The complete failure of democracy and fair play
If Norris isn't fit for the presidential ballot, then how can Brady be acceptable as cardinal? questions Carol Hunt
'BUT Paddy, if we keep going over the Norris thing we'll all be upset, like with Parnell, The Civil War and Roy Keane," tweeted Paddy Cullivan last week.
He's got a point, has the Late Late Show musician and comic. It was a frustrating, confusing and ultimately depressing week.
Not since the Eighties have I heard such bitterness, bile and open contempt shown for the opinions of others. The triumphalism, the jeers, the accusations of sinister plots and liberal/conservative agendas left me cold. So much so that I declared that, for the first time since I turned 18, I would not be exercising my democratic right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Why? Because, Paddy, democracy has nothing to do with it.
With the greatest respect to George Hook I must disagree with his comment: "The political system is alive and well because David Norris failed to pass the rigorous test that every candidate should have to pass." On the contrary, the political system has shown itself to be dismally inadequate. In short: it stinks.
This is not sour grapes -- because, like so many other Irish people, when I read the contents of "those letters" last week I have to admit that my heart sank. Was Norris naive? Definitely.
Did he seem to lack sufficient empathy for the 15-year-old boy involved? Absolutely. Was he wrong to write those letters? An unequivocal 'Yes'. Why did he not admit to their existence previously? I have no idea, but he bloody well should have!
Would I have done the same in his position? Ah, now, there's the rub. I really don't know how to answer that. Nor do I know if I would still vote for Norris if he had succeeded in getting on the ballot, but I would have liked the opportunity to decide.
"Double standards!" screamed those sections of the media that have consistently opposed Norris's candidacy.
"What if a bishop wrote that letter for a priest?" The implication of course is that there's a liberal "media" agenda which will justify David Norris's appeals for clemency for his former partner while excoriating Catholic clerics who may have done likewise for their brothers in Christ.
At first glance, this is a very fair comment. The analogy seems clear. What's good for the goose and all that . . .
In 1997, Ezra Yizhak Nawi was found guilty of the statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy and served three months in jail in Israel. David Norris, unwisely, tried to protect him from incarceration but failed. Sure, isn't this what we in the all-righteous meeja have been protesting about the clergy doing since the early Nineties?
Well, some may have been, but with few results.
An example. As we saw on our TV screens last week (Betrayal of Trust, RTE, Wednesday), an Irish cleric was also jailed in 1997 for sexual crimes against children. And yes, a bishop was involved in trying to protect him. But this bishop didn't just write a letter to the authorities pleading for clemency for a friend who had made a terrible -- and yes, criminal -- mistake.
No, this bishop, as a priest in 1975, made two children swear they would not reveal Brendan Smyth as their abuser. This bishop, though aware that many other children were at terrible risk from this sexual monster, said, when asked why he did not alert the police: "Yes, I knew that these were crimes, but I did not feel that it was my responsibility to denounce the actions of Brendan Smyth to the police."
And when calls for his resignation were made, in the light of the fact that so many children had suffered horrific abuse because of his silence, he refused to go.
This bishop is Cardinal Sean Brady, Catholic Primate of All Ireland. Where are the calls from those who jeer "double standards" for him to resign, as David Norris was forced to? If Norris isn't good enough to be on the ballot paper for the presidency then how in God's name can Brady be acceptable as cardinal?
Yes, I realise that the Smyth case is one of the more horrific to emerge from the litany of abuse claims made against Catholic clergy, but it serves to prove a point. That point being that there is absolutely no correlation between the actions of Norris and clergy who excused, protected and colluded in the abuse of children for decades. And to insinuate that there is, is unacceptable, misleading, and grievously undermines the seriousness of the actions of those who colluded in sexual criminality against children in this country for decades.
The supposed primary points of similarity between Norris's letter asking for clemency for a man convicted of statutory rape and a bishop covering up the actions of a multiple child rapist are tenuous at best.
The supposed implied points of similarity just don't follow. It is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. Clever bullshit, it must be said, as it does the job of muddying the waters sufficiently to achieve its aim, but bullshit all the same. It wasn't just commentators who were coming out with nonsense disguised as fact in relation to the Norris campaign. Some of our politicians were at it as well. What was all that nonsense spouted by Finian McGrath about "children and the presidency" having to come first, when he declared that he could no longer support Norris's candidature? Do McGrath and his colleagues, John Halligan and Thomas Pringle -- who all retracted their support for Norris -- really believe the senator is a danger to children? Do they sincerely think that if the Irish people actually got a chance to vote for or against him in the presidential elections, somehow we would be sending out a message that we do not take the safety of children seriously in this Republic?
In light of all that has been discussed since the release of the Cloyne report and the obvious deficiencies of the HSE in areas where children are at risk, with the prospect of social services being told to implement mandatory reporting but being denied the finance and manpower to support this law, it seems a bit rich to be slinging the "children first" accusation at David Norris. But hey, that's politics. It's not about courage or principles -- it's about doing what you believe the group shouting the loudest wants you to do.
There seems to have been a great fear among some groups in Ireland that if the people were actually given the opportunity to vote for Norris, they may actually have decided to forgive -- but not excuse -- his grievous error committed 14 years ago.
Even after he dropped out of the race, polls showed him to still have very significant support from the people. So yes, Paddy, I'm upset. What with the troika running the economy, the symbolism of the presidential election was a bit more special this year. That Senator Norris will not be a candidate demonstrates the failure of democracy and fair play in our body politic. Not to mention the double standards.
Originally published in
