Fine Gael TD threatening Travellers?

franktheplank

I generally avoid reading the Irish Times because it's a load of horse manure but my housemate gets it regularly and I find myself flicking through for the syndicated sports and world coverage.

In last Friday's edition I came across an opinion piece by Fine Gael TD Charlie Flanagan, here. Now it's mostly the usual right wing, hate filled clap trap, portraying an incredibly simplistic and hugely outdated functionalist view of society with the settled community as innocent majority and the travelling community as deviant underclass. So far, so typical but I came across this little paragraph, which stopped me in my tracks.

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The Traveller organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."

Now if anyone else said that I'd probably just dismiss it as moronic but putting it into context i can only see it as a very nasty threat. He can only be talking about the holocaust when he talks about the the lessons to be learnt from the dangers of segregation in 20th century European history. A holocaust in which between 250,000 and 1,500,000 Gypsy's perished in Nazi deathcamps.

Now I understand that the Irish travellers and European Gypsy's are distinct groups, but nonetheless they have many shared cultural attributes and to this day maintain political affiliation. At that level alone, it's hugely insensitive.

What makes it threatening is the historical links between Fine Gael and European fascism. You will find some academics who claim this link is tenuous (I'd hazard a guess where there political allegiances lie) but you can't deny the historical facts which put this association in people's minds, and thus makes a statement like this threatening. I showed it to a couple of mates and they all immediately thought that coming from a 'Blueshirt' it really is a very loathsome and sinister statement. What do you think?

*I tried posting this in AH but it got mired in unpleasant anti-traveller comments and shut down. Can we please stay on-topic here.

nuac

Is this a continuation of the campaign for separate ethnic status for travellers?

hyperborean

franktheplank wrote: »

I generally avoid reading the Irish Times because it's a load of horse manure but my housemate gets it regularly and I find myself flicking through for the syndicated sports and world coverage.

In last Friday's edition I came across an opinion piece by Fine Gael TD Charlie Flanagan, here. Now it's mostly the usual right wing, hate filled clap trap, portraying an incredibly simplistic and hugely outdated functionalist view of society with the settled community as innocent majority and the travelling community as deviant underclass. So far, so typical but I came across this little paragraph, which stopped me in my tracks.

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The Traveller organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."

Now if anyone else said that I'd probably just dismiss it as moronic but putting it into context i can only see it as a very nasty threat. He can only be talking about the holocaust when he talks about the the lessons to be learnt from the dangers of segregation in 20th century European history. A holocaust in which between 250,000 and 1,500,000 Gypsy's perished in Nazi deathcamps.

Now I understand that the Irish travellers and European Gypsy's are distinct groups, but nonetheless they have many shared cultural attributes and to this day maintain political affiliation. At that level alone, it's hugely insensitive.

What makes it threatening is the historical links between Fine Gael and European fascism. You will find some academics who claim this link is tenuous (I'd hazard a guess where there political allegiances lie) but you can't deny the historical facts which put this association in people's minds, and thus makes a statement like this threatening. I showed it to a couple of mates and they all immediately thought that coming from a 'Blueshirt' it really is a very loathsome and sinister statement. What do you think?

*I tried posting this in AH but it got mired in unpleasant anti-traveller comments and shut down. Can we please stay on-topic here.

They are not a seperate group,

Thomas_I

franktheplank wrote: »

...
"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The Traveller organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."
...
Now I understand that the Irish travellers and European Gypsy's are distinct groups, but nonetheless they have many shared cultural attributes and to this day maintain political affiliation. At that level alone, it's hugely insensitive.

What makes it threatening is the historical links between Fine Gael and European fascism. You will find some academics who claim this link is tenuous (I'd hazard a guess where there political allegiances lie) but you can't deny the historical facts which put this association in people's minds, and thus makes a statement like this threatening. I showed it to a couple of mates and they all immediately thought that coming from a 'Blueshirt' it really is a very loathsome and sinister statement. What do you think?

*I tried posting this in AH but it got mired in unpleasant anti-traveller comments and shut down. Can we please stay on-topic here.

I´ve read some similar thread on these boards a couple of weeks ago, but didn´t post for it was already like you said in your last paragraph.

I might be some ignorant on that matter, but I thought that the Irish Travellers are not quite the same like the European "Gypsies". So I don´t know much about them, just enough to do not use that name, because this alone can be offensive to them.

It´s although surprising that there might be still some attitudes from the former "Blueshirts" within FG because there wasn´t so many of them when the FG was founded, as to say that Fascism in Ireland wasn´t a mass movement at that time like in other European countries, like Italy, Germany, Spain and those "puppet-regimes" installed across Europe during WWII while the Germans were advancing and conquering.

So the statement of that FG TD leaves some room for speculation about what he meant by this in particular. At the first glace, it does lead one to perceive it as a rather sinnister remark. I think that due to Irelands history, nationalism was for decades something of a "normality" in the Irish society, shared by most of the political parties. The only one I can´t think of being linked to nationalism in Ireland is the Green Party.

antoobrien

Thomas_I wrote: »

I might be some ignorant on that matter, but I thought that the Irish Travellers are not quite the same like the European "Gypsies".

They're not, Francie Barrett (the traveller who went to the Olympics in 1996 & carried the flag into the stadium as for the opening ceremony) was part of a documentary - Blood of the Travellers - that looked into the genetic background of Irish travellers. It was found that they are not related to the European gypsies and are fairly closely related to the "settled" community.

The scientists eventually ruled out the belief that Travellers were descended from the Romany gypsies as they carry a unique DNA signature that points to deep roots in ancient Ireland.

They also found they had not originated at the time of the Famine – they could not have set up such a different DNA to the settled Irish in just five generations – and also dispelled the notion they were evicted by Cromwell and were forced onto life on the road.

The most likely hypothesis put forward is they arrived well before the time of Cromwell. Travellers were genetically isolated from the rest of the Irish population for between 1,000 and 2,000 years according to Dr Wilson.

Dannyboy83

franktheplank wrote: »

*I tried posting this in AH but it got mired in unpleasant anti-traveller comments and shut down. Can we please stay on-topic here.

Does that suggest to you that the Irish population are supportive?

When it comes to wedge issues such as abortion or gay marriage, we are told that society cannot evolve overnight, it takes time.
Why then do people feel that this issue can be rammed through - completely against the will of the electorate?

Irish travellers are genetically the same as the rest of the Irish people. They share the same religion and language as the rest of the Irish people.
The word "ethnic" has an scientific meaning. It can't simply be applied to any identifiable group of people.
By that logic, Irish rugby players would qualify more strongly than travellers.

And your bogus comparison of the horrors endured by the European Gypsies during WW2 with the experience of the Irish traveller undermines your entire argument.

Lapin

franktheplank wrote: »

I generally avoid reading the Irish Times because it's a load of horse manure.........

Difficult to take the rest of your post seriously with a opening sentence like that.

antoobrien

Lapin wrote: »

Difficult to take the rest of your post seriously with a opening sentence like that.

Not really, all Irish newspapers are a pile of horse manure. The times is just a pretentious load.

The Waltzing Consumer

franktheplank wrote: »

I generally avoid reading the Irish Times because it's a load of horse manure but my housemate gets it regularly and I find myself flicking through for the syndicated sports and world coverage.

In last Friday's edition I came across an opinion piece by Fine Gael TD Charlie Flanagan, here. Now it's mostly the usual right wing, hate filled clap trap, portraying an incredibly simplistic and hugely outdated functionalist view of society with the settled community as innocent majority and the travelling community as deviant underclass. So far, so typical but I came across this little paragraph, which stopped me in my tracks.

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The Traveller organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."

Now if anyone else said that I'd probably just dismiss it as moronic but putting it into context i can only see it as a very nasty threat. He can only be talking about the holocaust when he talks about the the lessons to be learnt from the dangers of segregation in 20th century European history. A holocaust in which between 250,000 and 1,500,000 Gypsy's perished in Nazi deathcamps.

Now I understand that the Irish travellers and European Gypsy's are distinct groups, but nonetheless they have many shared cultural attributes and to this day maintain political affiliation. At that level alone, it's hugely insensitive.

What makes it threatening is the historical links between Fine Gael and European fascism. You will find some academics who claim this link is tenuous (I'd hazard a guess where there political allegiances lie) but you can't deny the historical facts which put this association in people's minds, and thus makes a statement like this threatening. I showed it to a couple of mates and they all immediately thought that coming from a 'Blueshirt' it really is a very loathsome and sinister statement. What do you think?

*I tried posting this in AH but it got mired in unpleasant anti-traveller comments and shut down. Can we please stay on-topic here.

Are you actually saying that a FG TD is a nazi in disguise and is threatening the extermination of a group of people in this article?

The Waltzing Consumer

antoobrien wrote: »

Not really, all Irish newspapers are a pile of horse manure. The times is just a pretentious load.

I would take the Times or any Irish paper, tabloid or no, over the OPs bizarre post where he thinks Charles Flanagan views are usually hate filled and right wing and then actually argues that the article is threatening to the lives of Irish Travellers, not in a "I am offended" kind of way, but a "go to the gas chamber" kind of way.

Nodin

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Are you actually saying that a FG TD is a nazi in disguise and is threatening the extermination of a group of people in this article?

Considering that the TD in questions father was the most notorious anti-semite in the history of the dail, its not that unreasonable a notion.

The Waltzing Consumer

Nodin wrote: »

Considering that the TD in questions father was the most notorious anti-semite in the history of the dail, its not that unreasonable a notion.

Nodin, I like a lot of your comments even if I don't agree with them mostly, but you don't think it a little harsh to judge a man based on his father's opinions?

Nodin

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Nodin, I like a lot of your comments even if I don't agree with them mostly, but you don't think it a little harsh to judge a man based on his father's opinions?

...I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying that given the history and given what he's saying, its not an unreasonable idea.

The Waltzing Consumer

Nodin wrote: »

...I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying that given the history and given what he's saying, its not an unreasonable idea.

Well take read
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0201/1224329515562.html

I don't see the threat myself.

Death and Taxes

Nodin wrote: »

Considering that the TD in questions father was the most notorious anti-semite in the history of the dail, its not that unreasonable a notion.

But the TD himself is a huge supporter of Israel and has only yesterday verbally attacked Trocaire accusing them in effect of being one sided in their treatment of the Israel/Palistine conflict.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fg-chairman-clashes-with-trocaire-over-israel-3376195.html

franktheplank

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

And your bogus comparison of the horrors endured by the European Gypsies during WW2 with the experience of the Irish traveller undermines your entire argument.

I don't know where you're getting that from unless you're just trying to misrepresent my argument. I'm not comparing the two, I'm commenting on what Charlie Flanagan said:

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson"

What else is he talking about if not the Holocaust?

franktheplank

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The word "ethnic" has an scientific meaning. It can't simply be applied to any identifiable group of people.
By that logic, Irish rugby players would qualify more strongly than travellers.

Care to share this scientific meaning with us? I think you'll find it difficult.

'Race' is most commonly used to define some differing physical characteristics between peoples but even this is problematic. Firstly, at what point do you draw a distinction between one 'race' and another? It might seem straightforward but in reality there are very many people who could equally belong to one 'race' as much as another and this is not ideal for a 'scientific' classification.

Secondly, many people take umbrage at the concept of race itself. The idea being that minor physical differences are inconsequential into what is important about a person.

Which brings us to 'ethnicity', which is generally understood to relate more to a group of people's cultural identity. There are many different definitions so again I challenge you to find a 'scientific' one?

But that's getting off topic, did Charlie Flanagan make some nasty and threatening comments? If you look at what he said I think he did.

The Waltzing Consumer

franktheplank wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting that from unless you're just trying to misrepresent my argument. I'm not comparing the two, I'm commenting on what Charlie Flanagan said:

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson"

What else is he talking about if not the Holocaust?

The Bosnian war and the breakup of Yugoslavia :rolleyes:

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Considering that the TD in questions father was the most notorious anti-semite in the history of the dail, its not that unreasonable a notion.

A very broad agenda as ever.

Oliver J...43 years as a TD...topping the poll on virtually every occasion.

Phenomenonally popular with his constituents,their children,and likely as not,their grandchildren....I'm particularly taken by this piece from his Wiki entry...

He used his maiden speech in the Dáil to urge the government to "rout the Jews out of this country":

“ How is it that we do not see any of these [Emergency Powers] Acts directed against the Jews, who crucified Our Saviour nineteen hundred years ago, and who are crucifying us every day in the week? How is it that we do not see them directed against the Masonic Order? How is it that the I.R.A. is considered an illegal organisation while the Masonic Order is not considered an illegal organisation? [...] There is one thing that Germany did, and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make. Where the bees are there is the honey, and where the Jews are there is the money. ”

—Oliver Flanagan, Dáil Éireann, 9 July 1943.

Nonetheless, he was re-elected to the Dáil at the 1944 general election with more than twice as many votes as he had won the previous year.[2]

Haven't as yet came across anything like such robust speaking from Charlie as yet....;)

franktheplank

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

The Balkan Wars :rolleyes:

I think he would (should) have specified if this is what he meant.

From a comment like this any reader will immediately assume he's referring to the Holocaust. It's the first thing that will come to everybody's mind when you talk about the dangers faced by a segregated group with regard to 20th century European history.

Read the comment like this:

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The Homosexual organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."

Does it sound nasty now? Threatening?

AlekSmart

franktheplank wrote: »

I'm commenting on what Charlie Flanagan said:

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson"

What else is he talking about if not the Holocaust?

Well I suppose he could be referring to yet more of this oul violent nonsense......

http://www.herald.ie/news/family-feud-a-threat-to-fragile-traveller-peace-3376479.html

"It seems that a historic allegation of a sexual assault against a woman is at the heart of this dispute."

The new feud erupted on Friday morning when dozens of men armed with pitchforks and shovels attacked each other outside a North Dublin church.

The terrifying episode also saw the two groups get into two vans and ram them.

Before fleeing the scene, the men threw away their shovels and pitchforks in the grounds of the church.

Charlie Flanagan does'nt really have to extend himself too much at all to illustrate the concerns of his constituents,many of whom will be relieved to note that there's a "historical" context now being invoked to support the usual carry-on.

The Waltzing Consumer

franktheplank wrote: »

I think he would (should) have specified if this is what he meant.

From a comment like this any reader will immediately assume he's referring to the Holocaust. It's the first thing that will come to everybody's mind when you talk about the dangers faced by a segregated group with regard to 20th century European history.

Read the comment like this:

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The Homosexual organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."

Does it sound nasty now? Threatening?

No, because you are twisting the context. The holocaust was not caused by a group or groups looking for a separate status. The obvious reference is the horrific events in the Balkans when separate statuses were sought

franktheplank

AlekSmart wrote: »

Well I suppose he could be referring to yet more of this oul violent nonsense......

http://www.herald.ie/news/family-feud-a-threat-to-fragile-traveller-peace-3376479.html



Charlie Flanagan does'nt really have to extend himself too much at all to illustrate the concerns of his constituents,many of whom will be relieved to note that there's a "historical" context now being invoked to support the usual carry-on.

You're response seems to be a mixture of trying to avoid what he actually said and somehow justifying it.

Regardless of what you think of travellers or any other minority group, veiled threats of extermination are disgusting, and imho especially from somebody with political power.

franktheplank

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

No, because you are twisting the context. The holocaust was not caused by a group or groups looking for a separate status. The obvious reference is the horrific events in the Balkans when separate statuses were sought

I think you're deliberately avoiding what he said and I suspect you know it.

The holocaust is clearly what he was referring to here, as he does not specify, or even imply, that in the example he is giving the group sought a separate status.

AlekSmart

franktheplank wrote: »

You're response seems to be a mixture of trying to avoid what he actually said and somehow justifying it.

Regardless of what you think of travellers or any other minority group, veiled threats of extermination are disgusting, and imho especially from somebody with political power.

OK then,just to thin out the mixture a little for you.

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The Traveller organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."

I do not see Charlie Flanagans words as any form of "veiled threat of extermination" at all.

He's expressing an opinion,which I daresay,he is having put to him in his role as an elected Public Official by his constituents.

I fail to see any threat,veiled or otherwise,in the quoted statement,which,democracy being what it is,can be challenged in the courts by those who feel sufficiently aggrieved by it.

You have chosen to contextualize the the paragraph to suit your obvious distaste for Mr Flanagan and his Political Party,however as you state in your post,it's all about Politics,that's about the strength of it.

Now I understand that the Irish travellers and European Gypsy's are distinct groups, but nonetheless they have many shared cultural attributes and to this day maintain political affiliation. At that level alone, it's hugely insensitive.

By far and away,the greatest threat to Irish Travellers comes from a significant proportion of the Irish Travellers themselves,yet few debates ever get to tease this fact out,before being shunted off along this sort of siding.

Twas bad enough with one crazy suggestion about an anti-semitic father automatically begetting an equally anti-semitic son,unfortunately being skewed by the same Son turning out to be passionately pro-jewish....Oy Vey Indeed !!!

franktheplank

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The homosexual organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."

Again, would you defend that statement by skirting around the issue, blaming the target group, or claiming he's really such a nice guy.....

It's also a pretty weak defense to suggest any small, poor, generally disliked group should have to seek redress through the courts to prove a statement is hateful.

It's there in black and white but you seem keep trying to find every circumvention, if you don't see the nastiness of this statement fine. Few reasonable people would agree with you.

murphaph

franktheplank wrote: »

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The Homosexual organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."

But homosexuals don't want to be classed as a separate group! They just want equal rights with everyone else (right to marry, adopt or have kids and all that stuff). They DON'T want to be singled out for different/special treatment, nor should they be.

Travellers DO want to be singled out as a "different" ethnic group and DO want the state to provide special facilities so they may exercise their cultural "behaviour" at our expense.

I believe travellers should get NO special treatment. NO halting sites. They are Irish people with no right to special treatment.

franktheplank

murphaph wrote: »

But homosexuals don't want to be classed as a separate group! They just want equal rights with everyone else (right to marry, adopt or have kids and all that stuff). They DON'T want to be singled out for different/special treatment, nor should they be.

Travellers DO want to be singled out as a "different" ethnic group and DO want the state to provide special facilities so they may exercise their cultural "behaviour" at our expense.

I believe travellers should get NO special treatment. NO halting sites. They are Irish people with no right to special treatment.

And is ok to threaten them with sinister remarks if they don't go along with this?

The reason I changed travellers to homosexuals in the quote is that people can see just how nasty it is. If you believe travellers shouldn't get ethnic minority status thats really a seperate debate (unless you want to put it forward as justification for this kind of threat, i don't think it stands).

There ought to be no place in our society for these kind of comments. Fair enough if I heard it from the local looney down the pub i'd dismiss it as a crazy rant. But from a TD, in a position of power, it's sickening.

murphaph

franktheplank wrote: »

There ought to be no place in our society for these kind of comments. Fair enough if I heard it from the local looney down the pub i'd dismiss it as a crazy rant. But from a TD, in a position of power, it's sickening.

I think you're reading more into it than is there tbh.

Flanagan dislikes travellers probably. I do as well, as do many people who've had dealings with them (some people think they're lovely altogether, but anyway) but I don't think he was threatening them with gassing tbh.

Flanagan (IMO) was simply stating that travellers should be treated exactly the same as everyone else, something I agree with him on.

El_Duderino 09

franktheplank wrote: »

Read the comment like this:

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The Homosexual organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."

Does it sound nasty now? Threatening?

It would read as ridiculous. Gays want equal status. Travellers want unequal status.

The Dale Farm business was the travellers buying green belt land specifically for farming and not for building on. They built on it and tried to use ethnic status to be exempt from the laws which apply to everyone else. What that amounts to is one group looking for unequal treatment in their favour. That led to resentment and resentment of a minority group is dangerous as you point out in the examples of the holocaust and the Balkan war.

It could simply be that he is pointing out the fact that separating groups within a society is not a great thing to be doing as history and yourselves agree.

El_Duderino 09

franktheplank wrote: »

And is ok to threaten them with sinister remarks if they don't go along with this?

The reason I changed travellers to homosexuals in the quote is that people can see just how nasty it is. If you believe travellers shouldn't get ethnic minority status thats really a seperate debate (unless you want to put it forward as justification for this kind of threat, i don't think it stands).

There ought to be no place in our society for these kind of comments. Fair enough if I heard it from the local looney down the pub i'd dismiss it as a crazy rant. But from a TD, in a position of power, it's sickening.

I walked onto a building site one time and the foreman told me I had to wear protective helmet and high visibility vest. He told me I could get hurt and the best thing to do was wear the gear. Would you say he was making sinister threats against me?

AlekSmart

franktheplank wrote: »

"Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The homosexual organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland."

Again,would you defend that statement by skirting around the issue, blaming the target group, or claiming he's really such a nice guy.....

It's there in black and white but you seem keep trying to find every circumvention, if you don't see the nastiness of this statement fine. Few reasonable people would agree with you.

Just for clarity.

I'm not defending Charlie Flanagan's statement at all.

I don't actually believe there is anything at all in it to defend.

He has a point he feels worth making,and he's made it in public,out there for all to digest.

The statement stands on it's own merits,as Charlie Flanagan's opinion,there for you (and his constituents) to disagree with and perhaps,as a result,vote accordingly on at the next opportunity.

How in Gods name any "reasonable" person can ascribe the meaning franktheplank is so clearly taking from it,is I'm afraid way beyond my salary grade to understand.

I can,however, see some further lively discussion on franktheplank's views here...

It's also a pretty weak defense to suggest any small, poor, generally disliked group should have to seek redress through the courts to prove a statement is hateful.

Again,whats with the "defence" thing....?

The reasoning in this statement,indicates to me,a thought process somewhat more in line with Charlie Flanagans father's than anything else..?

Small,Poor and Generally Disliked Group..?

Traveller Representatives themselves say the official numbers c.30,000,are some 20% underrepresentative...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0329/breaking46.html

The poverty levels of Travellers remain a somewhat moot point as I would see similar distinctions existing between rich and poor groupings at every societal level,poverty is not the sole preserve of the Irish Traveller.

However,to use a term such as "Generally Disliked" to bolster this demonising of Charlie Flanagan is off the wall altogether.

Is there any grouping within Irish Society which is generally liked..?

Travellers,Immigrants,Nigerians,Muslims,Jews,Protestants,Westbrits,Brits,Germans,Yanks,Blondes,Gingers,Small,Tall,Fat,Skinny.CIE,ESB,Bord Na Mona ....on and on it could go...

Nobody is suggesting that any grouping should have to seek redress through the Law,however it's an avenue available to anybody (and utilised quite effectively by Travellers themsleves) who feel aggrieved by whatever "nastiness" it is that franktheplank quite clearly sees as threatening the extinction of Irish Traveller's.

I do hope this is direct enough for franktheplank.

(BTW I am NOT Charlie Flanagan,nor,come to that would I vote for him)

franktheplank

AlekSmart wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that any grouping should have to seek redress through the Law,however it's an avenue available to anybody (and utilised quite effectively by Travellers themsleves) who feel aggrieved by whatever "nastiness" it is that franktheplank quite clearly sees as threatening the extinction of Irish Traveller's.

It's still not any kind of proof that the comments themselves weren't threatening or nasty. Let's say somebody in my neighbourhood threatens me or accuses me of something nasty, there's a whole host of factors to be taken into account before I decide to resort to legal procedures.

Is the case robust (not liable to fail at a legal technicality), will I be believed/supported by the wider community, is this a priority for me right now and so on.

This is no reliable indicator of whether the original event occurred. In this case, based on my admittedly limited legal knowledge, I would imagine Flanagan has a ready made defense in saying 'i was referring to something else and I was stupid in how i presented my argument' (I will return to this point). That does not mean that a reasonable person would not know what he really meant.

franktheplank

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I walked onto a building site one time and the foreman told me I had to wear protective helmet and high visibility vest. He told me I could get hurt and the best thing to do was wear the gear. Would you say he was making sinister threats against me?

So your telling me Flanagan was acting out of a benevolant concern for travellers? Ah here, that's really stretching the limits of plausibility...

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It would read as ridiculous. Gays want equal status. Travellers want unequal status.

The Dale Farm business was the travellers buying green belt land specifically for farming and not for building on. They built on it and tried to use ethnic status to be exempt from the laws which apply to everyone else. What that amounts to is one group looking for unequal treatment in their favour. That led to resentment and resentment of a minority group is dangerous as you point out in the examples of the holocaust and the Balkan war.

It could simply be that he is pointing out the fact that separating groups within a society is not a great thing to be doing as history and yourselves agree.

This argument doesn't stand up, for him to be genuinely assessing the risks of a group seeking a separate status, he would have to have done just that: assessed the risks.

There are many groups in Europe with some from of separate legal status, where there hasn't been some horrific acts bestowed upon them. Assessing the risks would have to take this into account. This is where the defense of being a complete idiot comes into play ie that the guy just doesn't understand how to partake in a reasonable discussion.

If he were debating the wider ramification of seeking a separate status per se then it might be fair to introduce the Holocaust alongside examples where it has worked. He wasn't and he didn't.

While we're on the topic of a separate legal status, many within the disabled community would argue for some form of separate treatment for the disabled. While the 'able' population has a right to care and education in childhood, many would feel this right should be extended to those disabled who require it into adulthood. At present, it's at the behest of the HSE and individual charities. Also there has been legal reform promised for years and years to clarify how people with a diminished mental capacity are treated in the eyes of the law.

An opinion piece on these issues, wouldn't be allowed were it to include a quote in isolation like the one above. The writer quite rightly would be publicly berated. If you want to debate the merits of separate status, then do so on it's merits without these nasty threats. .

AlekSmart

franktheplank wrote: »

It's still not any kind of proof that the comments themselves weren't threatening or nasty. Let's say somebody in my neighbourhood threatens me or accuses me of something nasty, there's a whole host of factors to be taken into account before I decide to resort to legal procedures.

Is the case robust (not liable to fail at a legal technicality), will I be believed/supported by the wider community, is this a priority for me right now and so on.

This is no reliable indicator of whether the original event occurred. In this case, based on my admittedly limited legal knowledge, I would imagine Flanagan has a ready made defense in saying 'i was referring to something else and I was stupid in how i presented my argument' (I will return to this point). That does not mean that a reasonable person would not know what he really meant.

Frank,the onus is on YOU to prove that this statement was/is threatening or that it incited hatred based upon ethnic or religious beliefs.

I am quite happy that,to me,Flanagans statement represented nothing remotely resembling that.

You now appear to have leapt into Courtroom mode,with all this talk of mounting a defence and the likes.

I'm again suggesting that,on balance,most "Reasonable People" will not have taken Flanagan's comments as THREATENING in any way.

Statements can be as "nasty" as they like,but unless somebody can satisfy the proofs for them being THREATENING then away with ye...!

Dannyboy83

franktheplank wrote: »

So your telling me Flanagan was acting out of a benevolant concern for travellers? Ah here, that's really stretching the limits of plausibility...

Why does it have to be either threatening or benevolent concern?

This is daft.
You should take a step back and see this from a different perspective... you are coming as slightly deranged here.

If you buy a car and the salesman tells you it's a diesel engine, would you immediately conclude he is a shill?

Could it just be a declarative statement?

AlekSmart

I think at this stage,it's worth putting up article in it's entirety.

Remember it's an Opinion piece,rather than a Front Page Headline !

Separate status for Travellers a misguided idea

CHARLIE FLANAGAN

OPINION: The recent publication by Sinn Féin TD Pádraig Mac Lochlainn of a Private Members Bill on the issue has accelerated the campaign to recognise the Traveller community as a distinct and separate ethnic group within society.

Many threads have contributed to the rich and complex tapestry of Irishness over generations. It is always difficult when a group demands special status for itself and sets itself apart from the rest of the community.

I caution against this initiative. The ongoing campaign to give ethnic minority status to Travellers is both misguided and dangerous. Genetic studies have shown there is no basis for such a distinction. Travellers are Irish like the rest of us.

The cultural uniqueness of the Travellers is not of such a scale to justify minority status. They share the same language, religion and broad cultural inheritance of the vast majority of Irish people.

There are many other groups in Ireland who have their own cultural traditions, Gaeltacht people, farmers, Church of Ireland people, people who live in south County Dublin, Kerry people, Jewish people – the list is long. It would be ludicrous even to think in terms of designating these groups as ethnic minorities. Designating Travellers as an ethnic minority is equally ludicrous.

Designating a group within society as separate is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson. The Traveller organisations which support the granting of separate status should reflect very carefully on their arguments and on the history of Ireland.

Separate status

Far from improving the position of Travellers, separate status risks endangering and ultimately weakening their position. If any group sets itself apart from the wider community its members open themselves to a perception of not being Irish at all. That would be a dangerous stance to take. Giving separate status to Travellers would also set a precedent. We now have genuine ethnic minorities in Ireland. Are we going to give special status to Polish/Irish, Chinese/Irish, Nigerian/Irish, Lithuanian/Irish and others who some sections of the Irish commentariat like to describe as “the new Irish”. I doubt that the tens of thousands of Irish who settled in Britain in the 1950s and later would like themselves to be categorised as “the new British”.

The granting of special status to groups of differing opinion and persuasion is a recipe for fragmentation of Irish society. We live in a Republic where one of the most fundamental dispositions is that every citizen is equal before the law. Every citizen has rights and fundamental to those rights are responsibilities. That is how it should be and that is how it should remain.

Wolfe Tone

It is ironic that a Sinn Féin member of the Dáil should propose a Bill to accord special status to one particular group of Irish people. After all it was Wolfe Tone, a founding figure of Irish republicanism, who expressed the view that he wished to replace Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter with the common name of Irishman.

I fully acknowledge that the Traveller community has been disadvantaged. It is not unique. Many other groups in Ireland have also suffered disadvantage. Significant progress has been made in recent decades in improving the conditions of and opportunities for Travellers. This work must continue and the Traveller community must provide the leadership for the further advances. Specifically, the Traveller community needs to tackle the issue of rural crime, which is a particular problem in their community. The very high levels of unemployment in the Traveller community can be eased by a strong commitment to training and education. Similarly the State needs to address as a matter of urgency men’s health issues as they apply to Travellers. Local Traveller action groups active in most counties in the State and co-ordinated by Travellers themselves continue to do great work, albeit with reduced funding, improving the living conditions of Travellers.

Ireland was always a diverse society. In recent years it is becoming even more diverse. Let us celebrate that diversity. Separating us into different elements and categories would be unhelpful and regressive.

The Traveller community has always made a strong contribution to Irish society. Long may that contribution continue, as part of a whole, not separate and distinct.

In the words of the slogan – united we stand, divided we fall.

CHARLIE FLANAGAN
is a TD for Laois-Offaly and is chairman of the Fine Gael parliamentary party.

Not alone do I not see this supposed "THREATENING" attitude,but from further re-reading I would suggest that Flanagan is being as even-handed as most observers would be of the current situation.

In fact,I'm now seeing the OP's supposed concerns for the Travellers status as being more about a dislike for Fine Gael and Irish Right Wing politics in general (a dislike which,incidentally,I find little fault with either !)

El_Duderino 09

franktheplank wrote: »

So your telling me Flanagan was acting out of a benevolant concern for travellers? Ah here, that's really stretching the limits of plausibility...

No I'm not telling you that. There is not enough information to determine if that's what he means. Would you mind answering the question I asked?

franktheplank wrote: »

This argument doesn't stand up, for him to be genuinely assessing the risks of a group seeking a separate status, he would have to have done just that: assessed the risks.

There are many groups in Europe with some from of separate legal status, where there hasn't been some horrific acts bestowed upon them. Assessing the risks would have to take this into account. This is where the defense of being a complete idiot comes into play ie that the guy just doesn't understand how to partake in a reasonable discussion.

I'm not aware of the groups you're talking about with separate legal status.

Would it be fair to say that isolating yourself and creating a separate group would increase that risk of having those atrocities visited upon them? That could be an interesting discussion.

franktheplank wrote: »

If he were debating the wider ramification of seeking a separate status per se then it might be fair to introduce the Holocaust alongside examples where it has worked. He wasn't and he didn't.

Frank you're the only one talking about the holocaust. I'm not even sure he was referring to that at all.

If they set themselves up as 'Other' from the settled community then is the settled community right to see travelers as 'Other'? Meaning travelers are not a part of 'us'.

franktheplank wrote: »

While we're on the topic of a separate legal status, many within the disabled community would argue for some form of separate treatment for the disabled. While the 'able' population has a right to care and education in childhood, many would feel this right should be extended to those disabled who require it into adulthood. At present, it's at the behest of the HSE and individual charities. Also there has been legal reform promised for years and years to clarify how people with a diminished mental capacity are treated in the eyes of the law.

Now that is an interesting part of the discussion which I haven't thought about before. On what basis should travelers get different treatment like those with disabilities? I must admit I do favour added support for the disabled but I'm finding it difficult to explain why them and not another group. Maybe it's because travelers are not disabled in any way except the way they choose to behave which does not help themselves.

For example schools are set up to teach children over a number of years. The same things are not taught in each school on the same day. So if you travel and find yourself in different schools every few months where they are at different stages of the curriculum then the chances are you will miss out. So is that a disability or consequence of choices made by individuals to move as they want in accordance with their culture?

franktheplank wrote: »

An opinion piece on these issues, wouldn't be allowed were it to include a quote in isolation like the one above. The writer quite rightly would be publicly berated. If you want to debate the merits of separate status, then do so on it's merits without these nasty threats. .

You lost me here. Is this what I said or what Flanagan said? To be honest I'm with AlekSmart on this. I don't see the statement as a threat.

As a matter of interest, are you worried that Charlie might decide to exterminate the travelers himself?

In the interest of full disclosure I'm from Laois and have voted for Flanagan. Not a first preference but I gave him an aul scratch all the same.

franktheplank

AlekSmart wrote: »

In fact,I'm now seeing the OP's supposed concerns for the Travellers status as being more about a dislike for Fine Gael and Irish Right Wing politics in general (a dislike which,incidentally,I find little fault with either !)

Well, it's an opinion piece, that makes it ok? I would say the overall tone of the piece is very anti-traveller, while he does suger-coat it a bit he is clearly portraying travellers as a devient underclass.

And again, look at the quote, if you don't see it fine. I certainly do and some others here appear to agree. I have spoken to others who also clearly see what Flanagan is getting at.

As regards courtroom mode, it was you that suggested legal action as a basis for judging the statement??

Dannyboy83 - yes it is fair to offer 'safety advice', but in this context for it to be fair he would have to be looking at the implications in a fuller sense ie the pro's and con's. If I met Charlie Flanagan and told him "be careful you don't walk down any dark alleys late at night", i think it's quite clear that would be a threat.

franktheplank

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now that is an interesting part of the discussion which I haven't thought about before. On what basis should travelers get different treatment like those with disabilities? I must admit I do favour added support for the disabled but I'm finding it difficult to explain why them and not another group. Maybe it's because travelers are not disabled in any way except the way they choose to behave which does not help themselves.

For example schools are set up to teach children over a number of years. The same things are not taught in each school on the same day. So if you travel and find yourself in different schools every few months where they are at different stages of the curriculum then the chances are you will miss out. So is that a disability or consequence of choices made by individuals to move as they want in accordance with their culture?

Aside from displaying your own feeling towards traveller's and general support for Flanagan you're also ascribing an argument to me that I didn't make.

The argument i made was quite clear, that there are justifiable reasons that some groups might get special status within the eyes of the law. I never implied or even remotely suggested that traveller's should have a protected status for the same reasons the disabled might.

My point, which I made quite clearly is that a) there are reasons some groups deserve special status so this idea that everyone should be treated the same by the state as a matter of principle actually doesn't hold up and b) if you are to discuss a group receiving special status it should be done on it's merits, without sinister threats.

If a right-wing party with historical ties to fascism, was to make a statement like this about the disabled, Jews, Africans, gays there would (rightly) be uproar. Because it's traveller's people ignore it or pretend it's not there.

The Waltzing Consumer

franktheplank wrote: »

If a right-wing party with historical ties to fascism, was to make a statement like this about the disabled, Jews, Africans, gays there would (rightly) be uproar. Because it's traveller's people ignore it or pretend it's not there.

Frank, he actually references other groups in the article

"There are many other groups in Ireland who have their own cultural traditions, Gaeltacht people, farmers, Church of Ireland people, people who live in south County Dublin, Kerry people, Jewish people – the list is long."

"Giving separate status to Travellers would also set a precedent. We now have genuine ethnic minorities in Ireland. Are we going to give special status to Polish/Irish, Chinese/Irish, Nigerian/Irish, Lithuanian/Irish and others who some sections of the Irish commentariat like to describe as “the new Irish”. I doubt that the tens of thousands of Irish who settled in Britain in the 1950s and later would like themselves to be categorised as “the new British”."

I don't see any uproar, do you see uproar?

franktheplank

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Frank, he actually references other groups in the article

"There are many other groups in Ireland who have their own cultural traditions, Gaeltacht people, farmers, Church of Ireland people, people who live in south County Dublin, Kerry people, Jewish people – the list is long."

"Giving separate status to Travellers would also set a precedent. We now have genuine ethnic minorities in Ireland. Are we going to give special status to Polish/Irish, Chinese/Irish, Nigerian/Irish, Lithuanian/Irish and others who some sections of the Irish commentariat like to describe as “the new Irish”. I doubt that the tens of thousands of Irish who settled in Britain in the 1950s and later would like themselves to be categorised as “the new British”."

I don't see any uproar, do you see uproar?

Of course not, he's not threatening them?

It's quite clear he's specifically talking about travellers when he starts talking about the lessons they should learn from European history.

Were it any other minority group in this country he were threatening, I'd imagine there would be uproar.

AlekSmart

franktheplank wrote: »

Of course not, he's not threatening them?

It's quite clear he's specifically talking about travellers when he starts talking about the lessons they should learn from European history.

Were it any other minority group in this country he were threatening, I'd imagine there would be uproar.

Crikey the leaps of faith this thread is demanding are quite exhausting....

At this point it is becoming far more apparent with every post, that Franktheplank has an agenda,and has taken a somewhat wild and fanciful interpretation of Charlie Flanagans words and firmed this up into what I can only describe as something far more distasteful in an attempt to stir up some form of backlash.....right now I cannot put any better context on this somewhat incredible thread ???

Indeed,as if to confirm this,Franktheplank attempts to fatten out El_Duderino's up-front declaration of giving Charlie Flanagan a vote into some form of vote for exterminating Travellers.

Whatever El_Duderino's or my own "feelings" about Travellers are,they do not in any way prevent us from taking a rational view on the issue,one which does not take,what I see as a reasonably concise opinion piece,and turning into some form of Celtic Pogrom .....Quite bizzarre really

franktheplank

AlekSmart wrote: »

Indeed,as if to confirm this,Franktheplank attempts to fatten out El_Duderino's up-front declaration of giving Charlie Flanagan a vote into some form of vote for exterminating Travellers.

I did what now?

Is that your 'rational view'?.... Quite bizzarre really

El_Duderino 09

franktheplank wrote: »

Aside from displaying your own feeling towards traveller's and general support for Flanagan you're also ascribing an argument to me that I didn't make.

The argument i made was quite clear, that there are justifiable reasons that some groups might get special status within the eyes of the law. I never implied or even remotely suggested that traveller's should have a protected status for the same reasons the disabled might.

My point, which I made quite clearly is that a) there are reasons some groups deserve special status so this idea that everyone should be treated the same by the state as a matter of principle actually doesn't hold up and b) if you are to discuss a group receiving special status it should be done on it's merits, without sinister threats.

If a right-wing party with historical ties to fascism, was to make a statement like this about the disabled, Jews, Africans, gays there would (rightly) be uproar. Because it's traveller's people ignore it or pretend it's not there.

I didn't offer an any feelings towards travellers but you are free to infer what wasn't there. In fact it seems you are adept at doing that.

I understand the point you are making that some people should be treated differently. I also pointed out that my opinion wasn't fully formed and I thank you for bringing the example of the disabled to my attention.

The point which I was making, and you clearly missed, is that the disabled are not generally in their disadvantaged positions due to cultural or behavioural choices alone. I would also argue that you need a good reason to be treated differently. We are all different so we could all claim special status unless you need a good reason to do so.

So I agree with point A above, as I said in the last post, and I agree with with point B. I disagree with the assretion that a sinister threat was made.

If FG's association with fascism was from the post WW2 era then it would be relevant or at least interesting in this discussion.

franktheplank

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The point which I was making, and you clearly missed, is that the disabled are not generally in their disadvantaged positions due to cultural or behavioural choices alone. I would also argue that you need a good reason to be treated differently. We are all different so we could all claim special status unless you need a good reason to do so.

So I agree with point A above, as I said in the last post, and I agree with with point B. I disagree with the assretion that a sinister threat was made.

If FG's association with fascism was from the post WW2 era then it would be relevant or at least interesting in this discussion.

I appreciate what you're saying. I think you'll find that Charlie Flanagan does allow that cultural factors would be grounds for seperate legal status, just that (conveniently) no group in Ireland meets the standards he requires, which he (conveniently) doesn't enlighten us with.

Now I'm no expert myself on the specific grounds on which traveller's are seeking ethnic minority status but I would imagine (as I think most would) that much of it has do with having developed a unique set of cultural norms and values stemming from a separate nomadic lifestyle, which they have lived by for hundreds of years.

That Flanagan ignores this obvious argument, by defining culture as encompassing religion, language and a vague, wishy-washy 'broad cultural heritage', leads me to deduce he is deliberately avoiding the issue to compensate for a lack of faith in his own reasoning. As such, I think his argument is poor.

Fine, I have no problem with that. In fact I have no problem with him make a strong argument either, so long as he does so within the confines of what is fair and reasonable in a civilized society, ie without veiled threats of violence.

I'm gonna take it at face value that you don't see this threat. I thought it came across pretty clearly when I replace the word 'traveller' with 'homosexual' and 'disabled' in his statement, still nothing?

Ok, let's try turning the tables. Let's imagine Flanagan is at a constituency meeting and a handful of locals show up. Midway through a huge throb of travellers arrive with me as their leader. I'm a big strong tough looking guy (we're still pretending) and we debate separate ethnic status for travellers. The meetings getting a bit heated and there's a degree of animosity in the room.

At this point I learn of a threat from a minority of extremists within my group that they're gonna show up at Flanagan's house and hurt him if they don't concede to what we want. Now clearly if I say 'There's people here who know where you live and will hurt you if you don't meet our demands' that will be perceived as a threat. To genuinely and sincerely inform him of the threat I would have to explain in full what is happening and given the power dynamics of the room at the time, assure him that I am not threatening him.

Were I not to do this there would be outrage. The countries papers both honest and unscrupulous rags (ie the Irish Times) would be plastered with pictures of my face and headlines 'Traveller thug threatens TD'.

Please don't tell me now that you don't see the threat. How many people would be rushing to my defense and claiming the nations media had taken a "wild and fanciful interpretation of FrankthePlanks words"?

AlekSmart

franktheplank wrote: »

I appreciate what you're saying. I think you'll find that Charlie Flanagan does allow that cultural factors would be grounds for seperate legal status, just that (conveniently) no group in Ireland meets the standards he requires, which he (conveniently) doesn't enlighten us with.

Now I'm no expert myself on the specific grounds on which traveller's are seeking ethnic minority status but I would imagine (as I think most would) that much of it has do with having developed a unique set of cultural norms and values stemming from a separate nomadic lifestyle, which they have lived by for hundreds of years.

That Flanagan ignores this obvious argument, by defining culture as encompassing religion, language and a vague, wishy-washy 'broad cultural heritage', leads me to deduce he is deliberately avoiding the issue to compensate for a lack of faith in his own reasoning. As such, I think his argument is poor.

Fine, I have no problem with that. In fact I have no problem with him make a strong argument either, so long as he does so within the confines of what is fair and reasonable in a civilized society, ie without veiled threats of violence.

I'm gonna take it at face value that you don't see this threat. I thought it came across pretty clearly when I replace the word 'traveller' with 'homosexual' and 'disabled' in his statement, still nothing?

Ok, let's try turning the tables. Let's imagine Flanagan is at a constituency meeting and a handful of locals show up. Midway through a huge throb of travellers arrive with me as their leader. I'm a big strong tough looking guy (we're still pretending) and we debate separate ethnic status for travellers. The meetings getting a bit heated and there's a degree of animosity in the room.

At this point I learn of a threat from a minority of extremists within my group that they're gonna show up at Flanagan's house and hurt him if they don't concede to what we want. Now clearly if I say 'There's people here who know where you live and will hurt you if you don't meet our demands' that will be perceived as a threat. To genuinely and sincerely inform him of the threat I would have to explain in full what is happening and given the power dynamics of the room at the time, assure him that I am not threatening him.

Were I not to do this there would be outrage. The countries papers both honest and unscrupulous rags (ie the Irish Times) would be plastered with pictures of my face and headlines 'Traveller thug threatens TD'.

Please don't tell me now that you don't see the threat. How many people would be rushing to my defense and claiming the nations media had taken a "wild and fanciful interpretation of FrankthePlanks words"?

Well,franktheplank,speaking only for myself,I shall tell you now,even after reading and attempting to rationalize your "Constituency Meeting" scenario....

I DO NOT SEE ANY THREAT,IMPLIED,VEILED,OR OTHERWISE IN CHARLIE FLANAGANS WORDS.

Death and Taxes

What can I say?
I am in total agreement wit Alek, there is no threat either implied nor explicit in the piece quoted.
Seems to me the OP has issues with Charlie Flannagan and is twisting this opinion piece to further it.

AlekSmart

WileyCoyote wrote: »

What can I say?
I am in total agreement wit Alek, there is no threat either implied nor explicit in the piece quoted.
Seems to me the OP has issues with Charlie Flannagan and is twisting this opinion piece to further it.

These "Issues",which I'm sure,are of importance to franktheplank,have taken from what is a worthwhile exchange of views on Charlie Flanagans position and the reasons for his article.

My personal view is that Flanagan engages with the issue in an unusually frank (sorry ) manner,for an Irish public representitive.

The article is actually worth reading a couple of times for itself,however even after this,I continue to disagree with the OP's interpretation.

El_Duderino 09

I've read the piece again to see if was I ignoring the threats Frank sees. To be honest when I read it yesterday I focused on the bit Frank highlighted. Reading it this time I really think it's totally ridiculous to pick that one bit out.

The piece focused on how there are people in the country with cultural differences and what needs to happen is a broadening of the meaning of 'Irish' rather than close the book on what is 'Irish' and class everyone else as Gaeltacht-Irish or Farmer-Irish Polish-Irish etc. He talks about how government needs to work with the traveller community and they need to work with government to continue to overcome any disadvantages they experience and open further opportunities like the example of commitment to further education.

The line Frank is focusing on is simply saying that separating themselves leaves them isolated and alone in contrast to the strengthening of Irish identity by including the recent additions to the country like the Pols. Flanagan is opposed to setting Travellers or Pols up as (not really)-Irish.

Frank seems to be only one who thinks Flanagan was referring to the holocaust. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where embracing people with cultural distinctions is more advantageous to more people than leaving them go it alone.

franktheplank

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Seems to me the OP has issues with Charlie Flannagan and is twisting this opinion piece to further it.

Until I read this piece I wasn't familiar with Charlie Flanagan, the name was vaguely familiar when I read it but other than that nothing.

AlekSmart is right however to point out that I do have an agenda and am not a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of traveller issues(although I consider myself supportive). My agenda is that I do not like to see veiled threats at minority groups in our national press, especially coming from somebody in a position of power.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Well,franktheplank,speaking only for myself,I shall tell you now,even after reading and attempting to rationalize your "Constituency Meeting" scenario....

I DO NOT SEE ANY THREAT,IMPLIED,VEILED,OR OTHERWISE IN CHARLIE FLANAGANS WORDS.

No need to shout. Do you see the threat in the example I gave when the roles are reversed, my "Constituency Meeting" scenario?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Frank seems to be only one who thinks Flanagan was referring to the holocaust. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where embracing people with cultural distinctions is more advantageous to more people than leaving them go it alone.

I hate to break it to you folk but I'm definitely not the only one who sees the holocaust connection.

In today's Times (spit) there's a follow up piece, here where Brigid Quilligan of the Irish Traveller Movement sees the same connection. While she stops short of calling it a threat she does say:

"The TD states “designating a group within society is also dangerous. If European history of the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that lesson.” Conversely, denying Roma and Traveller ethnicity anywhere across Europe is problematic as it resonates with the legacy of the “Gypsy Genocide” (the Porrajmos). Unesco estimates 500,000 Roma and Travellers died in the Holocaust. Roma and Traveller people were subjected to genocide denial until 1982 as the German government, like the Irish Government today, refused to recognise their ethnicity."

It's an interesting article and for me it would suggest that the Irish state will have little choice but to grant ethnic status to travellers. According to Quilligan, the burden of proof is upon the state to show that a group does not have a separate identity.

I think the Irish state would find this difficult. If my history serves me correctly we have published reports going back to the 1950's on the need to integrate the 'itinerant' community to a settled life.