Both Patrick Matthews and Liam Ó Maolmhichíl have bitterly criticised me on this page for saying that the GAA supported the IRA during 30 years of terrorism, insisting that this is not true; and Patrick Matthews demanded an apology. Here it is. It wasn't 30 years, but more like 24, and I apologise for that.
Liam Ó Maolmhichíl is better known as Liam Mulvihill, and when I spent a very pleasant few hours within him many years ago, he was called "Willie" by his friends. It must be wonderful first thing in the morning to have the option of different names for the day. Some people have shoes in the wardrobe, and others have names.
He's not, of course, unique in that regard; and nor is he unique in the low opinion he holds of this column. "Quite frankly, the victims of the Northern Troubles deserve better than Mr Myers's snide and cynical brand of journalism, which achieves little beyond the furthering of his own oft-articulated anti-nationalist agenda." He added: "Contrary to Mr Myers's insinuation, at no point did the GAA vote to support the '[IRA\] terror campaign', or indeed any other terror campaign." Well, firstly, I'm happy to note that almost implicit in his remarks is an acceptance that the IRA's campaign was one of terror. And certainly, he's right: the GAA never voted to support any sort of terror campaign. It just didn't mention the words "terror" or "campaign".
Political activity
On March 26th, 1979, GAA Congress accepted a number of motions put before it. The first was to abolish the rule - dating, I think, from 1895 - which banned the GAA from taking part in any political activity. In its place came a prohibition on "party-political" activity. This left it open for Congress to accept four further motions.
Two of these were in support of the campaign by IRA prisoners in The Maze prison. Another was a call for a withdrawal of the British army from the North. And the fourth was for Congress "unequivocally to support the struggle for national liberation".
It's true that no mention of the IRA was made in this motion; nor was it necessary. The "struggle for national liberation" had then and has now only one meaning - and that was the terrorist campaign by the IRA. No one in that hall could have been in any doubt what the GAA was agreeing to. All four motions passed without dissent.
"The struggle"
The GAA chose to become a political organisation that day; and since it redefined itself as "non-party political" it couldn't even support Sinn Féin. As Tom Woulfe of the GAA has said in this newspaper before, what "politics" does this leave but the "politics" of the "the struggle for national liberation"? And using your brain, what are we talking about here? An Taisce? Knock Airport? SPUC? That motion effectively stood as a retrospective endorsement of the IRA campaign to date; and an authorisation of what was to come. It has never been revoked or modified and is policy today just as it was 24 years ago.
Much as Willie Mulvihill might have disliked this column so far, I have bad news for him. It gets worse. For I think he is one of the greatest and most admirable public servants in Irish life. He has transformed a huge, often ramshackle and invariably contentious organisation with its feet firmly in the 19th century into a wholly unrecognisable 21st-century one today.
The GAA players of a quarter of a century ago must have blinked in utter disbelief when they read of GAA players skinny-dipping in South Africa. In their day, the players put towels around their waists to get changed, and wore swimming trunks in the showers.
The association has survived all the much-feared blasts from non-Irish codes (though I still maintain that rugby is an offspring of Gaelic football) and is now healthier in attitude, vigour and finances than at any time in its history. Croke Park, as we know, is an utter joy, a thing of beauty.
Yes, yes, I know that having been so enthusiastic about Myrtle Allen yesterday, I can't squander diary after diary expressing my admiration for people; otherwise this corner will be a journalistic emetic which readers will turn to whenever they've eaten a bad oyster and want to get rid of it pronto without using their fingers. So, just this last time. You're a fine man, Willie, and had you gone into business, instead of so selflessly serving your country, you'd be very rich today.
Furthermore, if you'd been secretary general of the GAA when the insane motions above were taken, I believe you would have headed them off. But you weren't. You were incoming that weekend, and there was absolutely nothing you could do about them.
There now, Liam, your worst nightmare come true. Nice words from me to you.
Condemn violence
As for Patrick Matthews's suggestion that this newspaper and this column would be hypocritical if we deplored any anti-GAA violence in future: well, as it happens, we really are in a position to condemn violence. We didn't vote to change the GAA from being a strictly non-political organisation to one which unequivocally supported "the struggle for national liberation".
So nothing emanating from this newspaper caused loyalists to start their wicked murder campaign against GAA people in the North (I note that the gallant "national liberation" motion came from the very heart of the firing line: Clare).
It is not hypocrisy to condemn murder; but it would certainly be hypocrisy for newspapers not to tell the truth.
KEVIN MYERS