Sir, – In "History will judge O'Reilly as a man of principle" (Opinion & Analysis, October 3rd), Anne Harris makes it clear that her agenda is to defend the Sunday Independent's coverage of John Hume's peace initiative in the early 1990s.
She takes it on herself, tabloid-style, to define Mr Hume’s approach as to “ask the Irish Republic to accept the IRA’s and Gerry Adams’s credentials on his say-so”.
If her newspaper had followed accepted journalistic standards and based its coverage on the available evidence and information from those centrally or marginally involved in the pursuit of peace, she would have realised that Mr Hume's approach was rooted in principles which he had first set out in The Irish Times on May 18th and 19th, 1964.
He remained faithful to these principles all his political life.
In particular, his commitment to non-violence was never diluted.
His success in persuading the IRA and Gerry Adams to take the non-violent road created the Belfast Agreement and subsequent agreements. Yes it is a bumpy and sometimes pot-holed road but it is working.
The Sunday Independent's persistent and vicious attacks on John Hume were a serious mistake, an absolute disgrace and damaged the reputation of Irish journalism. – Yours, etc,
SEAN DONLON,
London.
Sir, – Anne Harris, in her apologia for Tony O’Reilly, notes his “commitment to free speech” and that “free speech is a newspaper in which one has the right to question”.
Of course, it may well be the case that O'Reilly would indeed have supported the expression of left-wing views in his Sunday Independent.
However, given that every time I had the misfortune to read the paper, I found it, in both content and tone, to be a sort of teeth-gnashing Irish parody of the Daily Mail, it's at least debatable how often O'Reilly's ongoing commitment to any such diversity of opinion was seriously tested.
Harris also excuses the Sunday Independent's sustained personal attacks on John Hume as "scrutiny" that was "essential for democratic discourse" and sought to justify it on the basis that "many of the Sunday Independent's warnings have proved well founded" and that "the jury is still out on Adams's true intentions".
As for Mr Adams's true intentions, while the Sunday Independent jury may well indeed be forever out to lunch on anything that doesn't fit with its patronising predictions, fortunately for the rest of us, its knee-jerk negativity neither shapes nor reflects reality.
Here is an instance of one such Sunday Independent "warning", courtesy of Eoghan Harris: "If we persist with the peace process it will end with sectarian slaughter in the North, with bombs in Dublin, Cork and Galway, and with the ruthless reign by provisional gangs over the ghettos of Dublin. The only way to avoid this abyss is to cut the cord to John Hume".
In reality, it’s self-evident (at least, to those of us who actually live in the North) that daily life here after the ceasefires and the peace process has been transformed from what it once was (whatever about the ongoing circus routines in Stormont).
The Sunday Independent's apocalyptic drivel was out-of-touch, splenetic nonsense then, and nonsense is what it remains. – Yours, etc,
SEÁN MacCANN,
Trillick,
Co Tyrone.
Sir, – I wish to challenge the comments by Anne Harris about Nobel laureate John Hume.
First, I believe Tony O’Reilly was not only a colossus of Irish and global business but an unwavering supporter of non-violent constitutional nationalism throughout the darkest days of the Troubles.
I, however, do take grave exception to Anne Harris’s commentary on John Hume.
I defend the freedom of the press and a journalists write to criticise, challenge and oppose.
However, the actions of the Sunday Independent in the 1980s and 1990s were not normal "democratic discourse" but were a vitriolic campaign aimed at undermining and discrediting John Hume in his efforts to end violence.
Who can forget the scalding attacks in the Sunday Independent in 1993 when half a dozen articles attacked John Hume, culminating in a nasty cartoon which depicted blood dripping from John's hands?
These attacks did take a personal toll on John Hume but also galvanised his peace efforts.
I remember the heart-breaking image of John Hume breaking down when the young daughter of one of those murdered in the Greysteel atrocity said: “Mr Hume, we prayed for you around my daddy’s coffin last night. We prayed that you would succeed in the work you were doing, so that no one will ever have to suffer in the future what we have suffered.”
It was clear that the people of Ireland, North and South, wanted the terrible violence to end and rallied behind the John Hume and his endeavours to bring peace. Indeed the Sunday Independent published a poll which showed that 72 per cent supported the Hume-Adams talks.
Anne Harris should reflect on these facts and the words of The Irish Times which stated that Ireland "owes no greater debt than to the man who insisted that living for Ireland is better than dying for it; that it is more challenging of the human spirit to learn to live with one's adversaries than to subdue them", and concluded, "John Hume has wrought the very basis of Ireland's future".
Perhaps on reflection Anne Harris will have the good grace to apologise to John Hume, as some other Sunday Independent columnists, such as Eamon Dunphy, have done. – Yours, etc,
Cllr TIM ATTWOOD,
SDLP,
Belfast.