Is it possible to be a Sinn Fein member/supoporter and not support IRA actions?

NIMAN

As time progresses and SF strive to be accepted by the voting public, North and South, as a 'normal' political party, I got to wondering if its possible that we will ever hear any of their members/TDs etc actually condemn the actions of the IRA?

Surely a time will come when someone who may want to get into politics will agree with their policies and beliefs, but find the military actions of the past abhorrent? Will that someone ever be able to speak about IRA actions without adding in the usual "... yes, but there was murder on all sides and by State forces etc etc".

raymon

It wasn't so long ago that Snodaigh supporters were jailed when they were found with election posters for Snodaigh, CS gas, and balaclavas.

Or Martin ferris playing taxi to the Mc Cabe killers as soon as they were released.

Or senior IRA figures saying that Gerry ordered Mc Convilles death.

Sinn Fein voters know what they are getting.

This party is not for me

maccored

NIMAN wrote: »

As time progresses and SF strive to be accepted by the voting public, North and South, as a 'normal' political party, I got to wondering if its possible that we will ever hear any of their members/TDs etc actually condemn the actions of the IRA?

Surely a time will come when someone who may want to get into politics will agree with their policies and beliefs, but find the military actions of the past abhorrent? Will that someone ever be able to speak about IRA actions without adding in the usual "... yes, but there was murder on all sides and by State forces etc etc".

It'd be nice if the IRA hadnt existed and there never had been any need for them - but there was and they did so I dont think it's possible to separate the past as far as SF and the IRA go. Give it 40 years maybe. TBH though, its a bit like a british person saying they couldnt vote for labour because of the british army.

Nodin

NIMAN wrote: »

As time progresses and SF strive to be accepted by the voting public, North and South, as a 'normal' political party, I got to wondering if its possible that we will ever hear any of their members/TDs etc actually condemn the actions of the IRA?

.

Can't see how. Can't imagine why anyone would have joined the party if that was their view.

NIMAN

Nodin wrote: »

Can't see how. Can't imagine why anyone would have joined the party if that was their view.

But in many years to come, will the armed struggle as its called, even be attached to SF any more?

If they are a mainstream political party then it will just be something in their distant past. As I say, what is someone liked their policies and ideals, but couldn't find themselves saying they agreed with IRA actions in the latter half of the 20th century?

Are they mutally exclusive?

Iwasfrozen

NIMAN wrote: »

Is it possible to be a Sinn Fein member/supoporter and not support IRA actions?

Yes, they're called SDLP.

Nodin

NIMAN wrote: »

But in many years to come, will the armed struggle as its called, even be attached to SF any more?

If they are a mainstream political party then it will just be something in their distant past. As I say, what is someone liked their policies and ideals, but couldn't find themselves saying they agreed with IRA actions in the latter half of the 20th century?

Are they mutally exclusive?

I'm unable to speculate on the far flung future in any meaningful way, tbh. Maybe yes, maybe no.

alastair

NIMAN wrote: »

But in many years to come, will the armed struggle as its called, even be attached to SF any more?

If they are a mainstream political party then it will just be something in their distant past. As I say, what is someone liked their policies and ideals, but couldn't find themselves saying they agreed with IRA actions in the latter half of the 20th century?

Are they mutally exclusive?

I've voted for a SF candidate in local elections (second pref anyway!) - and I'm certainly not a supporter of the IRA - even though this particular candidate had previously been an IRA member. We're in a post-IRA armed campaign reality now - a few bank robberies and the odd pub murder aside, so any objections to SF should be on the basis of their current platform. God knows there's enough to cause concern there.

IrishProd

NIMAN wrote: »

I got to wondering if its possible that we will ever hear any of their members/TDs etc actually condemn the actions of the IRA?

Not "if, when and ever", they have done so in the past and currently. I know people who are active members and have denounced acts that were done in the name of the republicanism that contradict republicanism. Kingsmill for example, was widely and heavily condemned by Sinn Féin.

CueCard7

Yes you can. The IRA doesn't exist anymore.

How can you support something that doesn't exist.

It's like saying that all Fine Gael supporters support the actions of the Free State army during the civil war.

I.e the executions/ court Marshalls ect.


A stupid hypothesis.

I think most of the hate for Sinn Fein stems from the fact they are a northern party with left wing/confused policies.

But to say every Sinn Fein supporter is an IRA supporter is stupid.


How can I support something that does not exist?

Nodin

IrishProd wrote: »

Not "if, when and ever", they have done so in the past and currently. I know people who are active members and have denounced acts that were done in the name of the republicanism that contradict republicanism. Kingsmill for example, was widely and heavily condemned by Sinn Féin.

That's an action though. I presume he means the whole campaign.

CiDeRmAn

I think its the reframing of terrorism as a legitimate conflict that galls me most, and that extremely minority view still pervades Sinn Fein commentary on the period.
With this behaviour they make every atrocity the IRA committed an unfortunate event in war.
But it wasn't a war, it was a litany of illegal acts by an illegal paramilitary group with no mandate.
And while the IRA doesn't exist anymore, apparently, Sinn Feins rehabilitation of legacy of horror continues, ahead of the 2016 commemorations, and so as a shower of manipulators and liars I think it would be unrealistic to expect any Shinner true believers to abandon their allegiance to the IRA.

alastair

CueCard7 wrote: »

How can I support something that does not exist?

Because "they haven't gone away, you know"?

CueCard7

People who still support the armed conflict regard Sinn Fein as traitors,

You have to admit that inherent nature of the Northern State was bound to spawn a conflict.

I think the IRA unneccesarily prolonged that conflict, but conflict was inevitable.
The IRA was spawned due to Loyalist violence.

However Sinn Fein have now rejected violence.

Fianna Fail in 1926 were allowed to get on with politics. Even though they were responsible for lots of innocent people being killed.

CueCard7

alastair wrote: »

Because "they haven't gone away, you know"?

They have the IRA was disbanded in 2004

alastair

CueCard7 wrote: »

They have the IRA was disbanded in 2004

No it wasn't. It didn't even disarm until 2005, and never disbanded.

Nodin

alastair wrote: »

No it wasn't. It didn't even disarm until 2005, and never disbanded.

The army council had disbanded. If you've information to the contrary, you'd better get on to the international monitoring committee.

CueCard7

It doesn't exist anymore.
It's twenty years now since the troubles ended.

Look how far West Germany moved between 1945 and 1965.

When Kennedy visited Berlin, he was nt met with tonnes of protesters complaining about his predecessors firebombing Dresden.

As much as people seem loathe to admit, what happened in Northern Ireland is history.

It's time the Independent moved on.
They were quick to forget their role as Berties cheerleader during the boom

grainnewhale

raymon wrote: »

It wasn't so long ago that Snodaigh supporters were jailed when they were found with election posters for Snodaigh, CS gas, and balaclavas.

Or Martin ferris playing taxi to the Mc Cabe killers as soon as they were released.

Or senior IRA figures saying that Gerry ordered Mc Convilles death.

Sinn Fein voters know what they are getting.

This party is not for me

I imagine the majority of people who vote for Sinn Fein will be republicans, with a few disaffected F.F and lab. supporters thrown. I don't forsee any F.G blueshirts voting for republicans, when they have spent a lifetime supporting unionism. After all F.G's John Brutal said meeting Prince Charles was the best moment of his life. It's hard to know whether F.G created a unionist dominated state because of their love for them or brain washed themselves into loving them, to justify creating the despicable apartheid state of northern Ireland.

grainnewhale

alastair wrote: »

No it wasn't. It didn't even disarm until 2005, and never disbanded.

Not sure they even disarmed. The truth is you can never be sure when it will be necessary to protect irish nationalists from british savages in the future.

alastair

Nodin wrote: »

The army council had disbanded. If you've information to the contrary, you'd better get on to the international monitoring committee.

No need - the IMC was clear enough on the fact that the Army Council was not disbanded at all, but rather was just allowed to fade away:

Under PIRA’s own rules the Army Council was the body that directed its military campaign. Now that that campaign is well and truly over, the Army Council by deliberate choice is no longer operational or functional. This situation has been brought about by a conscious decision to let it fall into disuse rather than through any other mechanism.

...

The mechanism which they have chosen to bring the armed conflict to a complete end has been the standing down of the structures which engaged in the armed campaign and the conscious decision to allow the Army Council to fall into disuse.

CiDeRmAn

grainnewhale wrote: »

Not sure they even disarmed. The truth is you can never be sure when it will be necessary to protect irish nationalists from british savages in the future.

This is sarcasm, yes?

Richard

alastair wrote: »

a few bank robberies and the odd pub murder aside

So that's ok then...?

CueCard7

According to the Republican tradition.

There is always a right to bear arms against British occupation,

This struggle began with Wolfe Tone and the torch passed from him to Emmet and the Young Irelanders, to the Fenians and the IRB, Connolly, the Volunteers and the IRA. When the IRA became ineffective, this legitimacy passed to the Provisional IRA.

There are now a number of horrible dissident groups claiming to have picked up this torch from the Provos.

However one thing is certain. The provisional IRA is dead and gone. It is consigned to history. Gerry Adams is doing the same thing that Frank Aiken and Eamonn DeValera has done before him.

By moving to consitititional politics he has firmly buried the gun. Both sides were responsible for atrocities during the troubles. But without Gerry Adams there would be no peace in the North today.

He will be remembered in history very kindly.

Nodin

alastair wrote: »

No need - the IMC was clear enough on the fact that the Army Council was not disbanded at all, but rather was just allowed to fade away:

The mechanism which they have chosen to bring the armed conflict to a complete end has been the standing down of the structures which engaged in the armed campaign and the conscious decision to allow the Army Council to fall into disuse.

They don't exist anymore. Other than semantics for the sake of it, I'd say that's fairly conclusive.

golfball37

I abhorr most of what the IRA did but would give SF a vote without hesitation in the next GE. The three party patronage act have not served this state well and the attacks on SF nua over thier past reeks of fear from the establishment.Fear that their entitlements may be at risk.

Anything that upsets the cosy cartel that have taken nest in this state is a good thing, at the momnent SF are the only poosibility of breaking up this monopoly scam. Until a new party comes along that challenges what goes on here, I will vote for them.

NIMAN

CueCard7 wrote: »

Yes you can. The IRA doesn't exist anymore.

How can you support something that doesn't exist.

It's like saying that all Fine Gael supporters support the actions of the Free State army during the civil war.

I.e the executions/ court Marshalls ect.


A stupid hypothesis.

I think most of the hate for Sinn Fein stems from the fact they are a northern party with left wing/confused policies.

But to say every Sinn Fein supporter is an IRA supporter is stupid.


How can I support something that does not exist?

I didn't think it was a stupid question to be honest. And my question was more about their elected representatives, not the public who vote for them.

The question came to me when I was listening to one of Donegals SF TDs chatting on the radio last week, and they came out with the old line that you would hear so often by the Northern SF politicians about the conflict and how there were volunteers fighting what they considered a legitimate war etc etc.
I thought that it was a shame even now people born and bred outside of NI have to still spew out the same old lines about the IRA. Are they told that they have to say this any time they are interviewed? And then this got me thinking about the SF politicians of the future, maybe some who are young people now. Will the legacy of the Troubles always follow the party and will they always have to answer the questions with a token reply, or will one day a SF candidate be able to say that they would never be able to say that the IRA campaign was justified?

I personally hope that one day the link between the IRA and SF is broken, and the party is seen as its own identity. Maybe some of the media in this country will never let it go?

maccored

I thought that it was a shame even now people born and bred outside of NI have to still spew out the same old lines about the IRA. Are they told that they have to say this any time they are interviewed?

He probably said it because its the truth. It was a conflict and many did view it as a war. Including the SAS.

will one day a SF candidate be able to say that they would never be able to say that the IRA campaign was justified?

In the eyes of republicans the campaign was and always will be justified. Which makes sense when you actually look at what happened.

NIMAN

Are FF'ers not republicans?

alastair

maccored wrote: »

In the eyes of republicans the campaign was and always will be justified.

Correction - Some republicans.

maccored wrote: »

Which makes sense when you actually look at what happened.

What makes even more sense is the rejection of their campaign by a far greater number.

For Reals

NIMAN wrote: »

Are FF'ers not republicans?

For a vote, they'll be what ever you want them to be.

maccored

alastair wrote: »

Correction - Some republicans.

I dont mean the 'pretend so I can get a vote republicans' like FF etc, so I would correct your correction and remain with 'in the eyes of republicans'.

What makes even more sense is the rejection of their campaign by a far greater number.

And where is your data to back that up?

Considering you must mean people living in the areas affected (mainly the northern counties), and considering the IRA couldnt have existed at all without public support.

Also consider you never know how people actually feel. Ive talked to people who years ago would deny suporting SF in any way, but how now admit they always voted for them, which just shows that you cant always take people at face value. I remember a time when any show of support for SF could end up with the RUC tracking you.

So again, I disagree with you mainly because you dont know how much support sinn fein or the ira had and therefore you cant really say they didnt have support from those they needed support from. As I say, being the kind of guerilla army the IRA were, they could not have existed unless there were people there to support them - and these couldnt be tiny pockets. anywhere the IRA done stuff, there had to be local support otherwise they'd be caught in no time.

maccored

NIMAN wrote: »

Are FF'ers not republicans?

Is a republican a greedy bastard who likes bankrupting countries? If thats not what a republican is then I'd say no - FF arent republicans.

alastair

maccored wrote: »

I dont mean the 'pretend so I can get a vote republicans' like FF etc, so I would correct your correction and remain with 'in the eyes of republicans'.

Feel free to do as you choose, but it's still only some republicans. SF and the IRA don't hold any franchise on republican politics.

maccored wrote: »

And where is your data to back that up?

A small thing called the democratic process. Check any electoral poll for the entire period of the provo's campaign. Very much a minority interest - even allowing for your supposed secret shinner voters.

maccored

alastair wrote: »

A small thing called the democratic process. Check any electoral poll for the entire period of the provo's campaign. Very much a minority interest - even allowing for your supposed secret shinner voters.

Easy on now - in another thread on here you're only after telling me you dont need the democratic process as the general public viewpoint is good enough. Electoral polls ? The IRA had local, ground support because - as already mentioned - they couldnt have existed otherwise. You cant vote for the IRA, so electorial polls dont come into it.

alastair

maccored wrote: »

Easy on now - in another thread on here you're only after telling me you dont need the democratic process as the general public viewpoint is good enough. Electoral polls ? The IRA had local, ground support because - as already mentioned - they couldnt have existed otherwise. You cant vote for the IRA, so electorial polls dont come into it.

You could certainly vote for SF - the openly declared political wing of the IRA. And how did they fare in the gallery of electoral choices? Well, frankly, pretty poorly. Poorly in NI, even worse in the republic. I'm not sure what you're on about regarding not needing a democratic process? Maybe you need to re-read what I actually wrote?

ShowMeTheCash

Just reading through the thread...

So it could be argued that even if SF had sound policy a fairly significant populas would still not vote for the party even if they agreed on "current" policy.

I think SF need to drop some of the dinosaurs, they need a face lift to move forward and essentailly drop anyone physically connected to the troubles...

This does not really change anything, like painting a speed stripe on your banged up motor, people are too stupid and or fickle to make decisions that are in the best interest of its population...
But then again, we have all bought into a system that is a circus that keeps us guessing / entertained while CEO's, politicians and the "elite" pocket money for sick childeren.... But let's not worry about that, let's watch Enda bash Gerry Adams about the Northern Bank.... That will fix everything!

The idea that people would let FG or FF run the country into the dirt befor they would vote SF kind of sets the intellectual tone of our nation.

SF will eventually I think move to a more main stream Party, give it another generation... No one in the party will have witnessed or been party to anything that actaully happened during the troubles, then we will have three completely corrupt and morally reprehensible parties

Tramps Like Us

Yes, when I was a member there were some who had no time whatsoever for the IRA. I know one who even worked (may still do) in leinster house for a SF TD/Senator as an assistant.

Personally I believed that most of these people were careerist and were only members of SF because the party is in the ascendancy, were it FF or Labour they'd be with them.

However there are many people who now support SF who would have given canvassers a right ear bashing years ago.

Reality is (and people here won't like this) that deep down a lot of people had sympathy with the IRA on a basic level, but were put off by the level of violence and civilian deaths.

We are years into a peace process and the IRA are gone... many people support SFs policies and appreciate the hard work they do, and that SF are a clear alternative

I don't support SF anymore, other than giving them a high preference as the best of a bad lot.

Tramps Like Us

Interesting to note that the constant SF bashing over the past few weeks had a negligible effect on their support.

Change the record

Richard

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Interesting to note that the constant SF bashing over the past few weeks had a negligible effect on their support.

Change the record

To what...?

spank_inferno

Richard wrote: »

To what...?

You know.... That record that sings of SF/IRA being a competent, inspiring, all inclusive political movement.

Tramps Like Us

spank_inferno wrote: »

You know.... That record that sings of SF/IRA being a competent, inspiring, all inclusive political movement.

Or you know to one which embraces the present and isnt a collection of coner cruise O'Briens greatest hits. We've heard it all before a million times people care a lot less now because the outrage is clearly oppertunistic

Son Of A Vidic

CueCard7 wrote: »

Fianna Fail in 1926 were allowed to get on with politics.

Indeed and didn't Fianna Fail enter the Dáil carrying guns. Guns that they never surrendered nor decommissioned. Selective revisionism seems to be a quality that those in glasshouses often possess in abundance.

The Corinthian

NIMAN wrote: »

Maybe some of the media in this country will never let it go?

Probably not, unless SF were willing to repudiate their past PIRA sympathies. It's a situation not unique to SF; throughout Europe there are political parties that have had their origins in communism and fascism, for example, and this historical association has never left them, until many eventually turned around and publicly rejected it (Italy's former Alleanza Nazionale party being a good example of this). As such, until SF does the same, the association will remain.

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

We are years into a peace process and the IRA are gone... many people support SFs policies and appreciate the hard work they do, and that SF are a clear alternative

Good point. While the perceived link between the PIRA and SF is likely to remain for the foreseeable future, people's memory of the PIRA has become fuzzier; they don't seem quite as bad as they used to.

Nonetheless, SF's greatest asset is probably, as you say, that they appear to be a clear alternative to the current political establishment - all of whom appear to be equally moribund. I don't think this disillusion is an Irish problem per say though; you're seeing it through Western democracies. Neither is it the first time Western democracies have witnessed this.

laoch na mona

yes because that is the past you question is the same as asking can anyone support FG and not be a blueshirt or can anyone support labour and not support the actions of the official IRA

The Corinthian

laoch na mona wrote: »

yes because that is the past you question is the same as asking can anyone support FG and not be a blueshirt or can anyone support labour and not support the actions of the official IRA

Oh, I agree that eventually SF's past association with the PIRA will become irrelevant, even without any repudiation of the PIRA by SF, to speed things up. But it's probably going to take a very long time.

Dubhlinner

At present it would not be possible - the party would kick you out for condemning PIRA actions.

Many of their leadership were prominent Provos and most of them are open about it. They can hardly have someone condemn their leadership and be a member.

I reckon it will be around 2040-2050 before you'd get straight out condemnation.

grainnewhale

Dubhlinner wrote: »

At present it would not be possible - the party would kick you out for condemning PIRA actions.

Many of their leadership were prominent Provos and most of them are open about it. They can hardly have someone condemn their leadership and be a member.

I reckon it will be around 2040-2050 before you'd get straight out condemnation.

That's some reckoning, right there.

Carlos Orange

laoch na mona wrote: »

yes because that is the past you question is the same as asking can anyone support FG and not be a blueshirt or can anyone support labour and not support the actions of the official IRA

What current senior FG party members were Blueshirts?

grainnewhale

psinno wrote: »

What current senior FG party members were Blueshirts?

They all are.

The Corinthian

psinno wrote: »

What current senior FG party members were Blueshirts?

Why don't you ask what current senior politicians were in the GPO during the Easter Rising, while you're at it?