Before or after you read this, you should read the post
"Catholic, Protestant And Dissenter," and if you feel like it,
"Anti-Racism and Republicans," "The Spirit of Robert Briscoe," and
"Invisible Comrades." This is mostly an addition to the post
"Fuck Fascism Before It Fucks You," In that post I refer to a statement by the then-leader of the Irish Labour Party that accused Sinn Fein of being fascist, that compared SF's nationalism to that of the French National Front, or the kinds of nationalism that led to the two world wars. My response to that is in a letter-to-the-editor which is found about 2/3 the way through the post I'm now updating.
I just found a
paper by someone at the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University, written in 2006- it appears to be by a grad student. So far I've only read a small amount and am going to post this probably before I finish reading, so either there will be a lot of updates, or I'll make a note and simply replace the original draft with the updated version. It refers to the ILP Leader's statement and also a statement in 1996 by an leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SF;s moderate rival) that SF was fascist. Also, about 10 years ago, someone who had been a fellow co-chair in my group Students for Justice in N. Ireland, and who was VERY familiar with N. Ireland (and also someone who was semi-friendly to SF and who I respect a lot), said that since SF was both Nationalist and Socialist, it wasn't too far off to call them National Socialist (fascist) (I don't think she was more than half-serious). At the time, well, it was probably some combination of shock/my brain freezing, and not having quite as much knowledge as I needed to effectively respond, so I didn't say anything.
First, the idea that combining Nationalism with Socialism means SF are fascist. First, SF largely derides the idea that they are a NATIONALIST PARTY, although clearly in the North every member of SF would consider themselves part of the nationalist community, in the sense that they support a United Ireland. They assert that there are differences between republicanism and nationalism. First, republicanism tends to be much more secular than Irish Nationalism. The SDLP are frequently described as being very close to the Catholic Church, whereas in most parts of the North, the Church is very hostile to republicans. Republicanism also tends to be more left-wing, throughout this blog there's evidence of that, especially if you read the post
"Stoop Down Low Party." The old Nationalist Party, which was more or less replaced by the SDLP in the early 1970s and which the SDLP can sort of be compared to, were very Catholic, and often fairly sectarian- in one case, when a Catholic conservative slum-lord was competing for Catholic votes with a Protestant, anti-sectarian Labour candidate, the religion of the Labourite was emphasized to the voters. Also, in Derry, campaigners for Nationalist candidates would tell Catholic voters that the Protestants were all voting for the Labour candidate, suggesting that the Labourite was on the side of the Protestants. Now, the SDLP seem to be a lot less sectarian- in the 1970s, one of their most senior members was a Protestant (in the movie Bloody Sunday, which I reccommend, he's the main character).
Beyond the fact that calling them nationalists isn't that accurate, the idea that all nationalism is fascist (as the ILP leader suggested), is ridiculous, Many expressions of nationalism are legitimate responses to actual oppression, and and many that are not connected to actual oppression are nonetheless not that negative- that is, they don't result in hatred of others. I mean, Scottish nationalism, as far as I can tell, is not a response to actual oppression, but is harmless.
And the idea that nationalism + socialism = national socialism is, most of the time, not true. For example, I know that, at least around 2001, there were socialist tendencies in MEChA, the Mexican-American/Chicano Nationalist student group, and I know that those tendencies did not add up to fascism because they invited the National Organizer of the Young Democratic Socialists to speak at a National Conference. It also seems to me that the Black Panther Party were influenced by nationalism, and socialism, and although they are not above criticism (neither is MEChA), they were far from fascist- they worked very closely with mostly/exclusively white left organizations, with other people of color, and in general they were not hostile towards democracy. You could sort of say something similar about the African National Congress, and lots of other groups.
At this point you might want to read the other posts, but let me briefly say:
1) SF is overwhelmingly not anti-Protestant (see
"Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter").
2) They are overwhelmingly anti-racist (see
"Anti-racism and Republicans").
3) They are overwhelmingly against anti-Semitism (see
"The Spirit of Robert Briscoe").
4) They are overwhelmingly against homophobia (see
"Invisible Comrades").
5) Although they're obviously not pacifists, they are generally anti-war and believe that when possible, disputes should be settled without violence, and they're very consistent about that.
Do they believe in democracy? Although the evidence on this isn't solid, they do. Their rejection of the Southern state until 1948 was not totally consistent, and in 1948, either shortly before or right after the Republic was declared by the Irish Parliament, the IRA issued a General Order that force was not to be used against the Southern state- although it's not 100% clear the Provisional IRA (now known as the IRA) maintained this policy, and if they did they were not 100% consistent about it, but they were close. The order amounted to de facto recognition of the State, and in 1986 SF decided that if their members got elected to Parliament they would take their seats in Dublin. Their earlier hostility towards the southern State, I'm convinced was not based on hostility towards democracy (well, throughout the last 100 years of republican history, probably something like 10% have been hostile from the Left and something like 5% from the Right, but that's it) and was semi-legitimate, especially in the early years after the Civil War. The Civil War was between those who accepted the Treaty with the British and those who did not. Although in hind-sight I say that I would have RELUCTANTLY supported the anti-treaty side, the Treaty was horrible, and the southern State was based on the Treaty, not to mention the victorious pro-Treaty side executed a lot of the prisoners they took. Although it would have been a good idea earlier, SF indicated it's interest in democracy when they started contesting elections and taking their seats on local councils in the early 1980s. Before that you have to understand that the events of the late 1960s and the 1970s kind of justify and explain their total rejection of the British State in Ireland and everything connected to it. More recently, their participation in the Executive of the N. Ireland Assembly confirms their democratic credentials.
Another thing that people bring up is how the IRA policed Nationalist Communities. The thing is, between 1970 and about 2004 (this didn't end overnight) and to some degree before that, there was basically no support for the police in the Nationalist community. SF's more moderate rival, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, almost always, during the conflict refused to support the police- it was a big thing when they endorsed the new Police Service of N. Ireland in 2002. According to Eamon McCann, sometime around 1990, in an SDLP area of Derry, the local community had the IRA deal with a serial child molester. The molester had an "apprentice," a young boy, and the locals begged the IRA to take care of him too- they would rather see a child killed than go to the police about it. In 2001 the Gaelic Athletics Association dropped a rule that prohibited members of the N. Ireland security forces from being members of the GAA. However, when they voted, five of the six counties that make up the North, voted to retain it. The GAA in the North is overwhelmingly based in the Nationalist community and almost as overwhelmingly Catholic, and it would be safe to say that around 2/3-5/6 of that community did not believe the police were reformed enough that they could be allowed in. Three years earlier, 99% of the Nationalist community voted in favor of the Good Friday Agreement, so it's safe to say their votes were not sectarian.
On the other hand, I should say that I don't think the republican movement handled things perfectly. They didn't do much at all in terms of restorative justice until around the same time as the GFA. On the other hand, that probably would have taken care of only some very tiny minority of cases that came up. I also get the impression that probably some large majority of the time they either shouldn't have done anything or they went too far. But to one degree or another, most of the time something had to be done.
The paper I'm responding to specifically refers to the IRA going after women fraternizing with British Army soliders. Well, if we look at what happened in occupied Western Europe after the Allies liberated areas, women who had been friendly to German soldiers were treated very poorly. And in those countries, it's probably safe to say that, unless you were Jewish, German occupation wasn't as bad as British occupation was in the North in the 1970s or 80s, although in the 90s it might not have been any worse than during WWII with the Germans. UPDATE 3/1/09 I want to slightly change this- in the first two decades it was probably just as bad, in the third it was probably not quite as bad, but still, if it happened in France etc. it really isn't that bad in the North.
The paper also refers to the use of flags. Yes, those Shinners love their flags. And Nazis certainly do too, so that proves it, SF is fascist. Actually, it doesn't. If the author of that paper is going to accuse the Irish Republican Socialist Movement of being fascist, I'll give him points for consistency. Same thing for Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans (have you ever seen so many flags?). This genius also points out that republicans, at certain events, favor black berets and dark glasses. Once again, I refer to the Black Panthers.
This guy also points to SF ministers in the Northern Executive using partial privitisation of public services as evidence. He can point to that as evidence that their not socialist, but that's hardly evidence that they're fascist. And as I explain elsewhere, the budget for NI is significantly out of the hands of the Executive, and SF are only about 1/3 of the Executive and only about 1/4 of the Assembly, and do not have total control over their departments.
The paper then says that SF wants to return to the past, to the "status quo ante," and refers to SF's envisoning of a gaelic Ireland. There's nothing fascist about wanting to encourage the Irish language and culture. First, I'm waiting for the author to lecture Mexican Americans for using Spanish in parts of American that were never part of Mexico, since he's lecturing SF about the Irish language in Ireland (I have no problem with the Spanish language being used as far from Mexico as Maine- si se puede!). Also, SF's idea of a Gaelic Ireland includes gay rights, multi-culturalism, some access to abortion, feminism in general, and a secular state guaranteeing religious freedom.
(in all fairness, the author sometimes says one thing that's ridiculous and then 1-2 paragraphs later says something which contributes to the idea that it was ridiculous- I'm not going to respond to every paragrapgh and acknowledge every time he does that)
He says that SF's opposition to war is inexplicable, which makes sense, because all republicans are blood-thirsty psychos who want nothing but constant death and destruction. But then there's that thing where they've been on cease-fire since 1997 (this paper was written in 2006) and the republican movement has bent over backwards to make the Peace Process work. You can support war in some cases and not in other cases without being a hypocrite or something- depending on the specifics (Irish-Americans who supported the IRA but not the ANC's military wing in S. Africa (and I'm sure there were many) were, obviously, racists). In some situations, war is between justified and neccessary. N. Ireland is one such case. There were enough problems with the invasion of Iraq (no link to Al-Qaeda, serious doubt over WMDs, the lack of a threat to Iraq's neighbors, it seemed like there was only luke-warm support among the Kurds for an invasion (that's from the BBC and I'm partly adjusting for what the Kurds have done since the invasion started) almost universal opposition throughout the world, the liklihood that the US military would behave badly during and after the invasion (it seems like the first part they weren't so bad, but they've been horrible during the occupation), the liklihood that the Bush administration would be horrible during the occupation (check), the fact that US policy in the Middle East and more generally in the world would likely result in serious opposition during the occupation, the likelihood that a secular dictatorship that treated woman almost as horribly as everyone else would be replaced by something less secular and more sexist) to justify SF's stance even though they're clearly not universally against war.
The paper then talks about SF being inconsistent and being populist, saying what they think is popular. He ignores two things- first, there are multiple tendencies in SF, as is the case with national liberation struggles, and the fact is, most republicans have opted for the big tent of SF. These different tendencies shift around, not all the socialists are pro-choice, not all the capitalists are racist, etc. etc. It also ignores the fact that SF largely, though not totally, prioritizes the national liberation struggle, or more recently, the Peace Process, which is fairly reasonable, considering the threat posed to the lives and human rights of the Nationalist community, so it's not that surprising that they are sometimes inconsistent, although sometimes it's very frustrating and sometimes I criticse them on this. Also, as far as them saying whatever they think will get them votes, I know of two cases where that's not true. First, I'm not sure how popular their anti-racism is in the South. Second, in the North, and probably something like 4/5 of the Nationalist Community is pro-life, they made it very clear in an Assembly debate that they are not fully committed to the anti-Abortion position.
At this point I'm going to spend a brief amount of time describing my understanding of the origins of Provisional SF, as SF were known in the 1970s. In late 1969 and early 1970 there was a split in both SF and the IRA. A group of people left, and were joined by people who in earlier years had drifted away, and formed the Provisionals (the other side of the split became known as the Officials and are today known as the Workers Party). There were three reasons for the split. First, in the mid- and late 60s the Republican Movement had become very Marxist. Also, the IRA was basically demilitarized. This resulted in it's inability to defend Catholic areas attacked on a massive scale in August 1969. Grafiti suggested that IRA stood for "I Ran Away." After those events, a large number/majority of the Belfast Brigade announced they would no longer take orders from the leadership in Dublin. The third factor was that the RM was more oriented towards democratising N. Ireland than ending it (it was very involved in the Civil Rights Movement) and the immediate cause of the split was the issue of whether or not SF members would take their seats in the Dublin, Belfast, and London parliaments if elected. The vote decided in favor, and people walked out. Now, demilitarizing the IRA was stupid; I get the impression some of the Marxists were very significantly to the left of me (i.e. big fans of the USSR); and although those who walked out (the Provisionals) should have been willing to take their seats in the Dublin parliament, doing that with London would have been questionable, and at that point, after the events of Aug. 1969, taking their seats in the Belfast parliament would have been stupid. Because of the two issues that didn't involve Marxist ideology, I assume that some small minority of the founding Provisonals (the founders including those who had drifted off and joined after the split) were Marxists of some sort, some small minority were some kind of non-Marixist/non-fascist socialist, and somewhere around half were, to one degree or another anti-socialist.
It seems to me, from what I've read, that the vast majority of people who joined after that first wave of people who had drifted away were socialists of some sort. And towards the very beginning, many socialist forces supported the Provisionals (including People's Democracy). It is pretty well confirmed that the left in the Provisonals was more or less associated with Gerry Adams, and in 1983 he became President of SF. The paper points to statements by SF leaders that there's not a Marxist about their party. I've read a similar statement from a good source, so I believe it was said by some people in SF. I don't know what to say about those statements, although they contribute to the fact that with a very good reason, I will refuse to believe something that SF says- that is, I consider them very honest, but not 100% honest. I've read tons to indicate that since the late 1970s some large majority of SF is socialist, probably some large minority are Marxist. Now, probably some small minority of the total, which would be part of that socialist majority and probably usually call themselves Marxists, are flexible with their politics. Annyway, I know for a fact, from many sources as well as from interacting with a large number of people in Sinn Fein Youth in 2002, that there are Marxists in SF.
I'm going to take a break and post this part now. What I'll do is type up a similar amount 1-2 times more and each time add it as a massive update.
The next section of the paper alleges that SF is sectarian, and for the most part I refer to the post
"Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter," plus some extra notes:
1) The author criticizes Gerry Adams for dismissing the idea that the Northern Protestants have a right to national self-determination. As I've explained, if they do have that right, it is trumped by the right of the Irish as a whole, since that population, especially if you exclude the Northern Protestants, are relatively/completely indigenous. But I'm not sure they have that right at all. If the author is going to state that Italian-Americans, or Irish-Americans, as descendants of colonial settlers, have a right to national self-determination, I'll give him points for consistency.
2) It refers to an early draft of an SF document that says that when Ireland is united, those Unionists who don't accept it will have to repatriated. I'm not crazy about that idea, but I wouldn't call it sectarian. We're talking about extremists who want to throw a temper tantrum because the Irish are exercising national self-determination and they won't be able to engage in sectarian behavior anymore.
3) The paper compares nationalist/republican claims of Catholics being discriminated against with similar claims by fascists about White people. There's plenty of evidence that the fascists are wrong, and plenty of evidence that the republicans are right. For example, in 1972, Catholics were twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants. In 1988, they were two and a half times as likely to be unemployed as Protestants. In his book "Northern Ireland: The Orange State" Michael Farrell offered plenty of evidence, especially in the public sector, of discrimination, and also of calls by Unionist leaders for discrimination in the private sector. (the author indicates the fascist claims are less accurate, but he still brought it up in the first place)
4) It refers to the painting of kerbstones in Nationalist areas in the colors of the Irish flag, and the flying of that flag in Nationalist areas of the North. The North is part of Ireland, and when you consider that those people there who identify as Irish are more or less oppressed, these sorts of things are acceptable. And as far as the North being part of Ireland, consider this. The current President of Ireland, who is at close to the end of her second term, is from N. Ireland. I can't figure if she went through some kind of citizenship process, but I doubt it, and even if she did, it's still significant that she's from the North- she seems to have spent most of her life in the North, something like 40% was in the Republic. Also, in the last 10-15 years, the Irish President has spent a lot of time on official business in the North. Lastly, when she ran for office the second time, no one in the Republic seemed worked up over having a President from the North, no one ran against her, which tells me some HUGE majority in the South considers the North Irish. UPDATE 2/18/09 Also, 4 of the 5 top parties in the South are organized in the North, and some small parties are also organized throughout the island.
5) It suggests that SF's connections to the way the Assembly works is evidence of sectarianism. Members of the Assembly have to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or Other, and on crucial votes regarding power-sharing, there has to be a majority of both Nationalists and Unionists (or 60% overall and at least 40% of each side). In general, this probably does institutionalize sectarian divisons. But it does prevent a Unionist-only government and it makes it unlikely SF will be excluded. I've developed an idea that can get around this, and will post it right after I post this, but the odds of it being adopted are very low. In any case, SF is not alone in accepting that aspect of the Assembly- most other parties accepted it as well.
The next part deals with SF and the EU, globalization, public services, and crime.
1. Yes, SF is somewhat anti-EU, and I largely disagree with them (although I'm not familiar with the details of the treaties they have opposed, and am not interested enough to study that, I know enough to tell that I am more pro-EU than they are), but as far as I can tell, they do support some kind of EU, and they support expansion (although, on human rights grounds, I comfortably assume they oppose Turkey joining). Crucially, the hard left and the Greens, which can not be called fascist (well, there might be some exceptions) are also very anti-EU.
2. Probably some large majority of the people who criticize globalization are somewhere to the left of center.
3. Just because some fascist groups also support public services, doesn't mean that fascist- that's clearly more common to the left of center.
4. SF should alter their drugs position, and there's evidence that there's a large minority in favor of decriminalizing marijuana (at a SF Youth National Conference, two senior members made that clear, one in public, the other in a private conversation), probably a small minority in favor of decriminalizing possession without intent to sell for all drugs. As far as SF's general hostility towards cops on this issue, well it varies from the North to the South, but in both cases, SF has good reason to be hostile to the police, although in the South I'm not sure if the situation justifies the actions sometimes taken by republicans.
5. Lastly it compares SF's talk of human rights with the talk from fascists who see themselves as repressed because sometimes when the beat up black people the cops arrest them, or something, maybe it's just based on their stupidity, I don't know. The reasons they aren't covered well in the media is a combination of the facts that they're tiny and what they say is total nonsense, and we know exactly how much they really believe in freedom of expression.
Republicans actually are repressed. Besides some other stuff I have mentioned, for some period of time the British had a law that stigmatized some people in the broadcast media where their own voices couldn't be used, other people were broadcast saying what republicans said. In the South, for about 20 years until 1994, they were completely banned from the public airwaves. During that time, SF on average, represented about 35% of the Nationalist community and probably something like 60% of the poorest, most oppressed half of that community.
It then criticizes SF for being pro-life, although it does say that even Labour is fairly pro-life. The thing is, SF is far from committed to the pro-life position, based on the following:
1) In 1985, although it was apparently a very unrepresentative vote, it did, for one year, adopt a pro-choice position.
2) The paper refers to SF supporting a DUP motion in the Assembly in 2000, which opposed the extension of the Abortion Act to N. Ireland (abortion is something like 95% illegal there). What the paper ignored is that a member of the Women's Coalition proposed an amendment that would have radically changed the resolution so that it simply referred the issue to the Health-Care Committee for further research, discussion, and debate. SF members
spoke (starts half-way through, you'll want to look at
this to see who's who) and voted in favor of this, and when they spoke, they made it clear their party is not committed to the pro-life position.
3) In 2004 (possibly 2003, but I'm pretty sure 2004) SF Youth came within one vote of adopting a pro-choice position.
4) SF's current abortion position is that they support choice when the life or health of the mother is at risk, in cases of rape or incest, or when the woman is suicidal. They also feel very strongly about not criminalizing women who have abortions.
5) UPDATE 10/20/11) 5) They support
“comprehensive sex education, full access to child-care and comprehensive support services, including financial support for single parents.”UPDATE 6/9/13 6) SF also blocked a pro-life measure in the N. Ireland Assembly in March 2013. See
this.
UPDATE 8/23/13 7) In July 2013 Sinn Fein's significant parliamentary party in the Republic voted in favor of a law that would legalize abortion in more situations than had been the case (the law was passed) (I believe SF had 14 TDs, one voted against and was suspended and is no longer an SF TD). See
this. (UPDATE 2/9/14 the 14th SF TD is no longer suspended)
UPDATE 3/8/15
They now support allowing terminations in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.
The paper then criticizes SF for supporting gay rights and then marching in the NY City St. Patrick's Day Parade- see my post, linked to above, "Invisible Comrades." It's disappointing that they're not completely consistent, but that doesn't mean they're fascist.
It then trivializes SF's left-wing positions on international issues, which is ridiculous. The fact that they have little influence on that doesn't mean they shouldn't take those positions. It also treats the same way SF's call for all-Ireland approaches to various issues, including poverty. The fact is, SF does a lot work that recognizes the current division of the island and there's no harm in calling for an all-Ireland approach.
The paper in two places points out that SF believes in small, Irish businesses. There's not much harm in that. Although I think there are more important issues like unionization and repatriation of profits (which can be addressed without simply rejecting multi-nationals), in some ways Irish businesses would be better than multinationals. And although it's mixed, there are arguments in favor of small businesses. Crucially, SF very largely consistently supports unionization and fairly consistently supports stuff like progressive taxes, and as far as supporting small, indigenous businesses, that position is not unheard of from leftists who I guarantee you are not fascists.
The paper then suggests that SF members are involved in the drugs trade. That's unlikely considering how consistently it's anti-drugs. In the early 1990s, it's most senior politician (Adams was not an MP at the time) was arrested for possession of marijuana. SF kicked him out of the Party (this is according to Eamonn McCann). Also, at the 2002 National Conference of SF Youth, during the private part of the conference (I was allowed to attend because I was representing an organization they liked) the National Organizer said that he had smelled drugs (I think it was has he referred to) in the hostel they were staying in, and said that although he didn't care what they did on their own time, at SF conferences, that was unacceptable. Also, this is only the second time I have heard this accusation. If there was anything to it, there'd probably be more articles in credible sources (the Irish News, the Irish Times, the BBC) about it. It's very slightly possible that a tiny number (probably equal to about .01% of their members) of SF members are involved in drug dealing, but beyond that is almost impossible.
It also refers to SF dropping their left-wing politics in America. That's not always true, although to whatever degree it is, yes, it's disappointing, but still not evidence that their fascist.
The paper says that SF is not consistently environmental. Most of what he says on that I'm not familiar with, but in general, SF have good environmentalist credentials, and one thing he says is ridiculous. There is a movement in the South against charging people for garbage collection. This is supported by most or possibly all of the Left. The idea as I've been told, is that people are already paying for this through taxes and the concern is that it will simply hurt working-class people. The author suggests that making people pay will encourage recycling, but I don't see that, and even if it's true, there are probably better ways to get people to recycle, and then there's the fact that it will affect people already living in or close to poverty.
The next part is largely looking at survey data. I'll be honest, some of what he presents here goes over my head on the technical details (I doubt I'm the only one, and he doesn't explain it in English), but I can read his conclusions just fine. He says that SF supporters in the South are likely to be poor, poorly educated males. That doesn't mean anything even though it's the same group that fascists get a lot of support from. He also says that SF supporters are more likely to be homophobic, anti-immigrant, and pro-Europe, which is interesting, and blows some holes in his theory that SF will say anything to get votes.
At one point he says that SF supporters are likely left-wing, and then says that they are right-wing and authoritarian (I have no idea where he gets authoritarian). He then points out that the people who apparently disagree with SF on Europe, immigrants, and homosexuality are voting for SF based on the National Question. That's not surprising, although I hope SF has decided to take their votes and ignore what they say (well, I guess not on Europe, but that's not too important, the main thing is the homophobia and the racism).
The paper then compares SF as an organization to fascist organizations. One point he makes is that it is "authoritarian." I get the impression that although this is greatly exaggerated, there is some tiny degree of truth to it. Probably a more accurate term is that it's well-disciplined, SF seems to use (with one degree or another of enforcement) what the left calls "democratic centralism." This means that once a decision has been made democratically, party members must publicly defend the party's position. I'm not crazy about that, I'm not sure it IS democratic, but it hardly makes SF fascist. The paper also says that factional disputes are settled in a most uncomradely way, sometimes involving violence. I've gotten the impression there's some degree of truth to that, but the author is probably greatly exaggerating that. And there have probably been people or factions who have been dealt with in a non-violent but nevertheless inappropriate way who were so bad that I don't really care. Once again, you find that on the left as well as the right. It also talks about Adams as a strong, powerful leader- in general, there's really nothing wrong with that, and nothing inherently fascist about it.
It then acknowledges that at National Conferences the leadership sometimes loses, although it points out, and I have read other things that indicate this happens to a SMALL degree (i.e.1-2 years), the Leadership sometimes/usually do little or nothing to honor the decision taken. That's very disappointing, but probably happens on the Left pretty often, and I know of one time it happened in a very democratic organization on the Left, the Democratic Socialists of America (well, it involved the top national staff person ignoring the National Leadership, but it's close enough).
It then talks about SF benefiting from the IRA efforts at getting funding for IRA activities. I'm not going to say it's impossible, and 20 years ago it was probably a little more than not impossible, but in the last 20 years it seems very unlikely, as SF became slightly mainstream, and as they developed more legitimate sources. To whatever degree early SF elections were affected by this, that's disappointing, but on the other hand, some large majority of SF's base is working-class and poor (possibly even more so 25 years ago) and in the North the poverty of their members is to some degree a result of discrimination. Back then, I wouldn't call it horrible if they were benefiting from the IRA's funds.
The paper suggests that because Irish politics in the Republic are more or less center-right, it shouldn't be surprising that a party which he defines as "anti-system" and populist (which seems fairly accurate) would pose as left-wing. I'm sure some tiny minority of SF, probably among those socialists who seem flexible in their politics, would agree, but I remain convinced that something like half of SF are solid socialists. Their less than 100% consistency is disappointing and I believe that it would be called occasionally and slightly opportunistic. But as far as I can tell, leftists who are guilty of that are still leftists.
He then suggests that SF's populist policies are second to the national liberation because the unpopularity of the IRA hasn't led SF to disown them. He must be talking about the South, because even today, let alone decades ago, if SF had disowned the IRA, their vote in the North would probably go down, even adjusting for a small influx of SDLP voters. In general though he's probably right, which isn't that bad when you consider the effect that the British presence has demonstrably had on the life expectancy of Catholics and Nationalists in the North, not to mention the discrimination and psychological damage of Orange marches through Catholic neighborhoods, and non-lethal sectarian violence, etc.
In the conclusion he briefly backs off from his accusation that SF is fascist, but then comes back to it.
Lastly, internationally, some large majority of SF's support is somewhere to the Left of center. The ANC and the PLO are very friendly, in Britain most of their support comes from some large minority of the Left, in America, somewhere around half their support is to the left of center, Fidel Castro and Francois Mitterand expressed support for the 1981 hunger-strikers.
UPDATE 1/9/12 In the European Parliament SF is a member of European Parliamentary Group “European United Left/Nordic Green Left.” In elections to the South’s Senate in 2007, SF and Labour had a voting pact.
