Ireland's hope of first gay president kaput.

[devogue]

I read the title of that as "Arse Race".

[mistermack]

There's no crime in being someone's ex.
There's no crime in being in a relationship with someone who's breaking the law.
Although there are questions that need to be answered, like did you know.

For me, the real wrong he did was using his position blatantly to try to bend the sentence.
He can't be short of paper, but he wrote it on official Irish government paper.
The heavy hint being that he would repay the debt, in any way he could, if his friend was treated leniently.

That's corruption. It's subtle, but to me it's corrupt. He no doubt calculated that he could make excuses about the paper used, if it leaked out, but the message was clear.
That's why he's stepping down. It was HIS actions, not those of his partner's, that did for him.

[Seth]

There's no crime in being someone's ex.

Didn't say there was.

There's no crime in being in a relationship with someone who's breaking the law.

Nope, not unless you know about the lawbreaking and either conceal it, conspire in it, or ignore it. Then it may well be a crime.

Although there are questions that need to be answered, like did you know.

Yup.

For me, the real wrong he did was using his position blatantly to try to bend the sentence.
He can't be short of paper, but he wrote it on official Irish government paper.
The heavy hint being that he would repay the debt, in any way he could, if his friend was treated leniently.

That's corruption. It's subtle, but to me it's corrupt. He no doubt calculated that he could make excuses about the paper used, if it leaked out, but the message was clear.
That's why he's stepping down. It was HIS actions, not those of his partner's, that did for him.

Indeed. When you lie down with pigs, you ought not expect to avoid being covered with pig shit.

And no politician has any right to expect the public to support or vote for him if he lies down with pigs, of any ilk. There is no right to hold public office, you see, so politicians need to be scrupulous with their associations if they expect the public to vote for them.

[MrJonno]

Statutory rape is rape, whether you agree with the law or not. So long as it's the law, one is expected to obey it, and one is justly punished for violating it

Statutory rape doesnt exist as a legal concept in most countries, usually its a crime to have sex with someone just under the age of consent but in no way is this treated the same way as rape.

A 17 year old having consentual sex with a 15 year old in the UK ( a crime) would probably not even be prosecuted or at worst get probation (same for any sensible legal system), if it was non-consentual a very different crime the penalty could be even higher than possessing a firearm ie more than 5 years

[Seth]

Statutory rape is rape, whether you agree with the law or not. So long as it's the law, one is expected to obey it, and one is justly punished for violating it

Statutory rape doesnt exist as a legal concept in most countries, usually its a crime to have sex with someone just under the age of consent but in no way is this treated the same way as rape.

A 17 year old having consentual sex with a 15 year old in the UK ( a crime) would probably not even be prosecuted or at worst get probation (same for any sensible legal system), if it was non-consentual a very different crime the penalty could be even higher than possessing a firearm ie more than 5 years

Counting on what one "probably" might get by way of a penalty for breaking the law is the worst sort of delusional speculation because all it takes is one prosecutor or one jury out to "send a message" to impose the maximum penalty.

The point is, however, that a politician has no business expecting that the public will overlook complicity or even defense of a criminal in deciding whether to vote for a particular politician. There's no "due process" rights in the court of public opinion, which means that politicians need to live scrupulously untarnished lives if they want voters to entrust them with power.

[MrJonno]

Its not a case of 'probably' consenting sex with a 15 year old, consenting sex with a 5 year old and rape are completely different crimes in most countries

[Seth]

Its not a case of 'probably' consenting sex with a 15 year old, consenting sex with a 5 year old and rape are completely different crimes in most countries

Funny, I don't know of any civilized country in which consenting sex with a 5 year old isn't rape.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Its not a case of 'probably' consenting sex with a 15 year old, consenting sex with a 5 year old and rape are completely different crimes in most countries

Funny, I don't know of any civilized country in which consenting sex with a 5 year old isn't rape.

Islamic countries.

[Seth]

Its not a case of 'probably' consenting sex with a 15 year old, consenting sex with a 5 year old and rape are completely different crimes in most countries

Funny, I don't know of any civilized country in which consenting sex with a 5 year old isn't rape.

Islamic countries.

Which ones, exactly? Care to provide the code sections making it legal? Don't strain yourself trying to find them though.

[Cormac]

1. The relationship between Norris and the offender had been over for at least 7 years by the time the "Crime" was committed.
2. Norris has spent most of his life fighting for human rights in particular for abused children, and this is openly acknowledged by his political rivals.
3. The offender had a history of depression and self-harm and Norris was terrified that I
without some intervention, the trial might push him over the edge.
4. At no time has Norris condoned the crime in question
5. At the time he wrote this letter it was commonplace for politicians to write letters on behalf of both accused and convicted people. One of Norris's rivals for the presidency wrote letters seeking clemency for a double murderer who was on death row. Is statutory rape worse than double murder. If so, why?
6. In all criminal trials, judges will hear character references for the accused
7. The point should be made that Norris was by far the favourite to win the presidency, despite an unprecedentedly dirty campaign, particularly by the main government party.
8. The full story of this is not in the public domain, and the point has been widely made that there may be more to this story than meets the eye

[Cormac]

Please also note that the crime was committed and the trial took place in Israeli jurisdiction. The potential therefore for political influence of a court was nil. In any case, the political relationship between Israel and Ireland is such that the intervention by an Irish politician would in all probability do more harm than good.

[Seth]

1. The relationship between Norris and the offender had been over for at least 7 years by the time the "Crime" was committed.

That was far from clear in the OP, which said, "Senator Norris had a relationship with Mr Yitzhak Nawi for almost 30 years and the couple were together until 2001." Then it said, "his former partner Ezra Yitzhak Nawi on his conviction for the statutory rape of a 15-year-old Palestinian boy in 1997."

So, Norris had a relationship with Nawi beginning as early as 1971, and Nawi was convicted of a rape occurring in 1997.

This clearly indicates that Norris and Nawi had a relationship at the time the rape occurred in 1997, which continued for four years after the incident.

2. Norris has spent most of his life fighting for human rights in particular for abused children, and this is openly acknowledged by his political rivals.

Great. Glad to hear it. That still wouldn't excuse his knowledge of or covering-up of a 1997 statutory rape by his partner.

3. The offender had a history of depression and self-harm and Norris was terrified that I
without some intervention, the trial might push him over the edge.

Who cares? If Nawi raped a 15 year old boy, suicide would have been a viable option for him. I note with some disgust the opprobrium heaped upon the Catholic Church in the recent event of one of it's officials being found in possession of kiddie porn (among other such opprobrium heaped upon innocent Catholics and Catholic priests in this forum) and yet when a favorite son is mired in a sex scandal, it's all "oh, no, it's not really RAPE if it was consensual, even if the child was 15." This seems to ignore the fact that a good many of the allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests (some 4000 or so allegations out of more than half a million Catholic priests, almost all of which are allegations made about purported events more than 40 years ago) also involved, at least potentially, "consensual" sex with teenagers.

Sauce, goose, gander.

4. At no time has Norris condoned the crime in question

He condones it by asking for clemency. Did he condemn it, he would not do so.

5. At the time he wrote this letter it was commonplace for politicians to write letters on behalf of both accused and convicted people.

Convicted pedophile rapists? That sounds like a pretty bad political choice to make to me.

One of Norris's rivals for the presidency wrote letters seeking clemency for a double murderer who was on death row.

That would cause me to reject him as well.

Is statutory rape worse than double murder. If so, why?

You assume that it's acceptable for a politician to come to the defense of convicts of any stripe. It's not. They have no business writing letters and abusing the prestige and authority of their office to suborn the legal system that has duly judged and sentenced someone for a heinous crime.

6. In all criminal trials, judges will hear character references for the accused

During the trial perhaps. Once convicted and sentenced, the felon should not have the luxury of a pet legislator going to bat for him. Not unless the legislator is going to write letters for EVERY convict. It's an abuse of power, plain and simple. Legislators should respect the independence of the judiciary and keep their mouths shut about such matters and not try to exercise undue influence. And "everybody else is doing it" is hardly a rational or logical argument I'm afraid. It's pure fallacy.

7. The point should be made that Norris was by far the favourite to win the presidency, despite an unprecedentedly dirty campaign, particularly by the main government party.

Until his dirty underwear was revealed. Oh well, that's the whole point of politics and newspapers, to hold public officials accountable to the people for ALL their misbehaviors, including the ones they don't want revealed. Then it's up to the voters to decide whether to vest power and trust in them.

8. The full story of this is not in the public domain, and the point has been widely made that there may be more to this story than meets the eye

Oh dearie me, special knowledge is it? Well, put the full story right here and let's find out, shall we?

[Cormac]

You misunderstood my intention.

I am not declaring that he should have done what he did. I'm not saying that he should be President. In point of fact, I think he should not, as this issue would follow him, and bring our state into (further) disrepute.

However, everyone should note that what was at issue here was his right to seek and get a nomination, and not the actual election itself. For me, it was for the people to decide, not the other parties or the media. This will not happen now.

I'm simply trying to give some other information, because what has been said so far is short of detail and, for that matter, legal perspective.

For my two cents, I think it is ok for someone to write to seek clemency for a criminal. A judge is under absolutely no obligation to pay any heed to it. I think he was very unwise to use Dail (parliament) headed paper.

BUT, in all the letters that he wrote on behalf of prisoners (of conscience and otherwise), he would have written on headed paper (as he said in his radio interview yesterday). Personally, I think this is inappropriate, and should never have happened. The significance of this is that he didn't use the headed paper just for his former lover specifically. He used it for all people for whom he made representations. It was still wrong, but wrong for a different reason.


His speech resigning from the presidential campaign:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsSgf2ZO ... r_embedded[/youtube]

1. The relationship between Norris and the offender had been over for at least 7 years by the time the "Crime" was committed.

That was far from clear in the OP, which said, "Senator Norris had a relationship with Mr Yitzhak Nawi for almost 30 years and the couple were together until 2001." Then it said, "his former partner Ezra Yitzhak Nawi on his conviction for the statutory rape of a 15-year-old Palestinian boy in 1997."

So, Norris had a relationship with Nawi beginning as early as 1971, and Nawi was convicted of a rape occurring in 1997.

This clearly indicates that Norris and Nawi had a relationship at the time the rape occurred in 1997, which continued for four years after the incident.

The "Independent" is one of those newspapers of outrage. It rarely reports in a measured manner, and is very quick to call for public outrage.

There was an interview with Norris on the radio yesterday afternoon in which he declared that their intimate relationship ended in 1985, when it became apparent that the other fellow would not commit to a lifelong exclusive relationship.

And, as quoted in the Irish Times (the paper of record) today:

"“I deeply regret the most recent of all the controversies concerning my former partner of 25 years ago, Ezra Nawi,” said Mr Norris. “The fallout from his disgraceful behaviour has now spread to me and is in danger of contaminating others close to me both in my political and personal life.”

After that, their involvement continued in relation to charitable and human rights work in Israel/Palestine.

It would seem that the Independent is factually wrong on at least this count.

2. Norris has spent most of his life fighting for human rights in particular for abused children, and this is openly acknowledged by his political rivals.

Great. Glad to hear it. That still wouldn't excuse his knowledge of or covering-up of a 1997 statutory rape by his partner.

What knowledge? He didn't know. He declared yesterday that he had no knowledge of the crime before his friend was prosecuted.

1. The relationship ended in 1985, the statutory rape in (I think) 1995, and the trial in 1997.
2. Norris lives in Ireland, the convict lives in Israel/Palestine.
3. The crime was committed in Palestine.

3. The offender had a history of depression and self-harm and Norris was terrified that I
without some intervention, the trial might push him over the edge.

Who cares? If Nawi raped a 15 year old boy, suicide would have been a viable option for him. I note with some disgust the opprobrium heaped upon the Catholic Church in the recent event of one of it's officials being found in possession of kiddie porn (among other such opprobrium heaped upon innocent Catholics and Catholic priests in this forum) and yet when a favorite son is mired in a sex scandal, it's all "oh, no, it's not really RAPE if it was consensual, even if the child was 15." This seems to ignore the fact that a good many of the allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests (some 4000 or so allegations out of more than half a million Catholic priests, almost all of which are allegations made about purported events more than 40 years ago) also involved, at least potentially, "consensual" sex with teenagers.

Sauce, goose, gander.

This is how Norris explains himself:

He struck a note of defiance in saying he neither regretted supporting nor seeking clemency for his friend but regretted giving the impression he did not have sufficient compassion for the victim. “I accept that more than a decade and a half later when I have now reviewed the issue and am not emotionally involved, when I was afraid that Ezra might take his own life, I see that I was wrong.”

Incidentally, your argument fails here because you've employed the Tu Quoque fallacy.

The major scandal in Ireland involving the Catholic Church was not the crimes committed by opportunistic predators, but the actions of the church in actively covering it up, and actively undermining the law in countries all around the globe.

Norris openly wrote a letter to a court giving a character reference for someone he cared about who had committed a crime, and about which crime he had known nothing until the trial. In his letter, he asked for clemency (not a pardon - but clemency - seeking a sentence that might be more appropriate- in his opinion. The court was not in any way obliged to act).

This is categorically different.

4. At no time has Norris condoned the crime in question

He condones it by asking for clemency. Did he condemn it, he would not do so.

That is nonsense. He doesn't condone the crime at all, and never did.

This is a general outline of his letters. He asks for clemency on these grounds:

1. Psychiatric social workers had recommended a non-custodial sentence
2. That similar cases around the world had led to non-custodial sentences
3. That he did not argue his innocence, and thereby spared the victim the ordeal of giving evidence (this would normally lead to some leniency from a court).
4. That he had offered financial compensation
5. That he suffered from mental health problems

I don't see any condoning in these letters.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 85768.html

5. At the time he wrote this letter it was commonplace for politicians to write letters on behalf of both accused and convicted people.

Convicted pedophile rapists? That sounds like a pretty bad political choice to make to me.

I don't disagree. It was a bad political choice.

One of Norris's rivals for the presidency wrote letters seeking clemency for a double murderer who was on death row.

That would cause me to reject him as well.

Yes, but we'll see if he is forced to drop out of the race, BEFORE the people get a chance to vote.

Is statutory rape worse than double murder. If so, why?

You assume that it's acceptable for a politician to come to the defense of convicts of any stripe. It's not. They have no business writing letters and abusing the prestige and authority of their office to suborn the legal system that has duly judged and sentenced someone for a heinous crime.

I make no such assumption. My criticism is of the media, the political parties, and my citizens who have acted to prevent Norris getting a nomination, let alone get to stand in front of the people and their judgement in the election to come.

If the issue is that he wrote letters seeking clemency for a convicted criminal, then surely his rival will also have to withdraw? But he won't.

This stinks of hypocrisy and corruption to me, and it is problematic because this current government whined and whined about political dirty tricks, unfairness, and hypocrisy the whole time they were in opposition, and they came to power on a massive mandate to change this.

6. In all criminal trials, judges will hear character references for the accused

During the trial perhaps. Once convicted and sentenced, the felon should not have the luxury of a pet legislator going to bat for him. Not unless the legislator is going to write letters for EVERY convict. It's an abuse of power, plain and simple. Legislators should respect the independence of the judiciary and keep their mouths shut about such matters and not try to exercise undue influence. And "everybody else is doing it" is hardly a rational or logical argument I'm afraid. It's pure fallacy.

Note, that the trial was in Israel, and Norris lives and works in Ireland. There is no question of a legislator attempting to influence the judiciary.

And it is common for judges to take such statements into account in sentencing. In fact, it is the only time that such testimony is really relevant, because such testimony has nothing to say about the facts of the case. It can only be of any value in helping the judge to come to a decision about the most appropriate sentence, given all circumstances.

7. The point should be made that Norris was by far the favourite to win the presidency, despite an unprecedentedly dirty campaign, particularly by the main government party.

Until his dirty underwear was revealed. Oh well, that's the whole point of politics and newspapers, to hold public officials accountable to the people for ALL their misbehaviors, including the ones they don't want revealed. Then it's up to the voters to decide whether to vest power and trust in them.

Please note, the voters will not get to decide, because the other parties acted to prevent him getting a nomination. They had tried again and again to stop his nomination, because he was the clear favourite to win the election if he could secure a nomination, and they were set to lose the campaign. All attempts to date had failed, until this came out.

The fact that you have so many misapprehensions about this case, and the fact that the independent is factually wrong on at least one count, suggests to me that there was an effort to attempt to make out that Norris was complicit in some way with the crime. This was the impressiom that many took, and it is just wrong.

I am all for holding him to account, but for acts he has committed, not acts someone else committed. Neither should political parties be allowed to get away with their behaviour.

8. The full story of this is not in the public domain, and the point has been widely made that there may be more to this story than meets the eye

Oh dearie me, special knowledge is it? Well, put the full story right here and let's find out, shall we?

When it comes out, I will. I don't have special knowledge. But I have observed Norris all my life, and in all that time he has come across as a thoroughly decent person. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until the full details emerge, which they mostly will.

Bear in mind, that I think that due to this affair, he can no longer be our President. However, I am very uncomfortable about some matters:

1. Norris will not now stand in front of the electorate - so the voters will have no say one way or the other.
2. The timing of this is suspicious - why now, and not ages ago. He has, after all, been a Senator for many years.
3. The behaviour of the ruling party in particular.

[JimC]

On the basis of all the posts here, there is only one conclusion...

Cormac for President of Ireland!

[devogue]

On the basis of all the posts here, there is only one conclusion...

Cormac for President of Ireland!

Cormac's too clever and has too much integrity for that shit.