Ten years ago my school, deep in unionist Ulster, became the first mainly Protestant place of learning to invite members of the IRA's political wing, Sinn Fein (SF), to come and speak to the pupils. At the time this was a controversial step. The IRA's ceasefire was not yet a year old and SF was still, to many unionists, completely beyond the pale morally.
As Jim Gibney and Tom Hartley arrived at my school that day back in 1995, I imagine that they saw their visit as one more small step on the road from isolation for their once reviled party.
The little mobile where the meeting was held was packed with perhaps 40 pupils and staff, a high turnout for the famously apathetic people of North Down. Most in the rooom would never have had a converastion with a SF member before. There was a good deal of curiosity in the room.
And there was also a good deal of hostility, as was only natural. North Down was far from the frontline of the Troubles, but still, nearly everyone in the room had a friend or family member in the police. Thanks to a sterrn warning from Mr. Armstrong before the meeting started, the acrimony never spilled over into anything which might have been considered discourteous.
Except at one point, when Gibney was asked a question about the links between his party and the IRA. The dogs in the street knew that SF and the IRA were two sides of the same coin, but Gibney denied that this was the case. At this, there was a general murmur of discontent, a sort of collective "aye, right" from the floor.
Gibney momentarily lost his cool and angrily declared that we had all been brain-washed by British propaganda for refusing to believe his absurd answeer. For me, this was the most disappointing moment of the meeting. It wasn't so much that Gibney had lied, but the fact that he had accused us of being gullible for refusing to believe his lie.
I understood that he had no choice but to evade the truth. The IRA was then, and is still now, an illegal organistaion. Membership alone is enough to secure a prison sentence. One does not publicly admit to being an IRA member any more than one publicly admits to being a thief. To do so would invite prosecution.
So when Adams or McGuinness are challenged by the media about whether or not they are IRA members, what alternative do they have but to lie? However this raises serious questions about their credibility. If they lie so blatantly, so ludicrously, about the nature of their relationship woth the IRA, how can they be trusted about anything else?
If, for example, Adams starts an interview by denying that he is in the IRA, what is one to make of the rest of his answers? Why should one believe him when he says that the IRA didn't rob the Northern Bank, or that the Provos aren't intimidating witnesses to the murder of Robert McCartney?
Unfortunately, the entire project of peace in Ireland has been constructed on the very shaky foundations of SF's credibility. The peace process has moved forward when other politicians, first Hume and Reynolds, then Ahern, Blair and, to some extent, Trimble, have accepted that the Shinners are for real about ending violence.
But the edifice of the peace process is now tottering alarmingly. Some commentators have even declared that the structure has already colllapsed. When one surveys the current political scene; the Northern Bank robbery, the McCartney murder and the money laundering revelations, who now would trust Sinn Fein?
It seems clear that the Provos were for real about ending the cul-de-sac of the long war. But equally, it is apparent that they weren't for real about ending paramiltarism and becoming a normal political party like any other.
It is no longer just on the issue of their links to the IRA where the Shinners lack credibility. It's on everything. When I see a Shinner on TV, I take it as read that they are lying. If Alex Maskey were to announce that it's currently March, I would go check a calendar.
A large proportion of people and politicans, both north and south, think as I do and this is a huge problem. The IRA and SF are not going to go away so they have to be involved if any new deal is to have any hope of success. Those calling for SF's exclusion from the political process are only playing into the Provos' hands. How they'd like a good MOPE right now, to distract attention from their criminality.
There can't be peace without them, but given their duplicity, how can there be peace with them?