Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

PeadarCo wrote: »

The key part of any truth and reconciliation process is trust. Do people trust each other to be completely truthful. Personally I don't think there is. There's nothing to be gained for either the Irish or British governments. Both have also far bigger priorities than northern Ireland. You also question do they trust key people like Adams who were members of both SF and the IRA

If you look at Adams he's not prepared to admit being in the IRA. He implicitly admits it by not suing anyone who makes the accusation. Adams saying he was a member of the IRA wouldn't be earth shattering news but the failure to admit something so basic does raise questions about his willingness and others to divulge more serious information.

On the subject of this thread its that lack of honesty that causes SF problems when dealing with non supporters.

You need to move beyond the media inspired generalisations here.

Ask yourself the simple follow on questions: Anywhere in the world were a Truth recovery process took place, did the participants TRUST one another before the process began?

The British and Irish governments are OUR governments, it will only become important if WE make it important. Do you think everything a government does is done because THEY think it is important to do it?

Move beyond the simple statement 'Adams doesn't sue because he is lying about membership'. How does he prove he wasn't a member? Who would he bring into court to do that? How likely is it, that they will come into court? Would you believe them anyway?
It is again, an easy/lazy thing for journalists and posters on here, to say. Because invariably, they don't have to present any proof and it is impossible to disprove, a safe bolt-hole for them.
That is not to mention the 'so-what?' answer, that nobody has answered.

If you believe that the conflict would have happened anyway, what difference does it make if he was a member or not? Anybody who actually knows what happened, (remember, there is a poster on this very thread who didn't 'know' that the British shot children dead on the streets of Northern Ireland) knows it would have happened anyway, the IRA were a busted flush and didn't want to get involved when NI inevitably combusted again in 69.
What difference does it make to people who are forever grateful that somebody like Adams was at the helm of SF when the chance of an agreement came about? Vincent Browne (no fan of Adams or SF) will at least accept that last bit.

Personally, I don't trust that everybody will tell the truth at a Truth Recovery process, but I accept that there is no other way to deal with these issues.
The idea that due to laziness, people will die off (very probably, with stories they are desperate to tell) before we get answers is abhorrent to me.
And, this way, where the only reason these families are being heard is because they have political capital for FG FF etc. is appalling and abhorrent to watch, over and over. This story is already dead, like Maria Cahill, there will be no answers, what will happen is that Enda and Michael will wait for the poll data to come out confident that yet again they have staved off the day they might have to answer for their party's past behaviour and lack of action. And we sit around waiting for the NEXT person, or family. Meanwhile all the families and people, from whom no political capital can be made, sit silently suffering.

billy few mates wrote: »

What exactly was it you found so 'compelling' about the evidence Gerry gave in the witness box...?
I've just read it again and it's pretty damning of the man.
You can see now why the only platform that man should be given is the strict confines of a court room witness box where his obfuscation, deflection and lies can be unpicked and challenged where ha can't be allowed to control the narrative and agenda. You'd never get that in a T&R commission, all you'd get is months and months the lies and bluster that you see in the transcript except there'd be nobody able to properly challenge him, tell him to save it for his book....

I didn't forensically read it Billy and I have no intention of doing that. If Adams perjured himself or perverted the course of justice, I expect the court to deal with that. It didn't so I assume he didn't do either.
Did he give evidence that ensured his brother went to jail = Yes
Did he accept that he handled the issue (a difficult one for any individual) badly and wrongly? =Yes
Would I make capital out of another politician, I oppose, caught in a difficult family situation = No.

bubblypop wrote: »

Talk of a truth and reconciliation process isn't relevant to this case.
The IRA ( if you believe this) were at 'war' with the British state. Any criminal offences they committed in southern Ireland are just that, criminal offences as should be prosecuted as such in our courts.

They have been prosecuted.
The issue here is, you and others want the IRA to supply the intel that will get them prosecuted.
That isn't going to happen. It is as simple as that, and we know that since the agreement was signed.
The TWO governments (yes, the Irish government, on YOUR behalf)accepted that there was only one way to deal with legacy issues arising from the conflict and that was to be via a Truth Recovery process.
This murder happened because of the conflict, neither the victim or the killer would have been there unless there had been a conflict/war.

There is no ambiguity here on the stance of SF nor the IRA, they have consistently said what their position is and they have not changed it.
The ambiguity, betrayal of trust, is on the part of the two governments and those who signed the GFA and those who voted for it, and have changed their stance and now want something different.

Jawgap wrote: »

Again you either deliberately or otherwise miss the subtlety of the point being made.

No one is questioning the content of McDonald's reply or its consistency with 'the message' - they are asking where is she? why isn't she, as SF's (supposedly) best media performer out in the media defending Adams?

It's easy parrot off the party line when confronted with a microphone and no chance of escape, quite a different matter to go and be interviewed about the issue and submit yourself to scrutiny - one is left wondering why she hasn't?

So now it's Mary Lou's turn? I thought the new generation would be immune from all this?

I have seen several different SF reps answering questions on this.
Just as have seen several different FG and FF reps on it.
That is par for the course in politics when an issue arises, different people are appointed to go and debate the issue in the media.

I could ask on a whole variety of stuff, 'where is Enda' is he in hiding? And make hay with that.
In fact, isn't that a bit of a joke/social media trope now when talking about FG...'Where is Enda?' He gets routinely criticised for it.

Jawgap wrote: »

I've already spelled it out.

......and yes the accused was found guilty and is in jail, but more than one person gave evidence at the trial.

I still don't understand the problem. Would it have been better if he had lied about his recall of the events?