Sir, - In her article about attitudes to unionists in the Republic (The Irish Times, October 28th), Ruth Dudley Edwards modestly accepts the bouquet bestowed on her (along with Mary Robinson, Eoghan Harris and Chris Hudson) by Ken Maginnis - in whose opinion this little band are almost unique in building bridges to unionism. She then bestows another bouquet on herself: "It requires a huge amount of openmindedness, imagination, commitment and time to get to understand and like the other." She also suggests that her experience of Northern Protestants has enhanced her "natural taste for honest words and judging people by their actions."
Like Ruth Dudley Edwards and many others, I did not enjoy the cant and love-babble inflicted on us during the presidential campaign. I also believe in the viability of a liberal, non-sectarian unionist position. However, there is much else in her article that is open to question:
She chooses to ignore the huge shift in nationalist public opinion in the Republic over the past 25 years or so, with the almost total dilution of the demand for a unitary state.
Her use of the term "tribe" makes the sectarianism she dislikes appear natural, and so more easily excusable.
It may well be that most Orangemen are "exceptionally decent, honest people" - in their personal lives and in their perception of themselves. Any political analyst or historian should be aware that this does not make them less prone to contradiction and self-deception than any other political culture. How many decent, law-abiding, selfproclaimedly constitutional unionists have sympathised with, accepted or at the very least "understood" loyalist paramilitary violence, for example?
Ruth Dudley Edwards does not question Ken Maginnis's expertise in bridge-building. Judging by his list of favoured ones, he may be seeking complete acceptance of his political position rather than recognition or understanding of it.
Finally, Dudley Edwards professes shock at being dubbed a neo-unionist. Why? Any representative sample of her journalism in the Sunday Independent or the London Independent would show the following: attacks on nationalist positions; sympathetic presentation of unionist positions; an occasional rap on the knuckles for unionist bigotry, but no structural or historical analysis of it; no reminders to British readers of Britain's co-responsibility for the mess in Northern Ireland; no exploration of the difference between unionist perception of themselves and British (especially English) perception of them; etc.
In conjunction with the assistance she gave to Sean O'Callaghan's media career, before and after his early release, all the above suggests that she is working in the cause of unionism - as she is perfectly entitled to do. It may be that the hostility of which she complains stems, not from her opinions themselves, but from the contrast between the image she presents of herself - a rather dashing exemplar of political imagination, open-mindedness and honesty - and the reality that she is just another partisan in the political wars. - Yours, etc.,
From Barra O Seaghdha
Castlewood Park, Dublin 6.