Sir, - In his haste to defend unionism, Kevin Myers missed the point. This may explain the distorted comments (March 6th) on my recent lecture, dealing with the pioneering work of the Connolly Association and Desmond Greaves in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s, on the subject of civil rights in the North of Ireland.
At that time in the North the Special Powers Acts were in place, those employed in the public services were required to swear an oath of allegiance, the flying of the Tricolour was illegal, discrimination against Catholics in the allocation of houses and jobs was widespread, one person one vote" did not exist, and electoral boundaries were gerrymandered. This panoply of human rights abuses was essential to the unionists in suppressing the nationalists. Abusing civil rights had a political purpose. It was, therefore, acceptable to demand civil rights to alleviate suffering, but also to weaken unionism politically.
In my lecture I also commented that republicans could, with an eye to the future, recall the advances made through political work in the past. I further suggested that cross community activity might be possible on the remaining human rights issues, and that the linking of the "parity of esteem" concept with other issues, such as parades and marches, might be productive.
If this weakens hardcore unionism, so what? Are those who believe in a united Ireland to be criticised for opposing unionism politically? Would Mr Myers prefer the bullet and the bomb, or does he think that unionism should not be opposed at all? - Yours, etc.,
Dublin 9.