AS THE deadline for nominations approaches, I find myself rather counter-intuitively thinking it vital that David Norris be allowed to run for president. I say this as one who has gone to some lengths to draw public attention to aspects of recent controversies involving Senator Norris, which to my mind suggest him as a wholly unsuitable president – and possibly an unsuitable Senator.
I believe his recorded views on paedophilia, as expressed in his Magillinterview of 2002 and Daily Mailinterview of 2010, and the episode in which he sought to influence an Israeli court on behalf of his convicted child-abuser former lover – without revealing the nature of their relationship – together demonstrate that Norris is unsuited to occupy an office requiring statesmanship and discretion.
I have not changed my mind about Norris’s suitability, nor am I influenced by opinion polls or recent campaigns emphasising the desirability of letting “the people” decide. The idea that opinion polls amount to indicators of the “will of the people” is itself repugnant to democracy: they are cybernetic indicators based on scientific sampling techniques and devoid of democratic content or status.
I have not noted among the names of those clamouring for the people’s right to speak on David Norris’s political future anyone who hitherto acquired notoriety on account of an anxiety to seek the people’s views on this matter.
But the fact remains that a dishonest and manipulative media campaign has succeeded in generating a considerable public impression that David Norris is the “people’s choice” for the presidency, leading to a significant minority view that, unless he is permitted to run, we stand to be deprived of “the greatest president we never had”. Going about, I find that many people regard Norris as hard done by.
Mostly, when the subject comes up, people talk pointedly about how "the media" went against Norris, forcing him to withdraw six weeks ago. Asked for examples of such media interventions, nobody seems clear. Asked if they have read the content of the problematic Magillor Daily Mailinterviews with Norris, people invariably say they haven't.
My impression is that many people felt reassured by the tone of the general media coverage (or non-coverage) of the Norris controversies into a belief that there was nothing to be concerned about in Norris’s view on paedophilia and the age of consent, and have not taken the trouble to investigate further.
The underlying logic appears to be: for several years, the media has assiduously prosecuted issues relating to child sexual abuse; therefore, if there was anything here that we needed to know about, the media, as one entity, would have been up in arms. The silence of dogs not barking implied that nothing was amiss. Hence, Norris’s eventual withdrawal is seen as unfair, since, if there was no real case to answer, why should he have had to go? Indeed, the situation is somewhat worse, since many people appear to have gathered – again without evidence – that Norris was done down by some kind of “right-wing” conspiracy.
In fact, Norris had to withdraw from the presidential race only when the contradictions of his statements and actions became too great for some of his campaign workers and political sponsors. Most elements of the media did what they could to protect him, including withholding from the public full and accurate accounts of his stated opinions on paedophilia. Unprecedentedly for a withdrawing candidate, his exit was accompanied by lachrymal accounts of his nobility and tragic tendency to love not wisely but too well, lightly leavened with question marks concerning his political judgment.
Had virtually any other public figure been embroiled in similar controversies, there would have been no prospect of rehabilitation.
But, this being David Norris, there is now renewed speculation that he may re-enter the race. Tonight, he is scheduled to appear on the Late Late Show, presumably to speak over the heads of the political "establishment" to "the people". Another cosy promo chat is indicated.
I now believe Norris should be facilitated in entering the race because only the attrition of an election campaign can hope to disperse doubts about these controversies that otherwise will remain and possibly fester for many years.
We need a process in which the Magillinterview can be revisited in a way that will allow the public to judge if it was an "academic discussion" or something else. We need to see if there exist, as has been suggested, other documents more damning than the letter written by Norris to the Israeli court. We need to play these matters out in the clear light of a democratic contest.
There is one essential proviso: that the media do its job. If he runs, the public must be afforded the opportunity of genuinely evaluating Norris’s credentials as a potential president of Ireland, which means that coverage of his campaign must be free of elisions and soft pedalling, and unencumbered with media panels stuffed with camouflaged cheerleaders who scream “homophobia!” every time they hear something unfavourable to their man. It means that every issue raised about David Norris must be treated as if the candidate’s name was Willie O’Dea or Michael Fingleton.
It’s not impossible: it’s called journalism.