Senator made a huge error of judgment and must bow out

EVEN before this weekend’s controversy erupted, the campaign by David Norris to get his name on the presidential ballot paper was not as strong as it might have appeared.

He was the most popular choice of president by far, according to the polls; he was the bookies’ favourite and as the first independent out of the traps, he had a head start in terms of securing a nomination.

But there was something not right and his team was worried.

First there was the controversy over comments he made about relationships between older men and younger men and boys in an interview he had done with Magill magazine back in 2002.

Although this appeared to be an orchestrated smear to damage his campaign, his poll ratings continued to rise.

It was blamed for his failure to secure enough nominations from councils.

But there was talk that this was because he had failed to woo them sufficiently or go around the country meeting them as other candidates had.

Norris’s team were getting increasingly frustrated with his stubbornness and unwillingness to take on board their views and professional advice. That same stubbornness meant he dug his heels in yesterday and insisted that he “remains committed” to his presidential bid despite the resignation of most of his team.

It was also the trait that forced him to put his head in the sand throughout the campaign when he chose to believe that a conviction of his former partner, Ezra Yizhak Nawi, for the statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy would not surface.

“I anticipated there would be attacks. I trawled back 10 years and we anticipated that would be enough,” Norris said in an interview published yesterday.

“Nobody knew this was coming; I never alerted people but it was so long ago and so hurtful.”

Although it was already being looked at by newspapers, the story got its first public airing last Monday on a pro-Israeli blog by John Connolly — a 22-year-old graduate of law.

Connolly said he has no political affiliations and was tipped off about it by a college acquaintance who “canvassed with Labour and was sympathetic to Michael D Higgins” — Labour’s presidential candidate.

Higgins yesterday strongly denied any involvement in the eruption of the controversy, saying his team had “no hand, act or part” in leaking any details.

It became clear to the Norris for President team last week that something was going to come out about this. It’s understood he briefed them about the conviction of his former partner. But he failed to tell them about a letter he had sent to an Israeli court 14 years ago seeking leniency in his sentencing, using Oireachtas headed paper.

This was something that he only disclosed when he came under pressure from his team. They felt hugely misled.

The team was panicking, according to one source, and with the belief there could be more to come, some jumped ship by the end of the week and turned off their phones for the weekend.

Defending Norris yesterday, Independent TD Maureen O’Sullivan said: “Many officials in those times did send letters on official paper. I think that if there was any mistake or error anywhere it was probably in not telling the rest of the campaign team that had happened. That’s where some damage has been done.”

In the belief that another Sunday newspaper had planned to reveal details of the letter, Norris decided to release it to the Sunday Independent, who interviewed him for his version of events.

He also set about contacting the 14 senators and TDs who had pledged to sign his nomination papers. Some of them were last night of the belief that there are more revelations to come which could be damaging to the Norris campaign, and are biding their time to make up their minds.

Norris himself believes there is a “stitch-up” or a “smear campaign” against him. “It has been put to me that there’s Israeli involvement,” he said, because of his previous criticism of Israel and the political activities of his former partner.

“But I will not make that allegation because I wish there to be good relations between the people of Ireland and Israel.”

Connolly himself raised this suggestion without being prompted.

Without giving any detail, he said he lived in Israel and worked in a factory there. But he pointed out that he does not know anybody working in the Israeli embassies in either Dublin or London.

“I do want to make it known that several Irish journalists knew about this before the Israeli embassy did,” he said.

It was reported that Norris considered resigning over the weekend, but decided against it.

But given that he made a huge error of judgment, lost the trust of those who supported him and showed a naivety not befitting the office of president, he would be best advised to bow out now.