IT WAS silly and mischievous to contend that an article he wrote meant Mr Proinsias De Rossa was involved in crime, Mr Eamon Dunphy told the High Court.
Mr Dunphy, the first witness for the defence, said he did not believe Mr De Rossa was involved in "special activities" nor did he believe he necessarily knew anything about them. His point was that certain people in the Workers' Party had been involved in activities that compelled Mr De Rossa to split from the party.
He added it was Mr De Rossa himself who had referred to "special activities" in The Irish Times six days before his Sunday Independent article.
Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for Independent Newspapers, quoted from The Irish Times interview.
Mr Dunphy said Mr De Rossa himself had raised the spectre of "special activities" and went on to say they were illegal.
The resonance of Mr De Rossa's statement in the interview was "back to the Moscow letter". A link was being established for the readers.
This was at a period when Labour and other political parties were manoeuvring to form a new government. Democratic Left was being proposed as a member of that government and that was his (Mr Dunphy's) interest.
Mr Dunphy said that in stating in the interview that his role in the WP and its predecessors was of a political nature, Mr De Rossa was implying that others' roles were not of a political nature.
He understood that DL and its leaders were in an evolutionary process but the were now in the formation of a government and if you had to face down those involved in undemocratic activity, it had to be "pretty serious".
Mr Feeney said Mr De Rossa was claiming the article meant he was involved in "special activities". Mr Dunphy said no reasonable person could read into the article any notion that Mr De Rossa was involved in "special activities". He did not believe Mr De Rossa was involved. The point was that certain people in the WP had been involved in activities that compelled Mr De Rossa and others to split.
If he had believed Mr De Rossa was unfit for parliament or government, he would have written a very different article.
Mr Feeney asked Mr Dunphy what he meant he wrote: "The `special activities' concerned were criminal. Among the crimes committed were armed robberies and forgery of currency."
Mr Dunphy said if one took what Mr De Rossa said to The Irish Times at face value, illegal activity was something he was aware of. The reference point was the forgery of currency scandal which was in the public domain.
The article was saying you could not compromise with criminality.