"To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we own only the truth." - Voltaire
Last week, the former IRA leader Gerry Adams appeared in the witness box at the Ballymurphy massacre inquest. He claimed to have witnessed nothing other than a couple of armed IRA volunteers running past him as they made their way through Springhill Crescent, in his view, possibly to fire into Springmartin estate or provide "covering fire." True or not, we might never know, but part of his remaining testimony – hard to call it evidence when he offered none – was less than honest. His enduring resistance to truth recovery was underscored by an insistence on never having been a member of the IRA.
He was not subpoenaed, leaving observers to wonder why he even appeared given that he brought nothing of substance. In line with past performances he ensured the proceedings were focused on him and not the victims. He knew he was going to be asked the obligatory IRA question, for which he has no convincing rebuttal and his answer was always going to pose a risk to the integrity of the relatives' quest for truth, by giving their critics leverage they had no right to.
The Sligo blogger, Alfie Gallagher, observed of the Adams contribution:
“I was not a member of the IRA, I have never disassociated myself from the IRA and I never will until the day I die."
The most remarkable thing about this statement is that it is a compound lie consisting of a logically interlocking chain of three individuals lies in which the fraudulence of each successive lie is demonstrated by the preceding lie!
Few would expect Adams to front up and admit his role in the IRA. The PSNI he promised to put manners on would prosecute him. Yet there is no reason why the need to avoid self incrimination should extend to lying. The option of saying "no comment” has always been one he has obstinately refused to utilise.
Again made to look ridiculous with the dog ate my homework type deflections – he was only getting a lift from others on IRA active service - he was spared some blushes by relatives of the dead who rightly applauded him from the public gallery when he queried the line of questioning from a Ministry of Defence barrister, insisting that the focus should have been on the killers from the Parachute Regiment, which it would have been had he not turned up. The relatives did not applaud him for his lying. Critics of their quest for truth should be robustly challenged if they imply that the applause was for lying in the midst of a truth recovery setting.
The message sent out on that day was that it was fine to lie at the inquest.
Fortunately, a former Para chose not to tread in the footsteps of Adams by denying he was ever a member of the Parachute Regiment, who had only ended up in Ballymurphy in August 1971 courtesy of a lift from some rifle wielding blokes in maroon berets and khakis who just happened to be passing as they headed to some duck hunting event in Springfield Dam. Earlier this week the former Para told the devastating truth of what was inflicted on the civilian population of Ballymurphy by trigger happy psychopaths who "were out of control, killing people on the street and knowing that they would be protected," thugs who had avoided jail by enlisting in the Paras.
The Parachute Regiment rampaged through Ballymurphy like ISIS in Paris. The people of the estate were subject to mass murder methodically carried out over the course of three days in 1971. It is crucial for both them and wider society that truth is accessed and that they are given the respect, and their slain loved ones the truth, they each deserve.
The truth forum the relatives struggled so hard to secure should never have been polluted with lies. Adams, who has weaponised truth only to find himself impaled on his own aversion to it, showed the living no respect and the dead no truth. He has bequeathed a moral inversion that stains the narrative of republicanism: a former member of the Parachute regiment told a massacre inquest the truth while a former member of the Provisional IRA told it lies.
How do grassroots shinners even take Adams seriously anymore?
ReplyDeleteTo the over all inquest what was the impact of his lies on it? I can't see how his appearance or continual denial of being a member of the IRA, a question that had no bearing whatsoever on the inquest, was relevant.
ReplyDeleteWho called him to the stand and why?
In terms of outcome not a lot. Fortunately, the Para decided not to follow his lead and deny being a Para, instead opting to contribute to truth recovery.
DeleteIt also had the potential danger to put the relatives on a spot: if some reporter had asked them did they believe him when he lied, you can guess the pressure they would have been under. Had they said they did the entire thing would have been depicted as farcical.
The relevance lies in going near anything that relatives fought to establish as a truth forum, merely for the purpose of lying. It sends a clear message to the British state - these things are not meant to be taken seriously. It promotes public deception and a contempt for a culture of truth.
He probably inveigled his way in.
Steve
ReplyDeletefor much the same reason that people followed Paisley.
People wanted perceived strong leaders I guess ... someone to vent for them. There didn't need to be much logic or cohesiveness to their utterances. They were just figureheads in a deeply ingrained top-dog/underdog game that repetitively got and gets played out.
They spewed their bile, symbiotically feeding off each other as well as feasting off an amalgam of real world impoverishment and intellectual paucity which most of their unfortunate constituents and followers bear or bore.
Tragic really.
For much the same reason that people are following Farage ...
ReplyDeleteAnd once gain the mob chooses Barabbas.
DeleteAM...understand the potential danger to the relatives and the establishment of a truth forum....there is a contradictory parallel between the Paras position and that held by Adams' but is there a direct comparison to be made?
ReplyDeleteThe relatives if having that question put to them could also answer that the question is as irrelevant to the enquiry now as it was during his appearance and leave it at that..
I cant get my head around why the hell he was there in the first place...I think you're right about him worming his way in...it must be excruciating for the likes of him to be out of the public eye.
Niall - lying in a truth forum is the comparison. The alternative is to assign a privileged exception clause to his lies.
ReplyDeleteWhere the comparison should not be made is the relevance of the truth that the lie is designed to protect. In this case the core truth is the massacre of the residents in Ballymurphy. His lie is not designed for that and more for protecting his political skin. The state lies are precisely to protect that truth.
The relatives could answer the question the way you suggested but it would place them at a disadvantage - critics would home in on avoidance and use that by stating that the relatives avoided an obvious truth. You know where it goes from there. The relatives should not be exposed to that danger. It is his responsibility to take the approach you said, not theirs.
It is a funny one - he really needs to be out of the scandal zone if he is to make a bid for the presidency in 2025. Mary Lou and Michelle are there, not necessarily as sandbags for him but as deflectors. But his interventions keep the scandal pot boiling. The type of publicity he needs is about cookbooks and grandfatherly things, not forever associated with death and destruction.
I don't think the mammoth significance of a member of the Paras breaking rank in attempt to finally bring justice to the victims should be overshadowed by continuing to focus on that rat Adam's. I think it was quite courageous of this former soldier to do what he did. One would have hoped that he'd done it sooner but better late than never.
ReplyDelete