The Sinn Féin Question

Victor · 17-05-2005 12:12am #1

Sinn Féin and various supporters, here and elsewhere, have (if I may) whinged that they are being persecuted on various political issues and then proceed to throw or threaten to throw the toys out of the pram.

This is bordering on SF rejecting politics, they can't bear to accept criticism. In this case should they be rejected from political circles?

On the other side should other political parties accept them, for having moved most of the distance?

I'm divided on the issue and while a year ago I was willing to work with individuals in SF, I feel less willing given the behaviors of the last 4-5 months.

aidan_walsh · 17-05-2005 12:17am

Personally, while three has been a lot that goes against Sinn Fein, there has been a lot move movement on their behalf that there has been from the Unionists (who have only gone from a divisive split to right - but hey, at least they're finally unified!). I'm not so sure they should be ejected yet, but they definatly need to get their act together.

KnowItAll · 17-05-2005 12:40am

Sinn Fein have probaly done the most in the northern ireland peace process. They are also villified in the media (McCarthney murder).

I do think though that they are cannot control the IRA anymore. They must get that sorted to restore credibility.

The worst thing you could do is not talk to someone. That only suites Paisley who is more than happy to delay everything and mess everyone around.

AmenToThat · 17-05-2005 4:15am

Victor wrote:

Sinn Féin and various supporters, here and elsewhere, have (if I may) whinged that they are being persecuted on various political issues and then proceed to throw or threaten to throw the toys out of the pram.

Well Iv certainly 'whinged' on here as you put it as some of the comments have been of a sweeping and all encompassing nature intended to brand 'all Republicans' and made at times in a childish and very nasty way and on occassion on a personal and individualistic level.
All I can say to you is that if people appraoched me on a street and made some of those comments that have been made on here and in sections of the media simply because of my political views they would want to be prepared to either appologise for their remarks or prepare to defend themselves as Id do far more than 'throw my toys out of the pram'.

Might not be the 'politically correct' or mature thing to say but you have asked and Iv given you my honest opinion.

Sand · 17-05-2005 7:02am

This is bordering on SF rejecting politics, they can't bear to accept criticism. In this case should they be rejected from political circles?

They should be allowed to engage in political debate, but they shouldnt be allowed to participate in democratic elections unless theyre willing to observe the same standards as other candidates.

On the other side should other political parties accept them, for having moved most of the distance?

Have they moved most of the distance? The only thing we have is a tactical ceasefire which Adams was reminding us not so long ago can be removed whenever they feel like it. SF/IRA contests elections true, but why wouldnt they - it offers them a route to power, and they dont have to sacrifice terrorism to get it. The provo mindset hasnt changed an iota since 1994.

I'm not so sure they should be ejected yet, but they definatly need to get their act together.

What exactly would they have to do to deserve getting ejected? No genuine political party would be allowed to get away with what SF/IRA have been trying on for the past decade.

oscarBravo · 17-05-2005 8:20am

AmenToThat wrote:

All I can say to you is that if people appraoched me on a street and made some of those comments that have been made on here and in sections of the media simply because of my political views they would want to be prepared to either appologise for their remarks or prepare to defend themselves as Id do far more than 'throw my toys out of the pram'.

Good to see that the republican commitment to non-violent means is as strong as ever.

jman0 · 17-05-2005 8:41am

There is no "Sinn Fein Question", there is only a question of democracy.
It is not governments, nor political opponents that "allow" a democratically elected party into office, rather it is the electorate that decides.
And the nationalist people of NI have spoken quite plainly: they will be represented by Sinn Fein.
There is no question how to proceed from here, all the mechanics of governance have been worked out. Any delay is rightfully blamed on HMG and the Unionists.
Maybe some of these SF bashers feel it's ok for one political party to select whom their opponents will be...Like when Unionists pretend they have the right to form a government with the SDLP for instance, kind of like when [insert dictatorial country here] Party stands for election they get to select who runs on the other ticket, or appoint "opposition" ministers.
But this chicanery has no place in a democracy and is rightfully rejected by democrats.

Nuttzz · 17-05-2005 11:35am

I loathe Sinn Fein, but SF themselves arent the problem, the problem is the nature of northern ireland politics. The Irish government should now withdraw from NI politics, the vast majority of people in the north voted for parties with two completely opposing views, there will be no compromise between the Rev and Gerry, and the Irish government is wasting its time.

People who call for unification of the island would have to expect to pay the costs of this. Loyalist arent going to go away the day after the island is reunified, government with SF in the north is more appealing to them than government from Dublin (Home Rule is Rome Rule and all that)

If it were put to the vote about unification in the morning....

would people here be prepared to pay for the integration of the PSNI into the GS, which would double the forces size?

would people here be prepared to bear the cost to at least double the size of the defence forces to replace the vacumn of the withdrawing British forces?

would people here be prepared for their sons/brothers/friends lives to be lost in volience in areas like sandy row in belfast, just like many a british solider was killed in nationalist areas?

Do people here honestly their their would be a bloodless unification of this Island?

jman0 · 17-05-2005 11:53am

Nuttzz wrote:

Do people here honestly their their would be a bloodless unification of this Island?

Yes, to date: the unionists bluff was never called back in whatever year 1918 or something. And it deserves to be. Sure what are the Loyalist paramilitaries without British Intelligence collusion?
Nothing that the IRA couldn't sort out, that's what.
Couple that with possible British Intelligence cooperation with RoI to snif out Loyalist paramiliaries and their weapons cache (which is probably doubtful) I think they could be mopped up quickly and fairly painlessly.

Lemming · 17-05-2005 12:45pm

It's fantastic reading the commentary here from the ardent SF supporters, proclaiming the use of violence if things don't go their way or someone speaks their mind against them.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

To be honest, I am much like Victor in my stance in that before November, whilst I found the peace process in its current guise a bitter pill to swallow, events soon after prompted me to be less forgiving and hold SF to the same accountability that all other parties are held rather than "letting them find their legitimate political feet" so to speak.

"Shape up or f*ck off" quite frankly is the best way to sum it up.

Do I think that SF should be allowed to engage in politics. Yes. That's part of the beauty of politics, and also its poison sting. Do I think that SF have behaved in an acceptable manner to be taken seriously (beyond being viewed as the PR dept for criminal scum) at political level? I think most of you know the answer to that already .....

gandalf · 17-05-2005 12:58pm

Getting very close to the closing this thread right now !

17-05-2005 1:02pm

KnowItAll wrote:

I do think though that they are cannot control the IRA anymore. They must get that sorted to restore credibility.

And here is the thing for me. How can we allow a party to be the political force of an illegal organisation? SF should be thrown out simply because they haven't taken the gun out of politics. They continue to maintain links with a paramilitary organisation, that shouldn't be tolerated.

jman0 · 17-05-2005 1:12pm

Deleted User wrote:

And here is the thing for me. How can we allow a party to be the political force of an illegal organisation? SF should be thrown out simply because they haven't taken the gun out of politics. They continue to maintain links with a paramilitary organisation, that shouldn't be tolerated.

"throwing out" a democratically elected party is the very opposite of democracy. So long as SF is a legal entity then you must respect their mandate.
If you think SF should become a proscribed organisation then that is an entirely different debate.

Lemming · 17-05-2005 1:24pm

jman0 wrote:

"throwing out" a democratically elected party is the very opposite of democracy. So long as SF is a legal entity then you must respect their mandate.
If you think SF should become a proscribed organisation then that is an entirely different debate.

But operating contrary to legitimate and indeed democractic social structures would warrant expulsion from any body in any country. So to say we must respect their mandate is laughable. Respect is earned. Not demanded.

jman0 · 17-05-2005 1:29pm

Lemming wrote:

But operating contrary to legitimate and indeed democractic social structures would warrant expulsion from any body in any country. So to say we must respect their mandate is laughable. Respect is earned. Not demanded.

Your distaste for democracy is showing Lemming.
The electorate is not laughable, it is sizeable, 3 times the size of the PD's by the way and they are actually partners in government.
Respect is not "earned" by passing some arbitrary litmus test of yours, it is "given" and in fact, in a democracy that respect is given by those who elect them.

17-05-2005 1:33pm

If you think SF should become a proscribed organisation then that is an entirely different debate.

Huh?

perhaps you can explain this to me. We need to respect SF's position as a legit Politicial organisation, while they're a front or at least have some direct ties with an illegal organisation? Why?

And explain to me how a party thats in two different countries can remain loyal to one without loosing loyalty to the other? Are they Irish or are they loyal to the crown as being representatives in the North? Something I've never understood is how they can perform duties in Two Separate governments. (sorry to sortof go off topic.)

gandalf · 17-05-2005 1:35pm

Ah but you are really talking about Democracy Lite jman, ie we will be democratic until we don't like what we hear and the lads with the guns/bombs will be out. Until Sinn Fein get the IRA to disband they should not be considered a Democratic Party. The IRA's time has passed and they should realise that, disband and let Sinn Fein enter politics properly in this country. If not then they should be prescribed and removed from any public offices they hold.

Hydroquinone · 17-05-2005 1:35pm

jman0 wrote:

Yes, to date: the unionists bluff was never called back in whatever year 1918 or something. And it deserves to be. Sure what are the Loyalist paramilitaries without British Intelligence collusion?
Nothing that the IRA couldn't sort out, that's what.
Couple that with possible British Intelligence cooperation with RoI to snif out Loyalist paramiliaries and their weapons cache (which is probably doubtful) I think they could be mopped up quickly and fairly painlessly.

so in your brave new world of a unified ireland, the IRA will still be bopping about, will they? Knocking off Loyalists? Sorry - "mopping them up"
I see
And will they be part of the regular army, or will they be some sort of elite force; and SAS equivalent, perhaps?

So in one fell swoop, we get a united Ireland, a bunch of "mopped up" loyalists and an elite military force that are an illegal and criminal organisation at the moment.
Lovely. Bring it on. I can hardly wait.

There's no way the Loyalists would sit down and take it. No way. And why should they? The Republicans didn't.

Lemming · 17-05-2005 1:47pm

jman0 wrote:

Your distaste for democracy is showing Lemming.

No. Sorry, that'd be my distaste for bullsh*t. The bullsh*tometre needle just spiked there ...

The electorate is not laughable, it is sizeable, 3 times the size of the PD's by the way and they are actually partners in government.
Respect is not "earned" by passing some arbitrary litmus test of yours, it is "given" and in fact, in a democracy that respect is given by those who elect them.

I never put forward any such arbitrary litmus test, not did I suggest such. You insinuated that. So please stop with the theatrics already. It's quite simple. Political party with a private army (or rather private army with political PR front) behind it tends to break the idea of politics in the accept ed sense of the word. Every political party operating inside a soverign state that wishes to be recognised as legitimate has to abide by the constitution of said state. Violation of which would warrant explusion since it goes against the 'charter' of the state and by inference probably not in the interest of the state. Irregardless of how many have voted for a party, once it sits in clear and continued contemptuous violation of the state constitution there's not much else that can be done that will not send a message of "do what you like " to the offenders.

The IRA's insistance on "business as usual" is an absolute afront to the notion of democracy or free-thinking political will. You claim I have distaste for democracy? I suggest you look in your own backyard before screaming j'accuse.

hawkmoon269 · 17-05-2005 1:52pm

Jman0, as I said in another thread, the war is over. Get used to it.

jman0 · 17-05-2005 2:02pm

gandalf wrote:

Until Sinn Fein get the IRA to disband they should not be considered a Democratic Party. The IRA's time has passed and they should realise that, disband and let Sinn Fein enter politics properly in this country. If not then they should be prescribed and removed from any public offices they hold.

Other political parties have been made illegal in the past Gandalf.
SF is not one of them.

Lemming · 17-05-2005 2:51pm

jman0 wrote:

Other political parties have been made illegal in the past Gandalf.
SF is not one of them.

Before or after the British government handed back soverign control? Would you care to name these parties, the dates and reasons for their being delcared illegal organisations?

jman0 · 17-05-2005 4:06pm

Lemming wrote:

Before or after the British government handed back soverign control? Would you care to name these parties, the dates and reasons for their being delcared illegal organisations?

the UDA, 1992

Lemming · 17-05-2005 4:08pm

jman0 wrote:

the UDA, 1992

Tell me ... why were the UDA banned exactly?

hill16 · 17-05-2005 4:10pm

I cant believe some of the middle class posters on this board who want to ban Sinn Fein just because they dont agree with them,sorry lads this is not Nazi Germany.

Lemming · 17-05-2005 4:13pm

hill16 wrote:

I cant believe some of the middle class posters on this board who want to ban Sinn Fein just because they dont agree with them,sorry lads this is not Nazi Germany.

I invoke Godwins Law.

Incidentally you have spectacularly failed to grasp what's being argued.

jman0 · 17-05-2005 4:21pm

Lemming wrote:

Tell me ... why were the UDA banned exactly?

Due to the overwhelming evidence against them, finally after years and years of innocent catholics getting murdered HMG raided the UDA offices, and among the items found included a terrorist manual in the leader's desk drawer. Maybe it was Andy Tyrie, i'm not sure.

Lemming · 17-05-2005 4:25pm

jman0 wrote:

Due to the overwhelming evidence against them, finally after years and years of innocent catholics getting murdered HMG raided the UDA offices, and among the items found included a terrorist manual in the leader's desk drawer. Maybe it was Andy Tyrie, i'm not sure.

And what can we conclude from this boys and girls? Besides not leaving terrorist manuals lying about?

The IRA have been clever enough not to get caught .... yet. But being clever enough to not get caught and having everybody know that you are involved in exactly the same manner of activity (indeed more so) than the UDA is hardly something to bray about now is it?

jman0 · 17-05-2005 4:31pm

Lemming wrote:

And what can we conclude from this boys and girls? Besides not leaving terrorist manuals lying about?

The IRA have been clever enough not to get caught .... yet. But being clever enough to not get caught and having everybody know that you are involved in exactly the same manner of activity (indeed more so) than the UDA is hardly something to bray about now is it?

Um, the IRA are already a proscribed organisation.

ionapaul · 17-05-2005 4:31pm

hill16 wrote:

I cant believe some of the middle class posters on this board who want to ban Sinn Fein just because they dont agree with them,sorry lads this is not Nazi Germany.

Every thread I read with a Shinner bleating about their 'democratic mandate' I have to restrain myself from posting, as I would invoke Godwin's Law...SF's democratic mandate is still less than the Nazi's democratic mandate (percentage-wise) circa 1932.

jman0 · 17-05-2005 4:33pm

ionapaul wrote:

Every thread I read with a Shinner bleating about their 'democratic mandate' I have to restrain myself from posting, as I would invoke Godwin's Law...SF's democratic mandate is still less than the Nazi's democratic mandate (percentage-wise) circa 1932.

And the point is what?
Does it mean that democracy is worthless?

The Sinn Féin Question

Comments