Fine Gael- reclaiming the flag (article)

maccor

The article below came from a SF email. Personally I'd like to research that particular bit of history as I am uinsure of who came from where, but I thought I'd post it here to see if anyone has has a point of view to raise on it ...

Fine Gael grasps the flag of Griffith from Sinn Fein

Fionnan Sheahan
Political Correspondent
FINE Gael are borrowing Sinn Fein's clothes this weekend. Enda Kenny's party
is staking its claim to the legacy of the original Sinn Fein party, founded 100
years ago.
But the move has provoked a row between the parties.
In an event designed to challenge Sinn Fein's "hijacking" of the party's
history, Fine Gael will tomorrow commemorate the founding of Sinn Fein in 1905
by Arthur Griffith.
"To honour the political memory of Arthur Griffith and to enhance the
political awareness of young people on our island, it is vital that we
rediscover and celebrate the true, inclusive Sinn Fein, not the version of the
party and its ethos that has been hijacked by a certain section of Irish
nationalism to achieve its own narrow ends," said Mr Kenny.
Sinn Fein laughed off Mr Kenny's efforts as Martin Ferris welcomed the
decision to hold the commemoration, adding that Fine Gael emerged from the
"fascist blueshirt movement."
Fine Gael will turn to the life and work of Arthur Griffith at a meeting in
the Mansion House in Dublin tomorrow.
Said Mr Kenny: "After the Convention to establish Sinn Fein, the members of
our parent party, Cumann na nGaedhael, merged into its ranks. So, at this time,
and as the Party that established our State, it is both Fine Gael's duty and
pleasure to celebrate the founding of this movement which sought freedom by
political means."
Accusing Mr Kenny of being "utterly confused", Mr Ferris said Sinn Fein could
trace its origins to Griffith's organisation.
"Unlike Enda Kenny's party we didn't emerge from the fascist blueshirt
movement. We haven't sought to prevent the representatives of the Six Counties
from engaging in political discourse in Leinster House," he said.
Yet Fine Gael insiders say the modern Sinn Fein are only "pale pretenders" to
the party founded by Arthur Griffith.
"This is reclaiming the flag," a party source said.

maccor

maccor wrote:

The article below came from a SF email. Personally I'd like to research that particular bit of history as I am uinsure of who came from where, but I thought I'd post it here to see if anyone has has a point of view to raise on it ...

I think pretty much every party save the greens and socialists came from Griffith's Sinn Fein

FTA69

Kenny just loves putting his foot in it doesn't he? By his logic we could laud Sean Lemass and Eamonn De Valera as some of our most prominent members simply because they were Sinn Féin members once upon a time. As far as I'm concerned they can have the mantle of Griffith, he was a right wing racist and an anti-semite, rather like the fascist, Eoin O'Duffy who founded Fine Gael. Sinn Féin was and is an evolving movement, we didn't even become Republicans until 1917. However, the one overriding principle of the 1905 Sinn Féin was that of self-determination and the secular unity of the Irish people, something which Fine Gael have never adhered to.

Diorraing

This is a joke. Sinn Féin's major aim was to unite all peoples of this island in a free and democratic republic. Fine Gael have consistently urinated on that principle. Former taoiseach John Bruton has stated on more than one occasion that Ireland should rejoin the commonwealth. He requested that Orange marches be allowed go down Dawson street (for god only knows what reason). It is interesting that in the above statement it is said that the ethos of original SF has been hijacked by a certain section of Irish nationalism to achieve its own narrow ends. Would these narrow ends be the ending of British occupation of Ireland.
I wouldn't worry about it tho, they are a joke of a party and will be wiped out at the nest election please god.

FTA69

Would these narrow ends be the ending of British occupation of Ireland.

Haven't you heard? Apparently nutarlity, soveriegnty and independence are no longer Republican principles. Republican Socialism is now embodied by the present government of Fianna Fáil and the PDs.

Tone - Emmet - Lalor - Davitt - Connolly - Mellowes - McDowell

The Unbroken Chain!

Freelancer

FTA69 wrote:

Haven't you heard? Apparently nutarlity, soveriegnty and independence are no longer Republican principles. Republican Socialism is now embodied by the present government of Fianna Fáil and the PDs.

Tone - Emmet - Lalor - Davitt - Connolly - Mellowes - McDowell

The Unbroken Chain!

Is this a political party or a religion you have? The unbroken chain? Inheriting the mantle?

Judge a party on their policies and their behaviour rather than some quasi mystical symbolic link to dead revolutionaries.

That being said SF claiming the mantle of all these dead revolutionaries, I wonder what some of their reactions would be if they could see the behaviour of some of the people whom claim to embody their spirit.

Diorraing

Freelancer wrote:

That being said SF claiming the mantle of all these dead revolutionaries, I wonder what some of their reactions would be if they could see the behaviour of some of the people whom claim to embody their spirit.

Don't stray off the topic. The question you should be asking is ohw the dead revolutionaries would react if they could see the behaviour of Fine Gael, who claim to embody their spirit. (Fine Gael in this case, not SF).
They'd be sickened. How can Fine Gael claim Michael Collins. They are the complete antithesis of everything he stood for. As mentioned earlier, Fine Gael arose from the fascist blueshirt movement.

murphaph

Who cares what these dead revolutionaries would think of FG if they were alive today? You'd swear some of these long dead characters were God-like the way they are constantly revered by certain individuals on here. I'm sure they were as fallible as the rest of us.

I think it's lame of FG to be trying to claim lineage from Original Sinn Fein, move on guys. That's a long dead party with little relevance in modern Ireland.

Freelancer

Diorraing wrote:

Don't stray off the topic. The question you should be asking is ohw the dead revolutionaries would react if they could see the behaviour of Fine Gael, who claim to embody their spirit. (Fine Gael in this case, not SF).
They'd be sickened. How can Fine Gael claim Michael Collins. They are the complete antithesis of everything he stood for. As mentioned earlier, Fine Gael arose from the fascist blueshirt movement.

Hey I never said I applauding SF or FG's stance. Just merely pointing out that SF's monopoly on our dead revolutionary heroes, isn't really acceptable either.

breandan

From the article.........rediscover and celebrate the true, inclusive Sinn Fein, not the version of the party and its ethos that has been hijacked by a certain section of Irish nationalism to achieve its own narrow ends," said Mr Kenny.

Comming from one of the most traditionally rightwing and anti immigrant/asylum seeker/refugee parties on this island youll forgive me if I simply dont believe Mr Kenny on this issue!
Its a meaningless stunt, pure and simple.

FTA69

Freelancer wrote:

Is this a political party or a religion you have? The unbroken chain? Inheriting the mantle?

Judge a party on their policies and their behaviour rather than some quasi mystical symbolic link to dead revolutionaries.

That being said SF claiming the mantle of all these dead revolutionaries, I wonder what some of their reactions would be if they could see the behaviour of some of the people whom claim to embody their spirit.

I was being sarcastic, hence my inclusion of McDowell in the list of revolutionaries of the past. Sinn Féin doesn't "claim" these martyrs, their legacy belongs to the Irish people. However, we do believe that we best represent that legacy at present.

Freelancer

FTA69 wrote:

Sinn Féin doesn't "claim" these martyrs, their legacy belongs to the Irish people. However, we do believe that we best represent that legacy at present.

I'm confused so you do claim them? or you don't?

I mean neither party can trace unbroken link, so why can't FG do what SF usual do?

FTA69

We do claim lineage from them, and more importantly their beliefs. We don't claim to "own" them however, as their legacy belongs to all the Irish people. SF as Irish Republicans can also trace their lineage back in history as our politics remain the same, FG on the other hand are not Republicans and as such cannot attmept to draw influence from those who were in the past.

Freelancer

FTA69 wrote:

We do claim lineage from them, and more importantly their beliefs. We don't claim to "own" them however, as their legacy belongs to all the Irish people. SF as Irish Republicans can also trace their lineage back in history as our politics remain the same, FG on the other hand are not Republicans and as such cannot attmept to draw influence from those who were in the past.

Which political parts out of curiousity do you let claim linage?

Griffith was leader of the Pro treaty side, furthermore he was President of the First Pro Treaty Dail which means he accepted Partition as a reality.

While Fine na Gael may also be the Party of the blueshirts they can trace elements of the party to that Dail.

So they do have a right to trace their lineage back to Griffith.

Christ Lineage, I'm beginning to speak like an Arthurian character.

Look like I said storm in a bloody tea cup, but I for one am tired of SF grasping that part of our history like bloody Gollum.

"Its ours, we's has it we does, its ours our precious all ours......."

FTA69

We aren't insecure regarding our history at all thanks,

While Fine na Gael may also be the Party of the blueshirts they can trace elements of the party to that Dail.

They can indeed claim to stem from the first Free State Assembly, they're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned, but to see them latch onto the likes of Pearse and Connolly, people whose ideals FG rejected utterly is reprehensible to be honest.

murphaph

Freelancer wrote:

"Its ours, we's has it we does, its ours our precious all ours......."

Very good Freelancer. That's exactly how they carry on. Muppets. Irish history is extraodinarily complex and never black and white like some SF/IRA supporters would like the world to believe. All I can say is thank Christ the 'Celtic Tiger' arrived because regardless of what people think of our new found 'presperity', at least people are now more concerned about getting that .05% off their mortgage or whatever than reclaiming the 'occupied 6 counties' or other such bullsh!t. SF/IRA know damn well that the majority of people here couldn't really give a toss about NI, so they campaign on a socialist manifesto. I'm all for a good balance of socialism, but you need a vibrant economy to be able to provide universal free health care etc. and SF wouldn't be able to grasp that. They'd want to plough all the cash into 'cross border agencies' and other sh!t that wastes money*

*Standard "I know FF can waste money with the best of them" disclaimer.

Freelancer

FTA69 wrote:

We aren't insecure regarding our history at all thanks,

Thats not answering the question which party's do you think are allowed claim "lineage" to these revolutionaries?

I'm also assuming by your "our" you're talking about the national collective "our" and not the specific "our" of SF. Because you (SF) don't own our (the Irish people) history.

They can indeed claim to stem from the first Free State Assembly, they're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned, but to see them latch onto the likes of Pearse and Connolly, people whose ideals FG rejected utterly is reprehensible to be honest.

Read back over that press release is there any mention of Pearse or Connolly? No, it's celebrating the foundation of Griffith's SF. Seeing as Pearse and Connolly never mentioned that they were planning the rising to Griffith, and Griffith was the first President of the first pro treaty Dail theres nothing reprehensible about this celebration, by FG.

Whats reprehensible is SF's outrage that any party is sniffing around "your" turf.

FTA69

Thats not answering the question which party's do you think are allowed claim "lineage" to these revolutionaries?

Republicans.

Read back over that press release is there any mention of Pearse or Connolly? No, it's celebrating the foundation of Griffith's SF. Seeing as Pearse and Connolly never mentioned that they were planning the rising to Griffith, and Griffith was the first President of the first pro treaty Dail theres nothing reprehensible about this celebration, by FG

My comments weren't limited to this particular press release, we often hear the likes of FG and McDowell claiming to represent the "true vision of Pearse" etc.

Whats reprehensible is SF's outrage that any party is sniffing around "your" turf.

It really does get tiring reiterating myself for your benefit, we do not claim any ownership of history, nor do we view it as our "turf". However it is a contradiction that non-Republican parties such as FG and the PDs will seek to represent the legacy of Republicans.

Murphaph,

SF/IRA know damn well that the majority of people here couldn't really give a toss about NI, so they campaign on a socialist manifesto

There is no organisation called "SF/IRA". However, Republicanism has always had prominent socialist streams within its ideology, and Sinn Féin has been on the left of Irish politics since the 60s at least (after lapsing into militarism post Civil War)

Diorraing

murphaph wrote:

They'd want to plough all the cash into 'cross border agencies' and other sh!t that wastes money

Would you care to back that up with references to their money-wasting policies? Perhaps not because then you're arguments would be exposed as nothing more than a blind anti-SF rant.
I wouldn't give SF my first preference at the moment but thats not to do with their aspiration for Irish unity or economic policis. Its to do with their social policies but that another issue.
To say that most Irish people don't give a toss about Irish Unity is a wild assertion. If you think that the people of this country don't give a damn about liberating the 6 counties - you know less about Irish people than you think. The good-friday agreement was overwhelmingly accepted and that in effect is the road map to a peaceful reunification.
Most Irish people aren't in favour of an armed liberation of the 6 counties (although i'd say a fair few were during the 60s and 70s) but thats not to say they're not in favour of reunification - which is going to happen in about 20 years anyway

Diorraing

The present American Republican party can claim there lineage back to Abraham Lincoln - that doesn't mean they share the same principles as he did and i'm sure most people would be appalled if they started saying that he would have approved of their actions

Capt'n Midnight

FTA69 wrote:

Republicans.

FF consider themselves the Republican party.


TBH: it was the Irish football team who reclaimed the flag. Before our success in Europe and the World Cup, you would rarely see the flag being used by ordinary people because of gulit of association, because of a small minority who hijacked it, like they try to hijack other symbols.

Freelancer

FTA69 wrote:

Republicans.

Repubilicans? FF are a repubilican party? Just anyone who claims to be a republician answer. I asked a specific question "which parties do you feel can claim lineage to the Org SF and you've for the second time given me a vague answer. I'm asking it again.

My comments weren't limited to this particular press release, we often hear the likes of FG and McDowell claiming to represent the "true vision of Pearse" etc.

No your comments were. You directly refered to Kenny and this event. Thats not really the point though now is it? You're outraged specifically to this act, and this part's behavior getting outraged about this event is unfair.

It really does get tiring reiterating myself for your benefit, we do not claim any ownership of history, nor do we view it as our "turf". However it is a contradiction that non-Republican parties such as FG and the PDs will seek to represent the legacy of Republicans.

I'm sorry your continued reference to national history as "your" (the current SF) history would tend to contradict yourself.

You've admitted there's no reason that FG can't or shouldn't do this, so do you still claim that there's anything reprehensible about this specific act?

There is no organisation called "SF/IRA". However, Republicanism has always had prominent socialist streams within its ideology, and Sinn Féin has been on the left of Irish politics since the 60s at least (after lapsing into militarism post Civil War)

As I understand it the major left wing of SF left during the militarisitic split in the 60s where SF endorsed the IRA campaign of violence? What would you call SF's being the IRA's political wing for the last 30 years? A flirtation?

Diorrang wrote:

The present American Republican party can claim there lineage back to Abraham Lincoln - that doesn't mean they share the same principles as he did and i'm sure most people would be appalled if they started saying that he would have approved of their actions

That makes the he opposition point of view, how do we know Pearse Connolly et all would be happy with the tit of tat killings, the murder of Irish "touts", rackettering of Irish businesses and so many other of the IRA's tactics of the past few decades?

Diorraing

Freelancer wrote:

That makes the he opposition point of view, how do we know Pearse Connolly et all would be happy with the tit of tat killings, the murder of Irish "touts", rackettering of Irish businesses and so many other of the IRA's tactics of the past few decades?

I didn't say that they would be happy with that either. This whole debate is stupid anyway. No-one knows what they would have thought about today's politicians with complete certainty and it really doesn't matter because we don't run our country on decisions that the patriots would have felt were correct. I think we should remember them all as the great heroes they were of their time and not forget the proclamation of independance and the principles it sets out.

Freelancer

Diorraing wrote:

I didn't say that they would be happy with that either. This whole debate is stupid anyway. No-one knows what they would have thought about today's politicians with complete certainty and it really doesn't matter because we don't run our country on decisions that the patriots would have felt were correct. I think we should remember them all as the great heroes they were of their time and not forget the proclamation of independance and the principles it sets out.

apparently it wasn't stupid a few posts ago;

Diorraing wrote:

It is interesting that in the above statement it is said that the ethos of original SF has been hijacked by a certain section of Irish nationalism to achieve its own narrow ends. Would these narrow ends be the ending of British occupation of Ireland.
I wouldn't worry about it tho, they are a joke of a party and will be wiped out at the nest election please god

I'm not sure what your point is, that its not acceptable to or not to base our decisions on what these patriots would or would not have done.

Diorraing

I highlited the hypocrisy of Fine Gael. While at one level they are trying to "reclaim" Irish patriots, at the other end they slam Sinn Fein for trying to reunite Ireland which they claim is a "narrow end". My point is that trying to base decisions on what patriots would or would not have done is stupid - as is trying to "claim" patriots.

Freelancer

Diorraing wrote:

I highlited the hypocrisy of Fine Gael. While at one level they are trying to "reclaim" Irish patriots, at the other end they slam Sinn Fein for trying to reunite Ireland which they claim is a "narrow end". My point is that trying to base decisions on what patriots would or would not have done is stupid - as is trying to "claim" patriots.

So you think SF are stupid for claiming they are the party that best represents the ideals of Pearse, Collins, Connolly et all? Fair enough so.

FTA69

FF are a repubilican party?

Michael McDowell claims to be one as well, but then again he says a lot of things. Republicanism isn't simply a title you can bestow upon yourself whenever you feel like it, it is an ideology with certain principles, namely radical left-wing Irish seperatism.

which parties do you feel can claim lineage to the Org SF and you've for the second time given me a vague answer.

We don't claim "lineage" from the "original" Sinn Féin, we ARE the original Sinn Féin. To answer your qustion however, FF were originally a part of Sinn Féin and nobody is disputing that, however their beliefs now are far removed from Republican ideology so their hyping up of their party history is disingenious. Fine Gael have less of a connection with Sinn Féin considering they were born out of an amalgamation of three organisations; the Blueshirts, Cumann na nGaedhal and the National Centre Party, only one of these organisations can trace a link to Sinn Féin.

I'm sorry your continued reference to national history as "your" (the current SF) history would tend to contradict yourself.

I use the term "our" when it relates to the organisation of which I am a member, the GAA's history is also national history, but also "theirs" in many respects.

As I understand it the major left wing of SF left during the militarisitic split in the 60s where SF endorsed the IRA campaign of violence?

Sinn Féin in 1969 was not "right-wing" despite what the Sticks labelled us, they were immediately involved in housing campaigns in Dublin etc. Have a look at any policy document from the 70s and come back to me.

What would you call SF's being the IRA's political wing for the last 30 years? A flirtation

And what exactly has that got to do with left-right politics? The IRA is also a left-wing organisation.

That makes the he opposition point of view, how do we know Pearse Connolly et all would be happy with the tit of tat killings, the murder of Irish "touts",

You seem to be under the oppression that Connolly and Pearse were pacifists, they too participated in an armed struggle that resulted in deaths and unfortunate killing of civilians.

rackettering of Irish businesses

What businesses would these be?

Freelancer

FTA69 wrote:

We don't claim "lineage" from the "original" Sinn Féin, we ARE the original Sinn Féin.

There's been so many chasms and splits, and divides over the decades to suggest that you are some kind of genetically pure bloodline to the original SF set up by Griffith.

To answer your qustion however, FF were originally a part of Sinn Féin and nobody is disputing that, however their beliefs now are far removed from Republican ideology so their hyping up of their party history is disingenious. Fine Gael have less of a connection with Sinn Féin considering they were born out of an amalgamation of three organisations; the Blueshirts, Cumann na nGaedhal and the National Centre Party, only one of these organisations can trace a link to Sinn Féin.

They still can claim a link though. Therefore they should be allowed recognise this celebration. Do you still think this is a "reprehensible" act on FG's part?

I use the term "our" when it relates to the organisation of which I am a member, the GAA's history is also national history, but also "theirs" in many respects.

Thats nice and all but doesn't change the fact that SF has held so many aspects of our culture and history hostage for decades.

Denying that you're not on a thread where you've been screaming blue bloody murder about the Blueshirts and Arthur Griffith when FG suggest commemorating the foundation of SF would be farcial.

All it takes is one party to suggest they want to celebrate one part of "your" precious history that as you point out belongs to all of "us" and you're ranting about Pearse and Connolly and this reprehensible act.

Sinn Féin in 1969 was not "right-wing" despite what the Sticks labelled us, they were immediately involved in housing campaigns in Dublin etc. Have a look at any policy document from the 70s and come back to me.

Waves dismissively at the archives and demands I do his research for him. The fact remains that the bulk of the parties left wing left in the 60s.

And what exactly has that got to do with left-right politics? The IRA is also a left-wing organisation.

You said lapsing into militarism post civil war. The suggestion that a party with a paramilitary wing isn't militaristic is just funny.

You seem to be under the oppression that Connolly and Pearse were pacifists, they too participated in an armed struggle that resulted in deaths and unfortunate killing of civilians.

And correct me if I'm wrong but they surrendered when they saw the widespread damage and loss of live they cost.

We don't know if they would approve of a 30 year IRA campaign which targeted civilians, murdered, tortured, and killed. Anyway this will be a fine opportunity to drag out some dusty quote from a schoolteacher dead nearly a hundred years to justify violence over the past 30.

What businesses would these be?

Both Eamonn Collins and Henry Mc Donald have written that protection rackets were a common source of income for the IRA.

FTA69

There's been so many chasms and splits, and divides over the decades to suggest that you are some kind of genetically pure bloodline to the original SF set up by Griffith.

We've had our share of divisions etc, but at the end of the day we remained constituted as Sinn Féin, while others came and went.

They still can claim a link though. Therefore they should be allowed recognise this celebration. Do you still think this is a "reprehensible" act on FG's part?

A very tenuous one at best, and their stance is all the more hypocritical when one considers the fact they and other parties seek to deny the continuity of Republicanism.

Thats nice and all but doesn't change the fact that SF has held so many aspects of our culture and history hostage for decades.

Actually it was others who simply neglected to embrace these traditions, for instance it was the state's own decision to stop commemorating the Rising and it was left up to us to continue the tradition, likewise we also sought to keep in mind what the purpose of the Anthem and Tricolour was, namely the symbols of a 32 County Republic.

Waves dismissively at the archives and demands I do his research for him. The fact remains that the bulk of the parties left wing left in the 60s.

You were the one who alledged that Sinn Féin in 1969 was not a left-wing party, that is an accusation for you to substantiate, not me. The bulk of the so-called left (one could argue true socialism involves recognising national liberation struggles) but that does not mean the party that remained was right-wing if you follow me.

The suggestion that a party with a paramilitary wing isn't militaristic is just funny.

You can be militant without being militaristic. Militarism involves seeing everything in military terms as opposed to forming an ideology and using armed struggle to advance it, the latter was the approach taken by Óglaigh na hÉireann in recent times.

We don't know if they would approve of a 30 year IRA campaign which targeted civilians, murdered, tortured, and killed

We don't know if they would have supported the Tan War which saw the exact same thing, but regardless that is what their actions led to.

Both Eamonn Collins and Henry Mc Donald have written that protection rackets were a common source of income for the IRA.

And how is the word of a discontented tout and a journalist worth anything? Suzanne Breen from the Village stated they were not involved in extortion at all, which hack do we believe?

murphaph

FTA69 wrote:

You can be militant without being militaristic. Militarism involves seeing everything in military terms as opposed to forming an ideology and using armed struggle to advance it, the latter was the approach taken by Óglaigh na hÉireann in recent times.

Ah yes, Oglaigh na hEireann, another name stolen by SFIRA. Oglaigh nahEireann are the Irish Defence Forces, any other 'army' in the 26 counties was/is illegal and contrary to the common good.

Time Magazine

FTA69 wrote:

Republicanism isn't simply a title you can bestow upon yourself whenever you feel like it, it is an ideology with certain principles, namely radical left-wing Irish seperatism.

Bahahaha you can't be serious? Is George Bush not a Republican? If Sinn Féin were to suddenly make a shift to the Right and become hard-nosed capitalists, would they no longer be republican?

Republicanism is the idealogical belief in the merits and authority of a republic.

More accurately, was Michael Collins not a republican simply because he wasn't a radical lefty? Arthur Griffith, who founded some party a while ago?

Arthur Griffith was a right-wing anti-Semite republican. I despise anti-Semitism; be it of Griffith, the Blueshirts or your ma - but he was still a republican. A conservative republican. Who said something along the lines of "I have no intention of my name going down in history, but if it does, I want it to be associated with Michael Collins." Michael Collins' comrades, on August 23rd 1922, essentially founded the State under the party-name of Cumann na Gaedheal.

Cumann na Gaedheal went on to become Fine Gael. The founder of Sinn Féin was right-wing. Sinn Féin's main aim - liberty - extended to the leanings of all idealogies and thus became a banner for Irish freedom. However, their founder was a conservative and thus it is a reasonable assumption that Sinn Féin were a conservative party. That is why Fine Gael claim Griffith. Republicanism does not require left-wing idealogies. Republicanism does not equal Gerry Adams' party.

Freelancer

FTA69 wrote:

We've had our share of divisions etc, but at the end of the day we remained constituted as Sinn Féin, while others came and went.

Like I said it's dubious link. Claiming you've got a bit of paper which means you can be the only ones who claim this mantle is to use your words a bit tenuous at best.

Incidently these is the second or third time, I've asked you which parties would be acceptable to you to celebrate the heritage of the orginal SF? I suspect that you won't let anyone which would led credence to my claim that;

(dons baby voice)

SF don't like playing with the other boys, now do they?

A very tenuous one at best, and their stance is all the more hypocritical when one considers the fact they and other parties seek to deny the continuity of Republicanism.

What on earth does the last sentence even mean?

So you start by screaming how dare they, and rant about blueshirts, now your complaint has been reduced to a mumbled "it's a bit rich now isn't it"

You were the one who alledged that Sinn Féin in 1969 was not a left-wing party, that is an accusation for you to substantiate, not me. The bulk of the so-called left (one could argue true socialism involves recognising national liberation struggles) but that does not mean the party that remained was right-wing if you follow me.

No I was just laughing at the language of a SF member suggesting that SF only brushed with miltarism post civil war. Again private army, which kills indiscrimately, targets civilians, tortures, and murders, for thirty years isn't "brushing with militarism."

It's recognised that the liberal wing split in the 60s you can claim SF has had liberal policy for the past thirty years, I suspect however you're unlikely to find any "liberals" who support people who consider crippling children as an acceptable punishment. *

*punishment shootings for teenagers doing things like joyriding.

Actually it was others who simply neglected to embrace these traditions, for instance it was the state's own decision to stop commemorating the Rising and it was left up to us to continue the tradition, likewise we also sought to keep in mind what the purpose of the Anthem and Tricolour was, namely the symbols of a 32 County Republic.

Oh come on now, in or out. You start by saying you had to start commemorating when others stopped, now when others start, you scream bloody murder.

The state made this decision to stop it became a rallying cry for those thugs. It was a political senstive move to make. Your party then took this and ran with it.

And while we're on the bloody subject, that anthem and that tricolour happen to be my flag and my anthem, and the flag of generations of Irish men and woman who voted in favour of the treaty, in favour of the creation of this republic and in favour of the good friday agreement, none of which are ringing endorsements of a 32 County Republic.

The suggestion that your ilk has more of right to claim "our" flag and "our" anthem is the exact kind of hijacking which has forced the rest of us to suppress our support of both these things, lest we appear as fellow travellers to your band of merry thugs.

We don't know if they would have supported the Tan War which saw the exact same thing, but regardless that is what their actions led to.

Thats hardly a ringing endorsement now is it?

And how is the word of a discontented tout and a journalist worth anything? Suzanne Breen from the Village stated they were not involved in extortion at all, which hack do we believe?

Well seeing as you've seem to be poisoned by propaganda to call a brave murdered man a "tout" for having the courage of his convictions, and standing up to the IRA. One has to wonder would you salute the men who murdered him in cold blood? Or that they felt the need to kill him to silence him? It does tend to lean weight to his claims.