Sex Abuse Survivor: My Anger at Senator David Norris for His 'Disturbing' Views on Paedophilia, by Cormac McQuinn, Daily Mail, June 5, 2011

Sex Abuse Survivor: My Anger at Senator David Norris for His 'Disturbing' Views on Paedophilia

By Cormac McQuinn
Daily Mail
June 5, 2011

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394458/Sex-abuse-survivor-My-anger-Senator-David-Norris-disturbing-views-paedophilia.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Christine Buckley was one of the first victims to blow the whistle on institutional and clerical abuse of children

On child sex abuse, David Norris said: 'Children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than the experience'

Sex abuse survivor and campaigner Christine Buckley has lambasted Senator David Norris for his comments on paedophilia, saying she feels betrayed by his 'disturbing' views.

Miss Buckley, one of the first victims to blow the whistle on institutional and clerical abuse of children, said presidential hopeful Mr Norris 'does not appear to see the moral dilemma in abusing a child, the psychological impact, the emotional impact, the shattered life…'

And she dismissed Mr Norris's claims that there was 'a lot of nonsense' being talked about paedophilia, saying bluntly: 'There's no nonsense about paedophiles – they're monsters.'

The criticism from as respected and well-loved a campaigner as Miss Buckley could have a devastating impact on Mr Norris's bid to become our next President.

His supporters have so far attempted to present questions about his views as a witch-hunt led by a few homophobes.

However, no such claims could be levelled against Miss Buckley, who has won a string of awards for her work with victims, as well as widespread praise for her courage in confronting her own abusers at the Church-run Goldenbridge industrial school.

Miss Buckley spoke to the Irish Mail on Sunday after reading an unedited copy of the entire interview Mr Norris gave to Magill magazine in 2002.

In it, he not only endorsed 'classical paedophilia' as practised in ancient Greece but also suggested that incest should generally not be illegal, that people had become hysterical about paedophilia and that sometimes, reporting sex abuse was more damaging to a child than the abuse itself.

Miss Buckley, 64, says she was left 'completely bewildered' and betrayed by the man who had supported her in her quest for justice for the victims of clerical abuse.

She said: 'I'm just terribly, terribly disappointed. There's a huge naivety I believe here and I think that's the issue that I'd have most concerns with.

'I don't think, for example, that David Norris would ever attempt to abuse a minor, but there's nothing here that leads me to believe that the whole issue of abuse has actually hit the ventricles of his brain.

'There's the same sort of naivety used, that type of behaviour and language used by some religious orders who were brought before the Ryan Commission.'

Mr Norris has said his comments were 'taken out of context' but as the MoS reports today, his comments were in fact more wide-ranging and more worrying than even the controversial excerpts debated so far.

Miss Buckley said: 'To use what was acceptable, if it was, in classical Greece in relation to elders "educating" young boys as a reason to say in the 20th century that he would have liked it… for somebody who is contesting such a position, that's kind of disturbing.'

Miss Buckley also noted Mr Norris's public support for poet Cathal Ó Searcaigh in 2008 when he was exposed as a sex tourist who exploited teenagers in Nepal. 'That proves really that he knew exactly what he was saying… and that he still continued on that mantra years later.'

She said she had been an admirer of Mr Norris and had strongly supported his campaign to decriminalise homosexuality but now: 'I feel a sense of betrayal… I thought I knew the man but I really didn't.'

Asked what she would say when next they met, she said: 'Devastated, absolutely shocked David, that I did regard you in high esteem.'

On his presidential ambitions she said: 'Under no circumstances would America have somebody with those views running for election. We know the fall-out from Bill Clinton – and he was with a consenting adult.'

Asked if he should apologise for his comments she said: 'Absolutely.'

Mr Norris could not be reached for comment last night.

The truth of what Norris said in that interview

Aras hopeful says he has been misinterpreted, but his 2002 interview set out views that went far beyond endorsing 'classical paedophilia'

On child sexual abuse: 'Children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than the experience'

Asked if incest was acceptable, he said there was a case to ban it... but only for girls who might have an 'undesirable' pregnancy

On paedophilia: 'There's a lot of nonsense about paedophilia... I think there is a complete and utter hysteria about this subject'

Challenged on whether a child can give 'informed consent' to sex: 'The law should take into account consent rather than age'

The Irish Mail on Sunday can today reveal the shocking truth about Senator David Norris's interview with Magill magazine in 2002, in which he clearly sets out a string of highly controversial views on sex, paedophilia, the age of consent, incest and abuse.

The MoS has tracked down a copy of the interview – which was given for Mr Norris to 'set the record straight' because he felt that he had been misquoted in another newspaper on the subject of gay marriage.

Since the controversy over his comments reignited last week, Mr Norris has argued that interviewer Helen Lucy Burke's presentation of his comments on paedophilia were 'misleading' and that his 'references to sexual activity' were 'taken out of context'.

However the comments were in fact part of a much longer discussion in which Mr Norris sets out a view that, by and large, people should be allowed to do whatever they want with whomever they want.

He maintains that consent should be more important than age when it comes to laws governing sexual behaviour, and does not condemn incest.

Miss Burke herself describes some of his views as 'deeply troubling'.

According to Miss Burke, the senator objected to 'state interference' in people's sex lives, recording his initially cautious comments as follows:

'I believe very strongly in people being allowed to make any choices they like, within very wide limits.

'But I also believe that once you make those choices, you should take responsibility for them.'

'I wouldn't draw the line for other people. I would hope that we could produce a society in which people would be inclined to draw lines for themselves.'

It is at this point that the Trinity senator's views become controversial.

'There's a lot of nonsense about paedophilia,' he is quoted as saying, continuing, 'I can say this because I haven't the slightest interest in children, or in people who are considerably younger than me.

'I cannot understand how anybody could find children of either sex the slightest bit attractive sexually. To me, what is attractive about people is the fact that they display the signs of sexual maturity.

'But pre-pubescent children who lack any identifying characteristics of sexual maturity, I cannot understand why anybody would find them sexually appropriate. On the other hand – yes, they do find them so. But in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks, for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think that there can be something to be said for it.'

While Mr Norris reiterates that he is not attracted to the very young, he again endorses 'classical paedophilia' as something he would have enjoyed.

'Now again, this is not something that appeals to me, although when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature 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.'

Mr Norris then went on to talk about public attitudes to paedophilia, and is quoted as saying: 'But I think there is complete and utter hysteria about this subject, and there is also confusion between homosexuality and paedophilia on the one hand, and between paedophilia and pederasty on the other'.

Miss Burke notes at this point that Mr Norris later clarified to say that, in her words, 'genital sexual penetration of juveniles of either sex would be inappropriate and harmful'.

But mid-conversation he went on to accuse the press of vilifying paedophiles, saying: 'For example, the gutter press in England and in Ireland fanned the flames of this kind of thing, and they dehumanised people, called them evil beasts, perverts and all this kind of thing.'

Mr Norris is later quoted as saying: 'Of course there is a whole spectrum. In my opinion, the teacher, or Christian Brother, who puts his hand into a boy's pocket during a history lesson, that is one end of the spectrum.

'But then there is another: there is the person who attacks children of either sex, rapes them, brutalises them and then murders them. But the way things are presented here it's almost as if they were all exactly the same and I don't think they are.'

Mr Norris then makes his most extraordinary claim so far. Magill quotes him as telling Miss Burke: 'And I have to tell you this – I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience.'

Miss Burke then writes that Mr Norris 'did not appear to endorse any minimum age, or endorse my protest that a child was not capable of informed consent', quoting him as saying: 'The law in this sphere should take into account consent rather than age.'

When asked about incest, he seemed to have no objections in principle. As Miss Burke explained: 'He hesitated, and conceded that in the case of girls a case could be made for a ban, as a possible resulting pregnancy might be genetically undesirable.'

In a statement early last week, Mr Norris defended his comments.

He said: 'During the course of a comprehensive conversation, Miss Burke and I engaged an academic discussion about classical Greece and sexual activity in a historical context; it was a hypothetical, intellectual conversation which should not have been seen as a considered representation of my view... the references to sexual activity were what were emphasised and subsequently picked up and taken out of context in other media outlets.

'The presentation of references to sexuality in the article attributed to me were misleading... I did not ever and would not approve of the finished article as it appeared.'

The consultant editor of Magill magazine in 2002, John Waters, insisted on Friday that Mr Norris had been given two opportunities by Miss Burke to reconsider his comments prior to publication, but that after asking for minor amendments 'pronounced himself happy for his views to go into print'.

How senator called criticism of sex tourist poet a 'witch hunt'

Senator David Norris publicly supported poet Cathal Ó Searcaigh after he was shown on the RTÉ film Fairytale Of Kathmandu to be using charity funds to support sex tourism in Nepal.

Rather than condemn his behaviour, he compared the pederast poet to Oscar Wilde and suggested he was the victim of a media 'witch-hunt'.

Mr Norris wrote to the Irish Times: 'I know Mr Ó Searcaigh slightly… I have always found him to be open, honourable and generous… He may also be quite literally an innocent abroad when it comes to the making of biopics.'

He said Ó Searcaigh, 'who has clearly been the generous benefactor of quite a number of young men in Nepal, may also have had sexual relations with some of these youths, although it is not claimed that any of them were under the Nepali age of consent'. He did not question whether any were under the Irish age of consent.

Mr Norris said coverage of the controversy on RTÉ's Liveline 'showed signs of a witch-hunt'. He didn't advocate a criminal inquiry but merely said: 'There may indeed be some questions to be clarified.'

He referred to the fact that 'some, apparently, are determined to push this into the criminal arena', but claimed the waters had been muddied thanks to an 'extensive trial by media' and 'the selective introduction into the public consciousness of materials that appear to be damaging'.

Last week, however, he stood by his support. A spokesman said he was a 'strong believer in natural justice', adding: 'He feels that the trial by media that took place around this issue would have frustrated any criminal proceedings.