You have to hand it to Sinn Féin: for sheer barefaced hypocrisy and double standards they take some beating. For years now they have been busy lecturing the rest of us on the fundamentals of peace processing while, at the same time, steadfastly refusing to abide by the same rules they are determined to foist on everyone else, writes David Adams
The incessant mantra about dialogue being "the only way forward" and having to "put the past behind us" finds little echo in their own attitude to the past or to some former adversaries. Republicans all too easily and conveniently set such high-flown sentiments aside when, for example, any suggestion is made that Sinn Féin should engage in formal discussions with the PSNI.
In that instance, far from them transcending their own bitterness, they fall back on a grotesquely exaggerated and self-serving history of past wrongdoing by the police as a reason for rejecting any notion of dialogue.
This stands in stark contrast to the irritation with which Sinn Féin spokespeople immediately dismiss anyone who has the temerity to broach the subject of republican wrongdoing. Then they quickly revert to putting-the-past-behind-us mode, accusing those who persist in raising such issues of being "afraid of change" or of "working to an anti-peace process agenda".
Any discussion on the countless examples of murder, beating, abduction, exiling, maiming, and a myriad of other human rights abuses that were, for decades, the IRA's stock-in-trade, is strictly off-limits. To the Provo mind, the requirement for forgetfulness applies only to the many thousands of people who have suffered at their hands. Only republican grievances can be aired.
This double-standard approach has, once again, been amply illustrated by Sinn Féin's opposition to police and military personnel being included in so-called on-the-run legislation currently making its way through the British houses of parliament.
In effect, this legislation will grant immunity to paramilitaries and security force members who committed any Troubles-related crime prior to the signing of the Belfast Agreement in April 1998. No one has any clear idea of how many people will actually benefit - or even what the qualifying criteria will be - but it is a safe bet that the number of security force members involved is infinitesimal in comparison with those aligned to the IRA.
On wholly legitimate grounds of morality, legal precedent and the consequent harm it will do to the criminal justice system, there is widespread opposition in Northern Ireland to the granting of any such amnesty, irrespective of who stands to benefit. The Policing Board, upon which representatives from all the main parties except Sinn Féin hold positions, has voiced deep concerns.
A representative of the PSNI's Superintendents' Association of Northern Ireland has also made clear that his organisation opposes, in particular, the inclusion of security personnel because of the implied equivalence it draws between terrorists and duly constituted upholders of law and order.
The SANI view is that anyone who has committed a crime, whether they were a terrorist or security force member, should be held legally accountable. Gerry Adams and his party partially agree, but only insomuch as they feel that errant members of the security forces should face the full rigours of the law, but that terrorists should not.
Unlike nearly everyone else, Sinn Féin is advocating amnesty for one group of former "combatants" while arguing that it should be withheld from another. They have yet to give any coherent explanation as to why they have adopted such a position.
Their opposition can hardly be based on the legitimate argument that much higher standards of conduct are required of police officers and that, consequently, a more stringent and less forgiving application of the law must apply to those who have breached the large measure of trust and responsibility that society has placed upon them.
Given that, prior to the Belfast Agreement, republicans refused to accept the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland state and, by extension, that of its police service, they cannot now, with any credibility, demand a retrospective level of accountability in line with an authority they refused to recognise.
Neither, I imagine, would even they try to argue that security force members do not deserve to be elevated to the same status as on-the-run terrorists. Sinn Féin have denied that, prior to the SDLP making such a public song and dance about it, they were happy enough that security force personnel should stand to benefit from the upcoming amnesty.
They claim instead that after they had reached agreement with the two governments, without their knowledge or acquiescence the British government went ahead and extended the proposed legislation to include security force members.
Republicans have yet to tell us why they feel one group of former offenders should benefit while another should not.
Leaving the past behind, it seems, is still only required of others.