Are travellers a distinct ethnic subset within Ireland?

Thirdfox

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1214/breaking13.htm

"New campaign to win ethnic status for Travellers"

I suppose a reasonable argument could be made that they are - however, that status is not merely "an important symbolic recognition" as the group claims but confers legal rights as part of international law - the right to self-determination as espoused by both the UN's International Covenant on Civil/Political Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.

p.s. self-determination does not mean that they can form an independent state within our territory (a la the Quebecois in Canada) - but a separate political/religious/cultural identity that must be respected etc. I don't know, but maybe they already have these rights in Ireland at the moment (I do not believe so though).

Sorry to be so high-brow about this, but what do people think? Though this is AH, people can still be civil in expressing their opinions correct?

MagicMarker

When they start respecting Irish law I'll start respecting their 'ethnicity'.

minidazzler

Ya, going around robbing bikes (from my garden) Hubcaps off a car, and doing ****e tar-mac jobs makes them "ethnic".

Does this mean that if they get "ethnic" status, what I just said would be racist rather than just generalisations?

No they should not get ethnic status, why should they get more rights than us??

byhookorbycrook

It seems to me that travellers want the best of both worlds, to be integrated into society as it suits and to be a seperate group when they want, you can't have it every way.

brianthebard

Yes they have a unique ethnicity. /thread goes downhill from here. If this gives them more legal protection here and within the EU then its a good idea, its something that's sorely lacking. Spain and some other countries in Europe have shown recently that when you treat minorities like gypsies or travellers with respect and dignity as equal human being, surprisingly it has a positive effect. Spain has shamed countries like Ireland and Italy in that regard.

projectmayhem

I'm always surprised when travellers come out asking for rights et al. They have well spoken representatives go on the radio and plead their case, but in reality I know not one single individual who's had any sort of positive encounter with them.

Calling them travellers indicates that they move around, rather then sit in halting sites, set up with Irish tax payers' money. Have you ever seen a clean halting site? Despite what they might say on Adrian Kennedy or whatever, it's actually not a filth caused by "settled" people thrown there to make them look bad.

These "people" annoy me on a level that no one (except Roma gypsies) can annoy me on the same level they manage to...

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes they have a unique ethnicity. /thread goes downhill from here. If this gives them more legal protection here and within the EU then its a good idea, its something that's sorely lacking. Spain and some other countries in Europe have shown recently that when you treat minorities like gypsies or travellers with respect and dignity as equal human being, surprisingly it has a positive effect. Spain has shamed countries like Ireland and Italy in that regard.

Surely it's a give-a-little get-a-little situation? Once they band together and stop asking for state benefits and start banding together to pay tax, clean up after themselves and generally stop circumventing the law, the government can give them their status?

PogMoThoin

MagicMarker wrote: »

When they start respecting Irish law I'll start respecting their 'ethnicity'.

And become tax compliant, I've never seen a poor traveller and yet they've their hand out for everything

brianthebard

projectmayhem wrote: »

I'm always surprised when travellers come out asking for rights et al. They have well spoken representatives go on the radio and plead their case, but in reality I know not one single individual who's had any sort of positive encounter with them.

Calling them travellers indicates that they move around, rather then sit in halting sites, set up with Irish tax payers' money. Have you ever seen a clean halting site? Despite what they might say on Adrian Kennedy or whatever, it's actually not a filth caused by "settled" people thrown there to make them look bad.

These "people" annoy me on a level that no one (except Roma gypsies) can annoy me on

How much ignorance does it take to assume that travellers have to travel because of a name given to them? Because you are settled I assume you don't leave your own property?

Thirdfox

Well I hardly think Ireland can be lumped in with Italy in regards to treatment of Romas/Travellers - from what I remember they passed the law that fingerprints every Roma and the Italian high court (?) approved it as (quoting the judge) - "every Roma is a thief"... though when the news was broadcast in Ireland many ordinary people were in support of these kinds of measures here too.

I wonder how long before Italy ends up in front of the ECHR...

Mal-Adjusted

when they change the traveller slogan from "Walk all over settled people, alive or dead" i'll change my attitude towards them.


They claim to be victims of racism, but really, is prejudice racist when it is fully justified?

brianthebard

Italy's one of the g8, things will have to get a lot worse before they are reprimanded, if they are. I think the level of contempt and extreme ignorance shown by the general public in Ireland and Italy is quite similar. Italy has been dealing with a slow economy, even poorer government and higher levels of illegal immigration than Ireland for a long time now though, so their troubles have been heightened. The quote from that judge is standard fare for a discussion like this about travellers, it just thankfully hasn't been enforced here yet.

Thirdfox

brianthebard wrote: »

Italy's one of the g8, things will have to get a lot worse before they are reprimanded, if they are. I think the level of contempt and extreme ignorance shown by the general public in Ireland and Italy is quite similar. Italy has been dealing with a slow economy, even poorer government and higher levels of illegal immigration than Ireland for a long time now though, so their troubles have been heightened. The quote from that judge is standard fare for a discussion like this about travellers, it just thankfully hasn't been enforced here yet.

I'm all in favour of equal rights (being an ethnic "minority" here in Ireland myself) - people may disagree over what implementation of rights is "equal" in this case...

But I feel you may have misunderstood a part of my question - in relation to self-determination as recognition of a distinct ethnicity as an indigenous people... if we look to Quebec - they set up their own local government, education, religious etc. values are determined by their own people - in a travellers' case this may be more difficult since they are not in any single location, but would you be okay with something akin to a Traveller's Oireachtas passing laws for travellers? Canada being held as the best example of respect for indigenous people and self-determination (as opposed to N. Zealand, Australia and the US).

galwayrush

Are they looking to protect their tax free status?:rolleyes:

mikemac

In the UK they are recognized as a seperate group but not here.

If we declare them an ethnic minority, what will happen is illegal campsites will go up (yes, it happens already:rolleyes:) but nobody will move them on due to Human rights legislation.

This was a HUGE issue in the 2005 UK general election

Examples and this is from the Telegragh and quotes from the Prime Minister so reliable imo
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3346399/Blair-vows-to-oversee-clampdown-on-illegal-gipsy-camps.html

Last night, Mr Burns welcomed the Prime Minister's decision to review the measures. He said the law was weak when it came to protecting local people because it gave too much power to those breaking planning rules and allowed a long drawn-out appeals process.
In Somerset, meanwhile, one council has been forced to delay plans to evict gipsies from a field because of concerns over human rights laws.
There was an outcry two weeks ago when travellers turned a five-acre field in the village of North Curry into a camp - complete with roads, fencing and septic tanks - over a weekend.
The travellers had adopted a new tactic of buying up land, laying chippings and setting out pitches while the council offices were closed over the weekend, and then applying for retrospective planning permission.
Taunton Deane council had intended to apply this week for an injunction to remove 16 families from the field. However, John Williams, the council's Conservative leader, said the application had been delayed because a barrister had advised officials that more detail was required about the families in order to comply with human rights legislation.

Nothing can come good out of this.

billy the squid

projectmayhem wrote: »

I'm always surprised when travellers come out asking for rights et al. They have well spoken representatives go on the radio and plead their case, but in reality I know not one single individual who's had any sort of positive encounter with them.

Calling them travellers indicates that they move around, rather then sit in halting sites, set up with Irish tax payers' money. Have you ever seen a clean halting site? Despite what they might say on Adrian Kennedy or whatever, it's actually not a filth caused by "settled" people thrown there to make them look bad.

These "people" annoy me on a level that no one (except Roma gypsies) can annoy me on the same level they manage to...



Surely it's a give-a-little get-a-little situation? Once they band together and stop asking for state benefits and start banding together to pay tax, clean up after themselves and generally stop circumventing the law, the government can give them their status?

Interesting how you put the word "people" in inverted commas. Do you believe that travellers are subhuman or something?

All this ****e like "when they give me back my bike they can have all the rights they want" is nothing more than racism. It smears the entire community with the same brush.

And to the OP, I do believe they should be granted ethnic status.

brianthebard

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm all in favour of equal rights (being an ethnic "minority" here in Ireland myself) - people may disagree over what implementation of rights is "equal" in this case...

But I feel you may have misunderstood a part of my question - in relation to self-determination as recognition of a distinct ethnicity as an indigenous people... if we look to Quebec - they set up their own local government, education, religious etc. values are determined by their own people - in a travellers' case this may be more difficult since they are not in any single location, but would you be okay with something akin to a Traveller's Oireachtas passing laws for travellers? Canada being held as the best example of respect for indigenous people and self-determination (as opposed to N. Zealand, Australia and the US).

I haven't tried to address the self-determination aspect of your post yet. There couldn't be a separate government for travellers, since they inhabit the same space in the country as everyone else, as opposed to Quebecians, who just live in Quebec. Not the same thing, and I don't think there is going to be a county set aside for travellers. Is Canada really the best example? How so?

minidazzler

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm all in favour of equal rights (being an ethnic "minority" here in Ireland myself) - people may disagree over what implementation of rights is "equal" in this case...

But I feel you may have misunderstood a part of my question - in relation to self-determination as recognition of a distinct ethnicity as an indigenous people... if we look to Quebec - they set up their own local government, education, religious etc. values are determined by their own people - in a travellers' case this may be more difficult since they are not in any single location, but would you be okay with something akin to a Traveller's Oireachtas passing laws for travellers? Canada being held as the best example of respect for indigenous people and self-determination (as opposed to N. Zealand, Australia and the US).

There own laws??? Would these laws be on top of our laws or completely independant??? That is a terrible Idea, I live extremely close to lots of travellers, all of whom have been given large houses, cars and Money to move out of a previous Halting site. They don't obey our laws, let them make there own??? Does that sound logical.

Wertz

You only have to look at a traveller to see that there is a distinct difference in how they look compared to the rest of the indigenous Irish "race". Perhaps those looks are borne through interbreeding, but some of it has to genetic and it's definitely a separate breed, as well as obviously a different culture.
That said, this doesn't give some of them the right to act as they do irregardless of whether it's seen by them as being part of their culture. They are and should be subject to the same laws of the land as the rest of us and I'd like to think that they shouldn't be discriminated against on a general level due to the actions of a minority...of course when you see the egenral attitudes of people to them, it's easy to see why pubs clubs hotels etc. don't want their business, and it's also eays to see why there is such a disdain for them amongst the public at large.

zonEEE

billy the squid wrote: »

Interesting how you put the word "people" in inverted commas. Do you believe that travellers are subhuman or something?

All this ****e like "when they give me back my bike they can have all the rights they want" is nothing more than racism. It smears the entire community with the same brush.

And to the OP, I do believe they should be granted ethnic status.

I have yet to come across a traveller that wouldn't rob the eye out of your head. They think their above the law. If i moved into a public car park in the morning and got 6 or 7 caravans in. The gards would be down straight away and have me locked up but with them this isn't the case. They should start contributing to Ireland and maybe then be granted the status.

Nodin

Thirdfox wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1214/breaking13.htm

"New campaign to win ethnic status for Travellers"

I suppose a reasonable argument could be made that they are - however, that status is not merely "an important symbolic recognition" as the group claims but confers legal rights as part of international law - the right to self-determination as espoused by both the UN's International Covenant on Civil/Political Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.

p.s. self-determination does not mean that they can form an independent state within our territory (a la the Quebecois in Canada) - but a separate political/religious/cultural identity that must be respected etc. I don't know, but maybe they already have these rights in Ireland at the moment (I do not believe so though).

Sorry to be so high-brow about this, but what do people think? Though this is AH, people can still be civil in expressing their opinions correct?

Considering they get worse abuse than gay men, I'd say so.

Terry

Aidric wrote: »

Ethnic cleansing. That's what they need.

See, this is the type of comment that will get you banned.

anti-venom

Not every traveler is a thieving, freeloading scumbag but there is a sizeable MAJORITY of them who are. That's unfortunate for the minority who are trying to get ahead in terms of education and employment; their fellow travelers, who steal and beg, drag them down.

And this bullsh!t about seeking ethnic recognition. They have only one agenda with this and it's probably to distance themselves further from mainstream society. The situation is bad enough as it stands without compounding it by giving them additional leeway to sponge of taxpayers and communities. Inch given - mile taken.

If I'd caught the scumbag ****heads that tried to rob my ol' granny in the dead of night the last thing I'd be concerned about is their ethnic status or otherwise. They left behind a couple of hurleys - wonder what they were for?

billy the squid

@wertz

But people's perception on whether or not travellers are crooks is irrelavent to whether or not they are a distinct ethnic group.

javaboy

Would this give them any greater or different legal status than is already granted to them by existing equality legislation?

galwayrush

There are as many thieving scumbags in the settled community as in the travelling community.

billy the squid

javaboy wrote: »

Would this give them any greater or different legal status than is already granted to them by existing equality legislation?

More of a symbolic thing really. despite what you see posted above, you don't get any tax credits for being a member of an ethnic minority. at least none of the immigrants I have worked with never did.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Mr. Presentable

billy the squid wrote: »

Interesting how you put the word "people" in inverted commas. Do you believe that travellers are subhuman or something?

All this ****e like "when they give me back my bike they can have all the rights they want" is nothing more than racism. It smears the entire community with the same brush.

And to the OP, I do believe they should be granted ethnic status.

How can it be racism - they are not a different race.

They are not ethnically different either.

They are ethically different.

Thirdfox

billy the squid wrote: »

Interesting how you put the word "people" in inverted commas. Do you believe that travellers are subhuman or something?

And to the OP, I do believe they should be granted ethnic status.

To be fair - "people" could be used in the legal term (which was what the article was about) i.e. they are a separate and distinct people/ethnicity.

brianthebard wrote: »

I haven't tried to address the self-determination aspect of your post yet. There couldn't be a separate government for travellers, since they inhabit the same space in the country as everyone else, as opposed to Quebecians, who just live in Quebec. Not the same thing, and I don't think there is going to be a county set aside for travellers. Is Canada really the best example? How so?

Canada has been held out (in our international human rights law course anyway) as the country that has the most proactive engagement of indigenous peoples (the Canadian Supreme Court even considered if Quebec can secede via a local referendum...how nice of them )

The point about land is interesting - and a fair point. Parliament may be impossible for Travellers but a "Traveller council" of sorts making separate laws etc. may still be possible - look at the South African example - its legal system may deal with up to 30 different legal systems as the different tribes are legally recognised and applied for those people.

I feel that giving them ethnicity status (and hence indigenous people status) could be giving too much and instead we should work within the existing legal framework.

minidazzler wrote: »

There own laws??? Would these laws be on top of our laws or completely independant??? That is a terrible Idea, I live extremely close to lots of travellers, all of whom have been given large houses, cars and Money to move out of a previous Halting site. They don't obey our laws, let them make there own??? Does that sound logical.

It would be a subset of our laws if they were to apply - but it would only be in relation to their own culture/religion/political matters etc. I don't know exactly what legislating freedoms other indigenous people enjoy. For example until recently in Canada - Shari'a (Islam) law and in the US, Halacha (Judaism) arbitration courts can be held for certain internal matters - family law/divorce cases apparently.

So we could have Traveller arbitration courts deciding their internal matters too in relation to some issues. If parties agree to of course. But this can exist outside of being granted ethnicity status - it certainly would aid their case though.

billy the squid

Iolar wrote: »

hi billy so tell me this would ya mind if a load of traaavellers moved up beside your house and pitched their caravans and rubbish next to ya?

I wouldn't like it if anyone, traveller or otherwise dumped rubbish outside the house next door to me. The settled community are very well versed in the art of fly-tipping too.

But what has that got to do with the ethnic status of the travelling community?

Mr. Presentable

galwayrush wrote: »

There are as many thieving scumbags in the settled community as in the travelling community.

Probably, but there are what, 500 times as many people in the settled community, so there are proportionally fewer!

DenMan

If they have Irish passports, attend Irish schools/colleges then they are Irish and European citizens, subjected to the same rules and laws as any other citizen of this country. If you ask a traveller "who are they" I would hope they would say they are Irish. That's part of the whole problem. You can't give additional rights to already existing citizens, that makes no sense whatsoever. They should be subjected and made accounable for all actions they make, just like any other citizen of this country. If additional rights are given to travellers what happens to the majority of the Irish population? Would they be exempt from their actions because they have less rights than the travelling community? Has to have a bit of give and take.

javaboy

galwayrush wrote: »

There are as many thieving scumbags in the settled community as in the travelling community.

I would guess there are significantly more settled scumbags simply because the settled population is so much bigger than the travelling population.

If you're talking about percentage wise, then in my experience there are proportionally more troublemakers within the travelling community.

billy the squid wrote: »

More of a symbolic thing really. despite what you see posted above, you don't get any tax credits for being a member of an ethnic minority. at least none of the immigrants I have worked with never did.

So legally there would be little or no impact considering the rights and special status they already enjoy? Can't see too much of a problem with it really. At the same time I can't see a need for it either.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Davidius

In an ideal world ethnic equality laws shouldn't exist because it only serves to emphasise the idea that we're not all the same.

These laws are racist. There should be laws against these laws!

Thirdfox

billy the squid wrote: »

More of a symbolic thing really. despite what you see posted above, you don't get any tax credits for being a member of an ethnic minority. at least none of the immigrants I have worked with never did.

I wouldn't be quite so sure of that... immigrants don't get benefits for their ethnicity but travellers are indigenous to Ireland (for the purposes of international law). Granting ethnicity status would give them extra rights under the ICCPR and the Declaration on Rights etc. etc. because they are different to the Chinese/Poles etc. who came here recently.

When did travellers settle in Ireland? It wasn't in the recent past, correct? No other ethnicity minority can claim this.

As for equality statutes - I believe that this would go beyond non-discrimination and give positive rights (not tax benefits :rolleyes: ) to them. Of course, just because one has a right doesn't mean it will be exercised.

billy the squid

DenMan wrote: »

If they have Irish passports, attend Irish schools/colleges then they are Irish and European citizens, subjected to the same rules and laws as any other citizen of this country. If you ask a traveller "who are they" I would hope they would say they are Irish. That's part of the whole problem. You can't give additional rights to already existing citizens, that makes no sense whatsoever. They should be subjected and made accounable for all actions they make, just like any other citizen of this country. If additional rights are given to travellers what happens to the majority of the Irish population? Would they be exempt from their actions because they have less rights than the travelling community? Has to have a bit of give and take.

Native americans would have US passports, attend US schools, be US citizens, yet they are still an ethnic group.

If you asked a traveller who are they , they would probably say they are either a traveller or irish traveller.

brianthebard

Thirdfox wrote: »

It would be a subset of our laws if they were to apply - but it would only be in relation to their own culture/religion/political matters etc. I don't know exactly what legislating freedoms other indigenous people enjoy. For example until recently in Canada - Shari'a (Islam) law and in the US, Halacha (Judaism) arbitration courts can be held for certain internal matters - family law/divorce cases apparently.

So we could have Traveller arbitration courts deciding their internal matters too in relation to some issues. If parties agree to of course. But this can exist outside of being granted ethnicity status - it certainly would aid their case though.

This is an interesting idea and i think it should be explored in more detail. There is definitely a need for a group established to support travellers, not a lobby but someone who can get things into legislation, or put before the dail at any rate.

DenMan wrote: »

If they have Irish passports, attend Irish schools/colleges then they are Irish and European citizens, subjected to the same rules and laws as any other citizen of this country. If you ask a traveller "who are they" I would hope they would say they are Irish. That's part of the whole problem. You can't give additional rights to already existing citizens, that makes no sense whatsoever. They should be subjected and made accounable for all actions they make, just like any other citizen of this country. If additional rights are given to travellers what happens to the majority of the Irish population? Would they be exempt from their actions because they have less rights than the travelling community? Has to have a bit of give and take.

Well lets start by giving them equal rights, which they don't get yet, and then talk about whether additional rights are needed. I don't see how a question of who they are is the same as where they are born, and I don't see why that means we need to homogenise the entire population based on being born in the same country.

javaboy

Thirdfox wrote: »

I wouldn't be quite so sure of that... immigrants don't get benefits for their ethnicity but travellers are indigenous to Ireland (for the purposes of international law). Granting ethnicity status would give them extra rights under the ICCPR and the Declaration on Rights etc. etc. because they are different to the Chinese/Poles etc. who came here recently.

When did travellers settle in Ireland? It wasn't in the recent past, correct? No other ethnicity minority can claim this.

As for equality statutes - I believe that this would go beyond non-discrimination and give positive rights (not tax benefits :rolleyes: ) to them. Of course, just because one has a right doesn't mean it will be exercised.

Any idea what kind of positive rights they might get?

Thirdfox

Thirdfox wrote: »

I wouldn't be quite so sure of that... immigrants don't get benefits for their ethnicity but travellers are indigenous to Ireland (for the purposes of international law). Granting ethnicity status would give them extra rights under the ICCPR and the Declaration on Rights etc. etc. because they are different to the Chinese/Poles etc. who came here recently.

When did travellers settle in Ireland? It wasn't in the recent past, correct? No other ethnicity minority can claim this.

As for equality statutes - I believe that this would go beyond non-discrimination and give positive rights (not tax benefits :rolleyes: ) to them. Of course, just because one has a right doesn't mean it will be exercised.

Oh, as a good example of indigenous ethnic minorities being granted extra rights (though this may not be due to the ICCPR or the Declaration) - in China (that bastion of human rights ), the 55 native ethnic minorities are not subject to the one child policy, are given extra education opportunities (lower requirements for university) and have a parliament of their own (which I've been told has almost no power).

billy the squid

Thirdfox wrote: »

Oh, as a good example of indigenous ethnic minorities being granted extra rights (though this may not be due to the ICCPR or the Declaration) - in China (that bastion of human rights ), the 55 native ethnic minorities are not subject to the one child policy, are given extra education opportunities (lower requirements for university) and have a parliament of their own (which I've been told has almost no power).

But if they were to break the law in China they would still end up in the clink like anybody else. Going by what is in this thread it seems there are those that fear that Travellers will be allowed to get away with all sorts of laws if they are given ethnic status.

javaboy

billy the squid wrote: »

But if they were to break the law in China they would still end up in the clink like anybody else.

Yes that's fine but some laws don't apply to them on the basis of their ethnicity. Or to put it another way, there are laws which only apply to regular Chinese people. I don't think that's ethical.

Going by what is in this thread it seems there are those that fear that Travellers will be allowed to get away with all sorts of laws if they are given ethnic status.

Forget about some of the more outrageous claims. Would there be any laws that don't apply to members of the travelling community if this was implemented and what would they be?

Thirdfox

javaboy wrote: »

Any idea what kind of positive rights they might get?

It would depend on how our government would ultimately react - would they go the way of the Canadians with high levels of autonomy for the Quebecois, or react like the French in relation to its native Muslim minority (apparently the largest community in Europe).

Certainly not tax benefits, but maybe something in the area of having their own laws for their people, their own education system (or maybe just an amended curriculum due to their needs)... a lot of this is down to how organised they want to be - they may not want to have their own parliament etc. but potentially they will have a right to one if ask for it. In which case they would probably have to get a budget from the Irish government to fund their programmes and projects - it boils down to them having control over the aspects of their lives (along with the financial backing of the state) instead of operating in the current system alongside everyone else.

asdasd

In what sense are Travellers a historic "ethnic" group. Generally I notice this kind of horse**** being posted by people who decry Irish people ( pretty much anyone else for that matter) as having a distinct ethnicity. it is all social construct, dont you know.

So

1) What is the original language of this ethnic group. Ethnic groups have a distinct language, and historically have had distinct laws. Irish people - Irish and Brehon law. I presume that travellers have a distinct language, law and history. what is it? Lets not get the stupid answer "cant" - which is a form of English ( unless Travellers are English planters)
2) Why is this distinct ethnic group not metioned in any history of the country by actual real historians. What are mentioned are the original Irish, Normans, Vikings and Old and New (protestant) English. When, or where, did the come from? Find a book that gives me their "separate" history. Written by historians, not sociological numpties.
3) Why, if this group, is a distinct separate group have the same surmanes as settled Irish people.


The reason to apply for "ethnic" status, is to allow the continuous whine about the wah-wah-wacism of plain people of Ireland from the old reliables - Dublin 4 and its hinterlands.

billy the squid

javaboy wrote: »

Yes that's fine but some laws don't apply to them on the basis of their ethnicity. Or to put it another way, there are laws which only apply to regular Chinese people. I don't think that's ethical.



Forget about some of the more outrageous claims. Would there be any laws that don't apply to members of the travelling community if this was implemented and what would they be?

I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head, which is why I think it is more of a symbolic goal. It would be for the Government of the day to decide whether or not they should have extra rights and entitlements.

asdasd

it boils down to them having control over the aspects of their lives (along with the financial backing of the state) instead of operating in the current system alongside everyone else.

separate but equal, jesus wept.

Thirdfox

billy the squid wrote: »

But if they were to break the law in China they would still end up in the clink like anybody else. Going by what is in this thread it seems there are those that fear that Travellers will be allowed to get away with all sorts of laws if they are given ethnic status.

That is definitely not the case - autonomy, even in Canada does not mean you get away with murder/tax evasion etc.. But certainly you have more freedoms than others though - mainly in help in preserving your culture.

One point - until very very recently - a Han Chinese (majority) in the city having more than one child in China was illegal. But in the interest of promoting ethnic diversity - the ethnic minorities were above the law in that regard.

asdasd

Well lets start by giving them equal rights, which they don't get yet, and then talk about whether additional rights are needed.

What equal rights are denied. Sounds to me like a racist libel against the Irish people. We have transfered hundreds of millions of working class taxpayers money to a lumpen proletriat group ( to quote your Master) and you have the ****ing gall to call Irish people racist. What an utter prick.

Guy:Incognito

galwayrush wrote: »

There are as many thieving scumbags in the settled community as in the travelling community.

Yet there is a huge multiple of tax paying law abiding citizens in the settled community compared to the travellers. In pure numbers there are as many but that reflects even worse on the travellers as there are so few of them.

If the boards population decided to set ourselves up as a hippy commune on some council land in the midlands and stop paying anything towards the country while sending out a thief squad to steal from others everythign we need, should we be given ethnic minority status too?

AlmightyCushion

asdasd wrote: »

What equal rights are denied. Sounds to me like a racist libel against the Irish people. We have transfered hundreds of millions of working class taxpayers money to a lumpen proletriat group ( to quote your Master) and you have the ****ing gall to call Irish people racist. What an utter prick.

Banned for abuse.

Thirdfox

billy the squid wrote: »

I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head, which is why I think it is more of a symbolic goal. It would be for the Government of the day to decide whether or not they should have extra rights and entitlements.

And in reality - I think they only thought of the symbolic goal when they decided to apply for that status. But I just came across it in the news and thought of what could potentially happen from a legal standpoint - and how that may or may not be a wise move to make.

Though I wonder what the ECHR would have to say about this if it came up - under our margin of appreciation perhaps?