MR Proinsias DeRossa's reaction to the Sunday Independent article was intimidating and opportunistic, Mr Eamon Dunphy told the High Court yesterday.
Mr Dunphy said that when he received news of a letter from Mr De Rossa to the Sunday Independent, he regarded it as "intimidating and perhaps opportunistic and the kind of behaviour that was characteristic of many public people in this country.
These people would threaten and intimidate journalists who were writing things about them that they did not want written. At the time of his article, in December 1992, a new government was being formed and it was important that everybody who was eligible to be in that government, or had claims to be in it, had their reputations scrutinised.
Every party did and Mr De Rossa's was no exception, but it was a party in exceptional circumstances. It had been linked with activity in the Workers' Party of a grave nature that many would feel disqualified it from being in government until certain questions were answered.
It was his job as a writer to explain his scepticism and views in the newspaper, said Mr Dunphy. That was every citizen's right and that was what democracy and newspapers were for, he told counsel for Mr De Rossa, Mr Adrian Hardiman SC.
He added that to try to pervert the meaning of his article and put meaning where there was none, as Mr Hardiman was doing, was an attack on journalism. "There are a lot of politicians and other public people whom it would suit to discredit journalism, whether mine or anybody else's," Mr Dunphy said.
Mr Hardiman had earlier put it to Mr Dunphy that his article meant that Mr De Rossa had authored and sent the "Moscow letter. Mr Dunphy said that was an insult to the intelligence of the readers. If one read what he had written it was obvious that what he was saying was that Mr De Rossa had referred to "special activities".
Mr Hardiman asked where Mr De Rossa had referred to "special activities", and Mr Dunphy said in The Irish Times interview he had given on the Monday before his article appeared. It was in the public domain.
Mr Dunphy said Mr De Rossa's views in relation to those matters were well known. His denial of any involvement was well known. His bewilderment at his signature on the letter was well known and widely agreed and the article did not in any way attempt to impugn Mr De Rossa or claim he had knowledge of special activities.
Mr Dunphy said he accepted that Mr De Rossa had no knowledge of the "Moscow letter" before it appeared in 1992 and he believed he did not knowingly sign it. Mr Hardiman asked what did he mean by knowingly? Mr Dunphy said that he thought that elsewhere and in court Mr De Rossa had said there were other possibilities, that someone may have deceived him by getting his signature.
Mr Hardiman: "So you accept that he did not sign the letter and did not known anything about it except it appeared here [in The Irish Times] Is that true?"
Mr Dunphy: "Yes."