites encouraging hatred against gays.

One is called the Campaign for Conscience, which is rather a pompous thing for a single demented family to style itself.  The site appears to be obsessed with gayness and is clearly controlled by somebody suffering from profound inner doubts about themselves, manifesting as hatred to their fellow men and women.

The other spin-off is called Davidnorris4president, a nasty, bile-filled attack on a man who might yet be our president, and based exclusively on his sexual orientation.  The sole objection to David Norris’s candidacy is the fact that he’s homosexual.

In my opinion, these sites contravene section 2 of the Incitement to Hatred Act 1989:

Actions likely to stir up hatred . 2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—
a ) to publish or distribute written material,
b ) to use words, behave or display written material—
(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or
(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,
c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,
if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

The act defines hatred as follows:

“hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

That looks like a clear-cut case to me.  Maybe someone would like to make a formal complaint to an Garda Síochána.