Does giving the names of Sinn Féin members to the police make Gerry Adams an informer? His reception at the Sinn Féin ard fheis indicated overwhelming republican support for his actions, so the answer is a resounding 'No'. But that in turn raises another question. What is the difference between giving information to the police and being a police informer?
Traditionally in Irish history informers have been outcasts and their human rights have been overlooked in the rush to condemn them, despite the absence of a fair trial. They were portrayed as people who had betrayed their colleagues – and, by implication, their country – through giving information to the British authorities, usually the police.
So when Gerry Adams gave the names of Sinn Féin members – allegedly present in the bar where the fight that led to Robert McCartney's murder took place – republicans saw him as legitimately giving information rather than informing on his colleagues.
Was this because he gave the information to a solicitor or because it was then passed to the police ombudsman rather than the PSNI? Either way this is the first time Irish republicans have given the names of party members to what is, in their eyes, a British police force.
It is not clear if the seven Sinn Féin members consented to information being made available on their party membership or their whereabouts.
In the past those accused of being informers – whether rightly or wrongly we shall never know – were shot, presumably for giving republican names to the police.
Some were shot for being informers, others for being thought of as informers and the remainder as a cover up for higher ranking informers, such as Stakeknife.
But in the case of Robert McCartney's murder, giving information to the police warranted a standing ovation at the Sinn Féin ard fheis. To republicans this represented leadership and compassion. To their opponents it looked like inconsistency and opportunism. Whatever the reasoning, the action has enormous implications for policing, politics and probity.
It also raises the inevitable question: Can everyone who gives information to the PSNI about alleged republican crime now expect praise from Sinn Féin?
The implications for policing are obvious. By meeting Hugh Orde and by giving information on republicans, Sinn Féin has clearly signalled that it is prepared to support the police.
Principled opposition to the PSNI can be dumped at a date which guarantees maximum political concessions and massive media coverage. In the words of Groucho Marx – "we have principles and if you do not like them we have other principles". The political consequences are significant – if the executive is ever resurrected, republicans will be firmly entrenched in the policing system. But the real significance is for probity. If Sinn Féin is prepared to deliver information on its own members in the McCartney case, will it also make available information on its members and their activities in relation to other crimes alleged to have been carried out by IRA members?
These include, for example, the Robinson and McGinley murders in Derry and the Northern Bank robbery. A likely response is that there is not a shred of evidence that republicans were involved in these crimes. But is it not the case that there is equally not a shred of evidence to link republicans to the McCartney murder?
Observers claim that the evidence was destroyed but there would appear to be as much forensic evidence linking the IRA to the Northern Bank as there is to link them to the McCartney killing. Instead of asking "Where is the proof?" republicans pledged support for the McCartney family.
Sinn Féin accused Bertie Ahern of felon-setting when he publicly identified those he claimed had prior knowledge of the Northern Bank robbery.
If Ahern had privately identified the names of the Sinn Féin members allegedly present in Magennis's bar, would the same charge have been made against him? Or is felon-setting a charge reserved exclusively for non-republicans? The key to this issue is, of course, that Adams was not giving information to the police.
As the PSNI later indicated, they already had the names in any case. He was giving information to the public. Sensing where the electorate might march on this issue he rushed to the front shouting "I am your leader, let me through".
The essence of his information was that Sinn Féin was identifying itself with the McCartney family.
Some believe the action was based on the genuine concern of one group of human beings for another. Others argue that it was a political action forced by the impending elections at local government and Westminster level.
Either way it brought new ethics to republican politics.
It is sometimes said that yesterday's terrorists/freedom fighters are today's politicians.
It might now be said that today's politicians are also today's legitimate information-givers. Yesterday's informers, real and imagined, are different.
They are dead.
