Martin McGuinness feels the heat
Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2011 at 10:51 AM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Abortion reform Irish style - Women still have no rights over their own bodies, continue to travel to the UK for procedure
- We’re total abortion hypocrites - proposals for new legislation were laughable
- Catch 22 for Irish abortion law - navigating Ireland’s rigid, Catholic influence legal framework and Savita Halappanavar’s case
- The late Baroness Margaret Thatcher had her good points
- Letters from the tax man - the mounting cost of Ireland's property tax and running the country
Archives
![]() |
| Martin McGuinness receives a kiss from supporter while campaigning in Dublin on Saturday |
Why were they doing this? He answered his own question. It's because he has offered to do the job of president for the average industrial wage.
That was the only reason he gave.
Which, when you think about it, is extraordinary. Because the media are not at all interested in this petty financial matter.
What the media have been hammering away at over the past week are some of the brutal IRA actions that McGuinness was known to be involved in over the years.
Particular attention has been paid to the role he played in luring a so-called IRA informer called Frank Hegarty back to Derry in 1986, visiting the man's house to assure his mother that he would not be harmed. When Hegarty returned he was abducted and executed by the IRA.
Another thing the media here have been concentrating on is McGuinness's claim that he left the IRA in 1974. Security chiefs, not only in the north but in the south as well, have stated on the record that their information is that McGuinness was one of the leaders -- and for much of the time the senior leader -- of the IRA from the mid-1970s to the 1990s. Yet McGuinness is sticking to his assertion that he left the IRA in 1974.
Now most of the time, this kind of unbelievable claim by McGuinness has not mattered too much in the south. It has as much credibility as the claim by Gerry Adams that he was never in the IRA at all!
It's treated as a bit of a joke by most people. The less said the better, ask no questions and you will be told no lies etc.
If it means we have peace, who cares what the truth is? Which is fine and dandy most of the time.
But it's a different matter when we are talking about the record of someone who wants to be president of Ireland. And it's a different matter if they are deliberately telling lies.
The fact is that the record of anyone who wants to be president here is subject to forensic scrutiny, and rightly so. The shifting Sinn Fein/IRA dual personalities that McGuinness and some of his close colleagues inhabited in the past were tolerated at one stage because they served a purpose when efforts to end the years of bloodshed in the North were underway.
But the kind of compromises that had to be made then have no place in a presidential election in the south now.
There is no room here and now for fudging, for half-truths, for the nod and wink nonsense that we have listened to from Sinn Fein leaders for so long.
If you want to run for president here, you better be prepared to be honest and up front. That is the minimum that people here expect.
As for McGuinness's answer that the weekend criticism is a reaction to his offer to accept only the average wage here if he is elected president, he's not fooling anyone. In fact it's an insult to the intelligence of voters here.
That is merely a ham-fisted attempt to appeal to the many people here who are under financial pressure. But it has no real credibility.
One reporter here noted that when McGuinness appeared on the Late Late Show last week for the special debate with all the presidential candidates there was not just one but two limos waiting outside the RTE studios for him. One of these was a BMW X5, which is not the kind of car that anyone I know on the average wage drives.
When the same reporter tried to take pictures of the cars he was immediately surrounded by several McGuinness security men and discouraged from doing so.
This is another aspect of the Sinn Fein modus operandi that bothers people here. They may all be on the average wage, but there's a lot of minders around whenever any of the Sinn Fein leaders are moving around.
And there's an aura of power and threat that accompanies them that is very disturbing in a democracy. Anyone who has encountered the Sinn Fein leaders up close will be aware of this.
How is this Sinn Fein machine funded? Do we even know who pays for McGuinness's expensive suits?
The answer is we don't know. And when one government minister suggested last weekend that the Northern
Bank robbery might have something to do with it, McGuinness was quick to reply that this was "rubbish," and most Irish people here know it's rubbish, he added.
Well, he's wrong about that. In fact most people here are very suspicious about where the £26 million stolen in the bank robbery in Belfast in 2004 has gone, because no explanation has ever been forthcoming and the bulk of the money has never been recovered.
You will remember that after the robbery, bins and bags of Northern Ireland bank notes turned up in the south and Sinn Fein people were linked to the cash.
Now 2004 is only seven years ago. It's not ancient history.
Does McGuinness know where the Northern Bank robbery money is? Will he tell us? Or does he expect us to elect him president even though he refuses to come clean and tell us all he knows on this and many other issues?
That is the big problem that Sinn Fein face in this presidential election here. They seem to think that they will get away with not answering questions, or only partly answering questions, or trotting out the same old evasive double talk like they have been doing in the North for years.
Well, sorry guys, but it won't work. And McGuinness's sad and disappointed reaction to the questions that were raised here last weekend is perhaps a sign that he and his senior Sinn Fein colleagues are only now waking up to this uncomfortable fact. That fact is it's different here in the south.
The other aspect to the dismissive Sinn Fein attitude to the media here is their belief that there is a historical legitimacy to the bloody campaign waged by the IRA over the recent 30 years of murder and mayhem.
The IRA "war" cannot be seen as anti-democratic or criminal because it has legitimate roots in our history.
And for that reason, they believe, many of the questions now being thrown at McGuinness in this election are based on false premises or a lack of understanding or an ignorance of our history.
The reaction to recent columns in this space makes it clear that some Irish Americans share this view. So let's tease it out for a moment.
The argument goes like this -- the men of the 1916 Rising were only supported by a small minority of the Irish people when they rebelled, but their action is now seen as legitimate. In the same way, the recent IRA campaign will in time be seen to be legitimate.
This ignores the fact that after the execution of the 1916 leaders public opinion began to swing behind the movement for independence, and in the 1918 election Sinn Fein won a massive majority of the Irish seats in the British Parliament, leading to the setting up of the first Dail (Irish Parliament) and the Declaration of Independence, followed by the War of Independence.
This means that the IRA's war of independence at the time had a democratic legitimacy. The recent campaign by the IRA had no such legitimacy, either in the south or in the north.
As far as the vast majority (over 98%) of people in the south were concerned, the campaign was continued despite their strong disapproval and opposition. In the North, the campaign continued even though it was opposed by the biggest Nationalist party in the North, the SDLP.
Sinn Fein did not replace the SDLP as the largest Nationalist party in the North until 2001, long after the IRA ceasefire had come into effect in 1994. Which means the IRA campaign in the North did not have a democratic legitimacy either among Nationalists or among the population in the North as a whole.
So the idea that the recent IRA campaign in the North had some kind of historic or democratic legitimacy is false. At some point Sinn Fein are going to have to acknowledge that fact and now, as McGuinness asks the people of the south to make him their president, would be a good time to do it.
Another painful awakening for Sinn Fein that is now happening is the realization that the peace process bonus in the south is long over. Eaten bread is soon forgot.
The electorate in the south now have other concerns, so Sinn Fein and McGuinness are unlikely to get much payback for stopping the slaughter.
As far as most people here are concerned, there is no reason for us to be grateful to McGuinness and his colleagues for finally stopping three decades of a bloody campaign because it had no legitimacy anyway.
20 comments
Next
Page 1 of 2 pages
DublinCitizen | Oct 19, 2011, 01:02 PM EDT
What had Mary Robinson to do with Sinn Fein? McGuinness has not a hell's hope in chance of winning unless Sinn Fein cheats (which they have done before). I'M voting for Sean Gallagher and Michael D.
Report abuse
kiltyclogher | Oct 14, 2011, 01:17 PM EDT
its been ten years since i left the states but one thing has not changed ,john spain still writes
a load of horse--ite
Report abuse
Fergananim | Oct 14, 2011, 09:17 AM EDT
@Fisherman - West Brits? What do the Welsh have to do with this?
Report abuse
merefalow | Oct 12, 2011, 03:22 PM EDT
you said,if you want to run for president you should be honest and up front,well that lets out 99%of all polititions english and irish then.and what about the last crowd who led us into the valley of bankrupcy,they were realy honest and up front,not.
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Oct 06, 2011, 04:21 PM EDT
Spain must be feeling the heat now that martin has a thin chance of winning.Spain would have us elect the same old west brits like McAleese and the former sticky Robinson.Robinson soon cleansed her self of her Sinn Fein past for the fast buck.
Report abuse
fisherman | Oct 06, 2011, 03:51 PM EDT
McGuinness may be feeling the heat from West Brits like John Spain, but he is holding firm at 19-21% in two polls today. The main attack dog, Gay Mitchell, has seen his standing plummet. Keep up the heat, John, it is really helping McGuinness. By the way, your citing security chiefs "on the record" is pathetic. Have you never heard of black propaganda??
Report abuse
ancavker | Oct 06, 2011, 09:39 AM EDT
sirpeter: What is more shocking is how little Irish people know about this period of their history which is only 90 odd years old. I find it incredibly odd (or maybe I should not) that the Irish pride themselves on being so well informed regarding conflicts/history in other parts of the world, yet know so little about the struggle for Irish independence. It is very disheartening.
Report abuse
ancavker | Oct 06, 2011, 09:36 AM EDT
sirpeter: Whether the British would have flooded Ireland with more troops or not is debatable, because at this point world opinion particularly in the U.S. was totally against the British government. Collins would have fought on if he thought the Irish people were behind him. The treaty gave him breathing room, and if he needed to finish the job he would have come back. Keep in mind the IRA in the north was no match for the heavily armed RUC and B-Specials. You are right that many Irish did not support the treaty, but not because of partition, over the stupid oath.
Report abuse
maireadinmelb | Oct 06, 2011, 06:21 AM EDT
Why are the Irish themselves trying to divide the nation and claim the battles of the IRA are not legitimate! The republic that left part of the country behind when they got their independence and now trying to demonise those who only want what they have!!!
Report abuse
sirpeter | Oct 05, 2011, 10:05 PM EDT
@ancavker.Some of your points are correct.Exhaustion wasn't a problem,but arms were.Collins was exposed but he was in intelligence and British intelligence was broken anyway so the next step if the treaty failed was to flood Ireland with British troops.All the academics agree that would have happened.Yes!! the Irish people were tired of war,but quite a number voted against the treaty so they were willing to continue the fight.Oddly enough it wasn't partition that rankled most,but the Oath of Allegiance to the crown(That's when an oath meant something)On part two of your comment.I have to explain a bit.Only Anglicans were permitted to become members of the Parliament of Ireland (No Catholics were allowed)But these were West Brits and they did have a vote.The final passage of the Act of Union of 1800 in the Irish Parliament was achieved with substantial majorities,achieved in part according to contemporary documents through bribery, namely the awarding of peerages and honours to critics to get their votes.Whereas the first attempt had been defeated in the Irish House of Commons by 109 votes against to 104 for,the second vote in 1800 produced a result of 158 to 115.That was it!! We were now part of the UK.The Catholics didn't even have a vote until the 1820's and then it was only the rich Catholics.So I don't get how you say we could leave the Union.
Report abuse
sirpeter | Oct 05, 2011, 10:04 PM EDT
(Cont)On the last point and it's very important.When the "Old IRA" shot a black and tan in an area.It wasn't a bomb they planted.But it might had well have been.The British army burned houses and tortured people and shot people.They burned down Cork after Crossbarry.Many many Catholics resented that and it was happening all over the country.Many innocent people died at the hands of the British because of what the "Old IRA" did.To kill a British soldier was the same as planting a bomb in a shopping mall.The only difference was the Brits killed and maimed the innocent people.Different times.Different tactics.BUT!! Innocent people died all the same.That's the connection and that's all that matters.How many died in the American Civil war in five years? 625,000 people.3500 people in 30 years in NI.Ancavker that my friend is the controlled,careful civil war,that the Irish people fought in NI.The Irish were much to civilised for our own good.
Report abuse
warrenpoint00 | Oct 05, 2011, 07:35 PM EDT
Is Mr Spain still in my country... he should be back with his own people on the mainland by now.See this is what is wrong with Ireland ,too many foreign people sticking their noses into our Irish. shoooh outa here...please.
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Oct 05, 2011, 06:39 PM EDT
Mr.Spains facts are scurrilous,his maudling attempt to demonise McGuiness is reprehensible.His last piece of trickery in lauding the SDLP is rather curious as one could also say that the majority of nationalist voted for sinn fein as a reward for what sinn fein had achieved for the nationalist community.The old nationalist party and the SDLP both failed to deliver equality to the nationalist in the north and Sinn Fein did it through the barrel of a gun and forcing the british to compromise as Sinn Fein and the IRA did in 1918 Mr Spain is just another snivveling west brit.
Report abuse
Towngate | Oct 05, 2011, 04:17 PM EDT
John: Your brilliant: "Aura of power and threat" hits the spot exactly and anybody opening their door to his canvassers may feel it,and possibly a pain in their patella's too! ~ ~ ~ Don't worry. He will not be elected until Ireland is united again; and as it looks like the Republic is not yet inclined to ask for forgiveness and seek to rejoin it, that will never happen!! Great post,John.
Report abuse
Next
Page 1 of 2 pages
20 Comments

Report abuse