Im curious which Unionist Prime Minister stated that the Northern Parliament was "A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people"

I believe it was Brooke. He was responding to, the leader of the South, Eamonn De Valera's claim that the South was a "Catholic state for a Catholic people". What's the relevance?

It was Craigavon. And he was directly responding to the goading of a Nationalist MP in the NIHOC.

The significance is in the perception that the parliament was as just stated "A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people". Wether that was in reality true or not i dont know but the perception is that this was the case.

Not entirely relevant to the main point of your post, but Adam's speech is worth reading in its entirety.
Apart from apologising to the two families from Warrington for murdering their children (very little he could have done otherwise considering the circumstances) there is not one note of contrition for the devastion wrought by the IRA's campaign.

Too many in N.Ireland were denied by the provos the most basic human and civil right of all, "the right to live"- time for Adams to ask for their forgiveness, then maybe we'll start to take his "quest for truth" a bit more seriously.

I'll bow to your knowledge on this one Michael.

Am I missing something? Surely this myth has nothing to do with the EU?

Chekov,

That's EU as in Everything Ulster methinks!

Oh aye.

Spot on Junkmale - If I need to refer to the abomination that is the European Union you may find EU prefixed with "the other" lest there be any ambiguity

I've no times for Adams' 'excuses', but look at the situation in places such as Londonderry (sic) Council, where the majority of the electorate was nationalist, yet unionists had many more seats. The system was gerrymandered to ensure that even if Catholics did get a vote, it was effectively worth less than that of Protestants living in a different part of the city. This was of course exacerbated by the raterpayer and business provisions. All of this is of course no excuse for a campaign of terror, but it is ridiculous to suggest that the political system in the north was a paragon of democratic virtue.

"it is ridiculous to suggest that the political system in the north was a paragon of democratic virtue."

Fair enough, but I never claimed it was. I think people accept Gerrymandering happened in local government elections - Londonderry (I think it was Londonderry Corporation rather than Council at the time?) being the prime example.

I think Whyte's discussion of the issue is about the fairest I've seen and basically boils down to "Yes there was discrimination. No not as bad/not as much as Sinn Fein make out." while giving specific examples of where it did (and didn't) happen.
I don't think rhetoric like that of Adams helps unionists (as in man-in-the-street, not those already interested in politics) to understand that though. It just reinforces the idea that the man is a liar who will say anything for a bit of a MOPE and worse: to explain away or excuse the campaign of murder and terror the IRA carried out.

Not having the vote is no excuse for killing a boy in Warrington.

Its come a long way since for Catholics, thankfully (unfortunately Unionists had to dragged kicking and screaming to this position, as usual).

Hell, my grandfmother has been dead for a few years, and she's still voting for Sinn Fein!! Fair play to her..

Did you even read that link that you posted

"Clear instances of discrimination against well qualified Catholics occurred from the beginning"

Barry, I can assure you I read that link from top to bottom, albeit some time ago and have said "we're all aware discrimination happened in Northern Ireland under the old Stormont government".

Now what has your quote about the employment record of the civil service got to do with voting?

just to let you know that the PIRAs campaign if you look at it and compare it with the old IRAs campaign, they are both similar, were the old IRA terrorists and was ROI founded by terrorists, you must repsect that one mans terrorist is another mans hero. The word terrorist cane asily be thrown about. The PIRA made a lot of mistakes and were wrong in many ways. Gerry Adams on his own chnaged the future of republicanism, he was the man who steered the IRA away from violence, was in secret talks in 86 and was behind the ceasfire in 1994. Some credit should go to this man, without his influence and learership the PIRA might still be fighting or the RIRA or CIRA could be bigger. He successfully stopped the military campaign and managed to get mayority support. This is remarkable considering the hisotry of republicanism. The IRA are over so some credit is due.

To also suggest that catholics were not discriminated as much as sinn fein say is just rubbish, look at the facts, study the history. Unionists have found it hard to share power with catholics and still to some degree have a fear of them. As the big man says Ulster says no. well i would say to him that belfast, derry and armagh are now mayority catholic, cavan, monaghan and donegal would say yes along with fermanagh. In fact maybe Ulster would say yes. The UUP have realised that sharing power is neccessary, these terrorists were voted by a lot of people and as for the DUP they need to grow up. sinn Fein have made a lot of progress, DUP have lied to their voters and have used the same tactics as the UUP.

N.Ireland still has a long way to go but unless unionists waken up I fear that the assembly will not last long.

"were the old IRA terrorists and was ROI founded by terrorists"

Yes.

"you must accept that one mans terrorist is another mans hero."

No I mustn't. I wouldn't call anyone who thought the sectarian murderers in the IRA were heroes a "man".

"without his influence and learership the PIRA might still be fighting"

Oh yes, thank you for finally ending your policy of ethnic cleansing directed at me and mine, thank you so f**king much.

"To also suggest that catholics were not discriminated as much as sinn fein say is just rubbish,"

So you think Gerry is right and Catholics were denied votes? Yes or no? If yes, you're either lying or know something I don't so please enlighten me. If no, you accept the premise. Which is it to be?

This is the problem with N.Ireland a the moment,

still some people are unwilling to accept other peoples culture, instead outright dismiss it, then still give no credit where it is due. With peoples views like that I fear for N.Ireland. People who are unwilling to budge at all and are still so extreme in their views.

To say and hold the view the ROI were founded by terrorists, I feel sorry for you, To say the the ROI De Valera and Michael Collins along with a lot of people at that time were just terrorists shows how far your are willing to push your beliefs to the point where the very idea of creating a united country without sectarianism, where all sides views are respected. Also to give no credit to the PIRAs giving up weapons clearly shows a lack of knowledge of Republicanism as a whole which was founded by our protestant Irishmen. Whatever your view on the PIRAs campaign, to call it ethnic cleaning is a joke, more protestant people died under the hands of the UDA than the PIRA. Whle I will not dispute mistakes I find it suprising that you still in this day and age dismiss and put down people who were voted into government by a lot of people. This shows that you have no concern for nationalists or republicans, only unionism.

As for anti Catholic discrimination to still deny that it took place

Belfastman I have deleted the end of your post because once again you're arguing about something I've never claimed. In fact you're providing evidence of something I have already said (quoted actually) there was discrimination and provided a link to.

If you want to debate what I've actually said then feel free. If you want to discuss random topics and attitudes of your choosing then
a) Don't imply they are my attitudes
b) Debate them somewhere else.

"To say the the ROI De Valera and Michael Collins along with a lot of people at that time were just terrorists shows how far your are willing to push your beliefs to the point where the very idea of creating a united country without sectarianism, where all sides views are respected."

That is not even a sentence, but if you want to discuss the sectarianism of the Irish Republic I fear that is too big a discussion the comments of this post about Gerry Adams' lies.

Yer you started this thread to say that gerry adams claim that catholics were denied the right to vote was rubbish and an over simplication

seems to me that you deleted my infomation because to was correct. As I said before you only look at the info that suits your own arguement.

you said,"So you think Gerry is right and Catholics were denied votes? Yes or no? If yes, you're either lying or know something I don't "

clearly you think that catholics were not denied votes or it was not as bad as people say. I proved you wrong. N.Ireland is made up of two types of background and you still in this day and age oonly choose to support unionism If you are a N.Irishman then why openly dismiss other people views sides and their culture.

N.Ireland is a doomed place if all thought like you. In this age we need to be inclusive of all sides not just of one side. I fear for N.Ireland and in a time were we need to respect the pact to build a future, what do you do, you say that catholics were not discrinminated and denied votes as much as people say, you also say that the irish language act is useless and a waste of money even thougha large proportion of people want it and it is only a law to secure the future of Gaelic, and you also openly make fun off and put down sinn fein, Gerry Adams. whatever your opinion of him, he is the leader of sinn fein who is supported by the majority of nationalists and republicans, he along with john hume and david trimble were the creators of the peace process but no he is onlh evil in your eyes. So as a lot of people support him like me, I must be a supporter of terrorism so I should be punished just like all those who vote for him. Grow up look to the future, be inclusive and maybe N.Ireland will have a bright future. If you are only interested in politicans serving only unionism then you are mistaken. This state or country is mine as well as your we terrorists that you like to consider us are smart , educated and lokking to build an inclusive country so why dont you.

So go and delete that

"So go and delete that"

I was actually going to since it's mostly an attack on me, but I think I'd prefer it to stay there to show the sort of ballocks you've been talking.

"clearly you think that catholics were not denied votes or it was not as bad as people say. I proved you wrong."
The garbage I deleted said there was discrimination. I've already accepted that. It did not say that Catholics were denied votes. That's why it was irrelevant and why it was deleted, it was taking up far to much space. Next time, post a link.

Also, please, if you're so "smart and educated", please learn to read (and for fuck sake learn to form a sentence).

"you also openly make fun off and put down sinn fein, Gerry Adams"

I also openly make fun of and put down the DUP (a few times) and Ian Paisley (not to mention toffs parking on yellow lines). What's your point? You seem to be so obsessed with painting anyone who dares to criticise your glorious Leader as a bigot that you don't bother to actually pay any attention to what they're saying.

Though the fact that Mr Whyte's son Nicholas stood for elections as an Alliance Party candidate show his version of events might not be completely accurate. The APNI have a tendency to favour unionists. Which may be why they don’t have any elected representatives west of the Bann.

Now what has your quote about the employment record of the civil service got to do with voting?

Nothing but the switch from STV to FPTP by the Unionists in 1929 was to ensure that they always had a large majority in Stormont and not have to deal witht the nationalists.

Fair enough, but changing the voting system used at Westminster is hardly what Gerry said, is it?

My point is, yes there was discrimination, but if it is really as bad as Gerry would like us to believe then why does he need to exaggerate it to the point where he's basically lying?

How do unionists come to the conclusion that the ROI was founded by terrorists?

When a movement for sovereignty that has the backing of the majority of the population of a country seeks to establish its sovereignty and is forced to defend that sovereignty through arms, how is that terrorism?

Is it only their politics or religion that marks them out as terrorits?

This really isn't related to the topic here, but "backing of the majority of the population" ? Not in 1916.

The Free State wasn't established in 1916.

I know Niall, but the Republic still harks back to 1916 like it was the birth of the nation and certainly Sinn Fein supporters do. Whether they are right or wrong to do so, it was these men I was referring to when I made that comment above (in answer to a direct question that I was asked). I really don't want to go into this any more on this thread though. Maybe another day.

Beano, I can't believe you can say that people, who believe that members of the IRA were heroes, aren't men. You would be outraged if someone said a similar thing about British troops. You are the same fella that called for a boycott of TKMaxx and B&Q because they banned the poppy. I for one, and I am deffinatly not the only one, would have proudly served in the IRA long before serving in the British army. You need to learn that 'one man's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter' because your refusal to see the strife caused by the unionist state against the nationalist people just shows your own bling bigotry.

I agree with Seamus, for too long republicans where deemed terrorists who are not even human, some wrongs were committed but people have to understand the history from which the PIRA grew. I consider those who fought in the old IRA to be heroes, but to be considered simply terrorists shows how little understanding and ignorance some people have. I wouuld happly die for the cause if needed, but we are in a new phase, what the british have done in Ireland is a joke and a disgrace, the truth has not even fully come out yet.

I'm not going to argue with all the bullshit, but suffice to say that by trying to compare the IRA to the Army you've just lost whatever little respect I had left for either of you.

And yes, I'm aware of the saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but that says nothing about the integrity or intelligence of the "another man".

I can't say I'm surprised, the two of you have shown yourselves over the past couple of weeks to be ignorant, to have bought into the hyperbole and lies and to have a hard time debating things, so it's not surprising you'd happily resort to violence.

I think arguing with that patent nonsense would only endorse your wee MOPE as an "argument" so I'm not going to. I also don't have as much time on my hands as you seem to have to refute every single "point" you make so I don't want to hear any more attempts to justify any campaign of violence and murder wrought upon this country. I'm happy to debate issues with nationalists and with republicans who can be serious, but I am not having my blog used as a soapbox for people to pretend the IRA's terrorist campaign was anything but that. If you're not able to stick to the topic, don't post. If you want a soapbox for Sinn Fein/IRA's "It was the evil prods that made us do it" then try Slugger or Balrog.

But it is sticking to the topic. If the nationalist/catholic community did not suffer mass discrimination throughout the 50 years of Unionist hegemony then the IRA would never have had the mass support it enjoyed in the nationalist community. The discrimination of nationalists in terms of housing, elections, jobs etc pushed more people into supporting the IRA as they felt there was no alternative to violence.

"Mass support"? Who are you trying to kid? Sinn Fein didn't start getting any serious number of votes until the IRA's campaign was effectively dead.

The discrimination issues were mostly addressed in the 70s (e.g. creation of the Housing Executive, introduction of one-man-one-vote even for local elections and the root of all evil at Stormont abolished) and yet the campaign went on for another 20 years. It was about one thing and that was about getting their way on the constitutional question.

And the topic was Gerry's specific statement that Catholics were denied votes (and the fact that the media, keen to make Gerry Adams as cuddly as possible, tried to portray this exercise in excuses as an 'apology'), which is up there with "It was like the Nazis' treatment of the Jews".

Mass support isn't always shown by the votes Sinn Féin got. They didn't start contesting elections until 1983. And yes the British government did do a lot to end discrimination in the 70s but by then the Troubles were too ingrained to be stopped. Stopping the fighting was one of the most difficult processes this wee part of the world has ever seen. There was too much hatred on all three sides. That hatred is still there to a certain extent, like people who think that IRA supporters aren't human.

The thing about Father Reid is simple. He shouldn’t have used such an emotive comparison. But ultimately his comments were taken out of context. He was alluding to the fact that there was a State ingrained dislike of Catholicism. Protestant children were taught to be wary and cautious of the papists. A former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland stood up one day at a meeting with the NI branch of the CBI and said ‘If we in Ulster allow Roman Catholics to work on our farms we are traitors to Ulster...I would appeal to loyalists, therefore, wherever possible, to employ good Protestant lads and lassies’. This is what Father Reid was talking about, not the holocaust.

I'm going to ignore your pathetic excuses for the IRA, its getting a bit embarrassing really.

Your comments on Father Reid reinforce my point though, which is that when people continually use emotive language and exaggerate their stories like this, it does 2 things:

1) Makes people who won't examine the claims in detail (which is the majority of people) either accept it at face value and ingrain the hatred or dismiss it completely as ridiculous. Neither of which is desirable when the truth is somewhere in the middle.
2) Makes people who do examine it in some detail realise it's a vast exaggeration and then question the motives of those making the claims and dismiss any claims like this in future as hyperbole, which is the stage I've got to.

But Father Reid's comments were taken out of context. In the context they were meant to be taken in, I can see no argument with his statement.

The simple reality is that supporters of the IRA desperately need to believe the blatant lies of SF in order to silence those nagging doubts that perhaps shooting people in the back or blowing up innocent civilians is wrong. Hence the vitriolic response to anyone daring to question the fairy tale.