Sir, – An Taoiseach, Fine Gael’s Enda Kenny, who recently expressed such fury about, in his own words “the rape of children”, must immediately investigate why a member of Dáil Éireann wrote letters on Government-headed paper in support of a perpetrator convicted in court of exactly that – the rape of a defenceless boy. There is no room in the Dáil for people with double standards. If Mr Kenny is serious about eradicating child abuse, he must now step forward and launch a thorough investigation into this alarming matter without delay. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – John Waters’s column (August 5th), has been the most correct journalism in relation to Mr Norris’s withdrawal from the presidency, and I take no pleasure in what I believe is his implicit and constructive criticism of fellow Irish Times columnists and indeed yourself as Editor on the matter.
I can relax that the people’s voice is still proclaimed. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I see John Waters is back with a fresh bucket of hyperbole: “Nothing in recent years has revealed the ideological corruption of the Irish media as the David Norris saga” (Opinion, August 5th). Nothing at all? Really? And what sort of ideological corruption are we talking about? What is ideological corruption? Does it mean that the ideology is corrupt or corrupting? Or does it mean that one has no ideology at all? One doesn’t have to take an interest in the Norris case to know that it says nothing worthwhile about the Irish media. Incidentally, I presume when Mr Waters is talking of “ideological corruption”, is he referring to views such as those of his colleague, Fintan O’Toole, who take a different line on the case.
Or, interesting possibility: when Mr Waters talks about the ideological corrupt Irish media, he is including himself among that estate? But who can say? Mr Waters’s unique brand of satire is matchless. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If it weren’t for the clarity of John Waters’s contributions each week I’d despair about the editorial agenda The Irish Times pursues. After all the comment about the exit from the presidential race of Senator Norris, it took the whole week for a sensible dispassionate article by Mr Waters to rescue The Irish Times from being an uncritical mouthpiece for quasi-leftist liberal propaganda.
Fintan O’Toole’s whitewash article fitted well with the uncritical letters of support for Mr Norris all week which seemed to ignore the elephant in the room: Mr Norris hadn’t got a legitimate nomination and he withdrew himself from his campaign without answering the media. The general thrust of your letters that Mr Norris was “hounded out by conservative forces” was patently at odds with the facts. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – A letter-writer (Peter Thompson, August 6th) criticises John Waters because he “raves on about the media and the establishment”, regarding the David Norris affair. The letter adds: “Is this the same John Waters who has two weekly columns in national newspapers – one of them in The Irish Times, of course, and who is a regular fixture on radio and TV programmes?” Is Mr Waters not entitled to criticise corruption in his profession as he sees it? And is a priest who hears of clerical abuse supposed to remain silent so as not to criticise his institution? Or what about an accountant who witnesses fraud in her firm; should she keep quiet? Mr Waters is a rare breed: an honest, decent journalist with courage who rightly rubbishes the lunacy of political correctness in a lame-duck media losing its way. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I was pleased when David Norris announced he would seek nomination for the presidential election, having admired him for years as a public figure and commentator. I also believe that electing a gay president would mark further progress in our maturation as a people. However, I have been uneasy in recent days regarding Mr Norris’s conduct and the associated media commentary. I am grateful to John Waters (Opinion, August 5th) his articulate piece, clarifying some of what is wrong in all of this.
The reflex action of much media on the reminder regarding the Magill interview was to reject it as “smear”, notwithstanding the disturbing views expressed therein. Mr Norris’s explanation of his Magill interview was unconvincing, but were expressed views as opposed to actions. The matter concerning his intervention in the trial of his former partner Mr Nawi is of a significantly greater order. Mr Nawi statutorily raped a child. Jeanette F Huber (August 6th) notes that the judge in the trial referred to it as a consensual act. Mr Nawi was 40 years old at the time of his offence, his victim 15. The age differential in child sexual abuse is often of central importance in the inevitable power differential of which the abuser takes full advantage. We have no way to grasp the judge’s understanding of this, but his pronouncement on the consensuality must be open to some doubt.
In Mr Nawi’s interview as reported in The Irish Times (Saturday 6th August), he “accused” Israeli officials of “disclosing” details of his conviction, as if disclosing the truth was a matter of which to be accused. The use of the term “disclosing” in this context, whether by Mr Nawi or the journalist, is abhorrent, as the same term is employed to describe the truth-telling by abuse victims. He also refers to his conviction being used against David Norris, when it is clearly Mr Norris’s own actions which undid his presidential campaign.
As a child psychiatrist, I would urge all to keep the child victim in the centre of our considerations of this matter. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – John Waters is at it again. His syllogism, or conclusion by deductive reasoning that the media were soft on David Norris and hard on the child abuse perpetrators/enablers, by a distortion of the facts is not surprisingly askew. The media in the end is what forced the withdrawal of David Norris from the presidential race, and it was the statutory Ferns, Ryan, Dublin (Murphy), and Cloyne Reports which exposed the clerical abuse scandals. These are the facts.
I accept his points about “soft” reporting on the Norris issues, and “hard” reporting on the statutory disclosures of child sexual abuse, but the facts remain.
Our beloved church needs the truth to be exposed by such statutory reports, and shooting the messenger only gives solace to those who would seek to deny or modify the truth.
Mr Waters’s article only gives succour to these aforementioned.
Children first . . . – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Could the people who are trying to make the Norris situation into some sort of complicated media event, with discussions on the various nuances, please stick to the simple facts?
Senator Norris sought clemency for a man who raped a child.
Anybody who thinks a child rapist deserves any clemency whatsoever, is not fit to hold office of any description. – Yours, etc,