Hard questions must be asked
Sir -- I do not agree that the release of the Magill interview with David Norris was an unsubtle attempt to destroy his campaign for president. We must ask serious questions of candidates that seek the highest public office, otherwise we may well end up with yet another populist leader of the type that so recently proved disastrous for the country. And it is simply not acceptable in a modern democracy that those asking valid but uncomfortable questions are ridiculed and dismissed by a vociferous liberal agenda as religious fundamentalists.
Homosexuality for most enlightened people today presents little or no problem. But clearly David Norris believes in something much wider and more liberal when he states: "I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities and treating me with affection and teaching me about life -- yes, I think that would be lovely. I would have enjoyed that." And he also replied when asked if he was in favour of "free-range sexuality": "I believe very strongly in people being allowed to make any choice they will, within very wide limits."
The president of our country should be of impeccable character and we need to ask serious uncomfortable questions of all candidates. But will hard questions be permitted without fear of ridicule because they touch on ethics and morality? Or do we prefer debate that dare not question or intrude on personal standards and beliefs?