I suggest you read some Irish history. You've heard of Bloody Sunday right? You know it took place during a civil rights march in 1972, what were they marching for in particular? They already had the right to vote and stand for parliament. Look it up and see what you find.
This is not an answer to my question. You have not stated which civil rights, if any, the Catholics were denied. You have essentially states that if some of them thought their rights were being denied, that made it true.
It's a civil right to not get shot, certainly. Bloody Sunday was a tremendous tragedy for everybody concerned, but especially the dead and their families. But things happen. Toney Blair was right when he said the difference between a democracy (and in my definition of democracy I include civil rights for all citizens) and a non-democracy is not that bad things never happen, but that when they do they are condemned, investigated, and prevented from happening again.
I believe I said "among other things" in the same sentence, I brought up gerrymandering to illustrate how useless the right to vote was for Catholics in Northern Ireland, which you offered as a sign of equality.
You said the "gerrymander" "among other things" caused the Troubles, not that it, "among other things" prevented the Nationalists from gaining power. You also seem to be dodging the issue that the (slim) majority of Northern Irish were and are Unionist.
And the border of Northern Ireland itself, as well as the internal constituency borders, were designed to give the protestants an unshakable majority. The electorate was essentially corrupted, and not "fair" as you've tried to imply. This is not a disputed fact.
I can prove you wrong there, by disputing it. NI is six counties, the boundaries of which have been the same since... some time, anyway. While I know that there is some controversy about Fermanagh and Tyrone, but the fact is that in several of the ancient counties of Ireland a majority of people wished to remain in the United Kingdom. Forcing them to accept Irish sovereignty would be no better than forcing southern Ireland to accept British sovereignty.
What? I mean it in the sense of the British Army, how does the term occupying forces not apply? And how was my statement biased in any way? If you're trying to imply that the British Army had a right to be there, for whatever reason, then I assume you believe Imperialism in general was righteous, and I wonder what is the point of digging yourself a hole like that?
Occupying forces is a legal definition. How Ireland came to be part of the United Kingdom is of course a long and troubled topic and to be frank brushing a process which began in the Middle Ages off as "imperialism" is a knee-jerk oversimplification. However in 1920 it was a legal part of the United Kingdom in which the citizens were able to use,
had used their votes to secure peaceful, democratic independence. This certainly does not make the presence of British troops an "occupation" in any legal sense whatever.
By that comment I ment that both seperate conflicts were the result of the poison of sectarianism, not that the one was a direct consequence of the other.
That whole statement is total crap, and exhibits a level of ignorance which has killed this debate for me, as have your comments about terrorism. To draw a moral distinction between state violence and violence against the state makes no sense whatsoever. It's one thing to believe in and support state power, I've no problem with that, it's another thing altogether to convince yourself that you're absolutely "right" in doing so.
What "state violence" is this? Terrible mistakes like Bloody Sunday will always occur, but the aim of the British (and Irish) states was to
prevent violence in order to uphold civil rights and allow the proper functioning of democracy. I can sure as hell draw a moral distinction between that and the cowardly murder practiced by the likes of the UVF and IRA.
And your interpretation of unionist creed, that "Ireland is an integral part of Britain" essentially amounts to the same thing, it just refers less to how that integration works in practice.
I would have deeply disgreed with any Unionist who would have tred to prevent the dmeocratic wishes of Ireland using force. However there is an obvious distinction between imperialism which is wanting to rule the lands of others and unionism which was a choice taken by Irish people under self-determination, that is, a choice on how there own home was to be ruled.
Anyway I don't think we're going to reach a common understanding about this, which pains me, but I guess this issue will keep popping up until one naturally develops over time.
I see what I believe are untruths and I attempt to correct them.