Adams’s claim that there was “absolutely no cover up by Sinn Féin at any level”, is worthy of the most cynical bishop. It appears to be based on the fact that the IRA came to accept that she had indeed been abused. But its response was not to assist in bringing the culprit to some external forum of justice, or to counsel and assist the victim, but to offer to shoot him. That way the organisation wouldn’t have to face the opprobrium of guilt by public association or suggestions of tacit complicity. No cover up? That Adams’s party colleagues should selectively accept some of what Cahill claims but not any imputation against their leader’s word is hardly surprising. They all have form in this regard, not least in their loyalty to his insistence that he was never in the IRA. But being willing to ask tough questions of your own leader, demonstrating that you are not just dupes of the Sinn Féin machine, may be as important in making the party a credible force for government as any airbrushing of a paramilitary past.
[Too late… – Ed]
Read the whole thing.
And then read Fintan O’Toole’s article on the Sinn Féin president’s “history of evasive answers”.
If Enda Kenny, Micheál Martin, Joan Burton or Peter Robinson had this abysmal record on child protection and this history of evasive answers, we know what Sinn Féin would have to say about it.
That not one of the party’s strong-minded women can manage to say it about Gerry Adams is deeply creepy. If you think ordinary cronyism is bad, consider what this party will do to protect one of its own.