Irish travellers a separate ethnic group

KingBrian2

A while back I was watching Oireachtas tv and they were talking about granting the travelling community as being a distinct ethnic group in Ireland. Now I know what you're all thinking what is someone in their late 20's watching the Oireachtas for but what ya know I find it interesting anyhow does anyone know whether or not anything came of that, in light of the terrible tragedy in Carrickmines and reactions I was unsure as to how far the campaigners got in the way of rights for that community.

punisher5112

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A while back I was watching Oireachtas tv and they were talking about granting the travelling community as being a distinct ethnic group in Ireland. Now I know what you're all thinking what is someone in their late 20's watching the Oireachtas for but what ya know I find it interesting anyhow does anyone know whether or not anything came of that, in light of the terrible tragedy in Carrickmines and reactions I was unsure as to how far the campaigners got in the way of rights for that community.

They have overwhelming rights.

No needs to be worried.

What came of what you saw is a huge investigation into all halting sites that will be taking place.

jank

Sinn Fein have been calling for this for a while.

Personally I find the idea absurd as if we can bestow more human rights on some people then others. Everyone has the same innate rights, no more no less. As soon as you crave out separate groups and give them extra special rights what you are actually doing is taking rights from another group.

sonny.knowles

Rights are all very well, but what about responsibilities?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Sinn Fein have been calling for this for a while.

Personally I find the idea absurd as if we can bestow more human rights on some people then others. Everyone has the same innate rights, no more no less. As soon as you crave out separate groups and give them extra special rights what you are actually doing is taking rights from another group.

How, might ask, does that work?

Eric Cartman

At the moment it seems like the travelling community have diplomatic immunity due to organisations lobbying on their behalf, declaring them an ethnic minority would just solidify this so must not go ahead.

Lockstep

Nodin wrote: »

How, might ask, does that work?

Indeed. Rights aren't a zero sum game.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

How, might ask, does that work?

Lockstep wrote: »

Indeed. Rights aren't a zero sum game.

Take for example the right to housing. It should not matter what your ethnic background is. Your right to social housing should be blind to that fact and based on per need basis.

As per the zero sum game, well we have some innate rights which are quite basic and true for all. But today everyone has these extra special rights with sparkles and glitter, right to free clean water that someone else pays for, right to not be offended and a right to safe spaces and all that, which actually then takes away the innate right to free speech.
Again, we should go back to the classic liberal position, not the modern progressive form of 'liberal'

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Again, we should go back to the classic liberal position, not the modern progressive form of 'liberal'

I would say that liberalism has been largely supplanted by social justice. Social justice seems to be about privilege as opposed to genuine equality. Your rights should be determined by the fact that you're human, not under which category you fall.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Take for example the right to housing. It should not matter what your ethnic background is. Your right to social housing should be blind to that fact and based on per need basis.

............

You stated that "As soon as you crave out separate groups and give them extra special rights what you are actually doing is taking rights from another group." - could you give an example of that with regard to social housing?

Padraig Mor

Nodin wrote: »

You stated that "As soon as you crave out separate groups and give them extra special rights what you are actually doing is taking rights from another group." - could you give an example of that with regard to social housing?

Don't have the exact figures to hand, but in the wake of the Carrickmines fire I recall seeing that halting sites use about twice as much ground per family in order to accommodate a caravan as well as a house, i.e. if it was 'normal' social housing, twice as many families would be housed in the same space but because Travellers are 'special', they get extra space. And this is besides the extreme cost of constructing 'Traveller appropriate' housing; due to the likelihood of it being damaged / destroyed, it is constructed with extra reinforcement, higher grade materials etc - naturally reducing the money available to spend on those less likely to trash their free / cheap gaff.

swarlb

Putting the tragedy aside for a minute... not to lessen it or anything, it was and is a horrible thing for anyone to have to deal with.
What constitutes an 'ethnic' group...
My grandmothers maiden name was Connors... Could I claim to be one of them on the basis that it's a popular name amongst Travellers.
Does on ethnic group have to have it's own language and cultural heritage ?
What exactly is a 'cultural heritage', and how do you quantify it ? If the Travellers are an 'ethnic' minority, what exactly is it about them that's sets them aside from the rest of us (whoever the 'rest of us are').
I was listening recently to that actor from Love /Hate on the radio recently, and he said that if he made it big in Hollywood, he'd buy a big plot of land, and plonk a few mobile home on it, rather than live in a 'house'. I remember years ago (I'm old) seeing Traveller families with old horse drawn coaches up and around the Ranch area of Ballyfermot. They would call to our house looking to do odd jobs in return for money or handouts. My mother would always give them something. To her, they were 'tinkers' or potmakers... has that culture died to be replaced with tarmac laying, or carpet selling ??
That actor on the radio interview, was calling for schools to teach Traveller Culture.... fair enough, but what would you teach ? Is a man who calls to the door selling carpet a travelling sales man, or a 'Traveller'.
Further on from that... what exactly is 'Irish Culture' ? A love for the GAA perhaps, or the ability to speak Irish, or be good at boxing ? A simple trawl through recent sports results would suggest that the Irish are steeped in a history of boxing, or golf or even cricket...

Nodin

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Don't have the exact figures to hand, but in the wake of the Carrickmines fire I recall seeing that halting sites use about twice as much ground per family in order to accommodate a caravan as well as a house, i.e. if it was 'normal' social housing, twice as many families would be housed in the same space but because Travellers are 'special', they get extra space. And this is besides the extreme cost of constructing 'Traveller appropriate' housing; due to the likelihood of it being damaged / destroyed, it is constructed with extra reinforcement, higher grade materials etc - naturally reducing the money available to spend on those less likely to trash their free / cheap gaff.

Taking the above as true (and I've no reason to doubt it), I still don't see how that "is taking rights from another group" though. Given the small number of travellers in the state and the fact they don't all live on halting sites, it's not going to be a massive drain on the resources either.

KingBrian2

My understanding of the travelling community is that they live apart from settled society have their own norms, go about their own family and business life. They have no need for our rules nor do they abide by them because well they are our rules. So they certainly come across as a ethnic group in of themselves in my mind. That's not to say we don't share a lot in common. Most of them are Catholic, they make use of the schools, Gardaí and Hospital service and we ourselves have those within society that are capable of excess like the drinkers but other than that they appreciate moving around and their behaviour is too dissimilar to a city or town.

jackofalltrades

I'd be against the move to classify Travellers as a separate ethnic group for two reasons.

1) I don't think their culture is distinct enough from settled people.
The main aspect of this, travelling, looks like it's on the decline and is only practised by a small minority.

2) I'd think they use it as a stick to beat the rest of society with.
Any law that was seen as attacking traveller culture would be instantly branded as racist, it would shut down all discussion.
And drive a deeper wedge between the settled and traveller communities.
New laws could be objected to on cultural grounds.
New rights could be sought, along with the potential expenditure that could go with these new rights.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

You stated that "As soon as you crave out separate groups and give them extra special rights what you are actually doing is taking rights from another group." - could you give an example of that with regard to social housing?

Well take for example the debacle in regards the Carrickmines Family.
Why not house them like everyone else in the state?

Edit, point used above.

KingBrian2

jank wrote: »

Well take for example the debacle in regards the Carrickmines Family.
Why not house them like everyone else in the state?

Edit, point used above.

I would have to say they don't want to assimilate into settled society. We would in effect be forcing them to integrate instead of allowing them to pursue their own livelihoods. Looking elsewhere in the world the lack of rights for minority backgrounds in one of the reasons for a lot of the problems those societies have such as Australia with the Aborigines, US with the Native Americans, Spain with the Catalonians, Turkey and Syria with the Kurds and Israel with the Arabs. In all these instances granting rights to ethnic groups would have a beneficial outcome on resolving the tensions endemic in these countries.

jank

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I would have to say they don't want to assimilate into settled society. We would in effect be forcing them to integrate instead of allowing them to pursue their own livelihoods. Looking elsewhere in the world the lack of rights for minority backgrounds in one of the reasons for a lot of the problems those societies have such as Australia with the Aborigines, US with the Native Americans, Spain with the Catalonians, Turkey and Syria with the Kurds and Israel with the Arabs. In all these instances granting rights to ethnic groups would have a beneficial outcome on resolving the tensions endemic in these countries.

Taking one point in bold. I would never want to force anyone against their free will to live a certain life once of course it does no harm to others. Travelers should be free to live out their ways in whatever means they see fit once they do no harm to other communities or people. The trouble comes when this lifestyle is economically unsustainable and requires state support and subsidies.

If a group be it travelers or the Amish community or a hippy commune or a Jewish Kibbutz want to voluntarily extract themselves from mainstream society, it is their right to do so. However, these communities should then be relatively self sufficient in that way of life. One cannot have it both ways. Want all what mainstream western society has to offer while also perusing a vastly different way of life. It just does not work like that.

It is not therefore the right of travelers to expect the Irish tax payer to pay for that way of life in my opinion. A way of life where life expectancy and educational standards are way below the average, never mind the statistics to do with criminality. They can do what they want imo, so long as laws are aided by and they get funds that everyone in Ireland is entitled to, no more not less.

You also mentioned many other things in your post which are all very very different in each instance. Take for example the Aboriginal issue in Australia. Very complicated and not at all comparable with Irish Travelers. Again, though cutting through it all there has to be comprise. If Aboriginals want to pursue their way of life before the first fleet arrived then I would never ever stop that, it is their right to what they wish. However, on the same hand many want western style medical facilities and educational options. Very hard to deliver this in huge areas of the outback when even getting clean water and electricity costs so much. Very hard to merge a essentially from a anthropological point of view a nomadic neolithic way of life to a 21st century western one. Many do very very well, some of the kids and schools outscore the Europeans/white kids. But they are too few. Its a hugely complex issue that will take a few hundred years to solve imo.

I can't talk from 20 or 30 years ago but I am not sure if there are the huge tensions of old between main-stream Australians and the aboriginal community (agitators like John Pilgar aside). A few reasons probably. Australia is changing from a demographic point of view. Asian migration is beginning to-over take European. 1 in four Australian was born abroad. 1 in two has at least one parent that was born abroad. The face of Australians are changing. Aboriginals are outnumbered by the number of Chinese, Vietnamese, Indians and so on that live here. Generally everyone gets along. Australia is not some racist hell hole that many like to proclaim from their high horses. The proof is in the number of people wanting to come here.
Aboriginals do get huge help now from state governments. Housing subsides, free education, extra welfare payments and all that. Everyone more or less understands why this is, in some way to repent for the sins of the past and bring up their quality of life. However, sometimes there is tensions about this. Some people especially those that are from poorer backgrounds will resent that an aboriginal next door will get a top up on their welfare that they do not get, all because of the color of their skin (reverse racism is still technically racism). It is a delicate balancing act between trying to help to taking the piss, which can cause tensions in society.

Going full circle, I could see this happening here in Ireland. How many Irish people would support an exclusive dole top up for ethnic travelers for example? Not many i'd say. However, it may lead to some people putting their hand up and declaring that they are ethnic travelers to avail of these nice extras. Many examples of such here in Australia where 100% white people who declare themselves as 1/8 aboriginal get these extra hand outs, which as I said takes the piss. The argument then is that being an aboriginal is not about skin color but state of mind and heritage. Gets quite confusing to follow tbh.

bigroad

It would not happen in any other country.
I will say I am sick of all his babying around these people.
Its time for change ,if they don't like it good luck reduced social welfare.
Get a job or bugger off.
They have plenty of work while claming the dole.
Lets get CAB on the job to get some tax for us ,god knows we gave them enough.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Well take for example the debacle in regards the Carrickmines Family.
Why not house them like everyone else in the state?

Edit, point used above.

Because they are deemed to have different needs. How does this feed into "As soon as you crave out separate groups and give them extra special rights what you are actually doing is taking rights from another group"? I would have though, seeing as you raised the issue, to be bombarded with a range of examples by now, seeing as there is more than one "separate group" in the state.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Because they are deemed to have different needs. .

Deemed by whom? There in lies the issue. Every individual and family has a different need, so not sure why the state or local authority in question should treat everyone but travelers the same yet travelers have unique needs which then should be catered for.

There are finite financial resources so if one is catering more for one group then that is taking away in practice someone else right to shelter.

Annasopra

jank wrote: »

Sinn Fein have been calling for this for a while.

Personally I find the idea absurd as if we can bestow more human rights on some people then others. Everyone has the same innate rights, no more no less. As soon as you crave out separate groups and give them extra special rights what you are actually doing is taking rights from another group.

What human rights are taken away?

xlogo

They don't actually travel much do they?

ancapailldorcha

bigroad wrote: »

It would not happen in any other country.
I will say I am sick of all his babying around these people.
Its time for change ,if they don't like it good luck reduced social welfare.
Get a job or bugger off.
They have plenty of work while claming the dole.
Lets get CAB on the job to get some tax for us ,god knows we gave them enough.

Please read the charter before posting again. There is an expected standard of posting that contributors are expected to conform to.

I'm going to allow this thread a fair shot. However, it is not going to be a place for traveller bashing.

SterlingArcher

Did I miss a history lesson or two..did we invade this island and wipe out the native travellers. :O

Lockstep

jank wrote: »

Taking one point in bold. I would never want to force anyone against their free will to live a certain life once of course it does no harm to others. Travelers should be free to live out their ways in whatever means they see fit once they do no harm to other communities or people. The trouble comes when this lifestyle is economically unsustainable and requires state support and subsidies.

[...]

Going full circle, I could see this happening here in Ireland. How many Irish people would support an exclusive dole top up for ethnic travelers for example? Not many i'd say. However, it may lead to some people putting their hand up and declaring that they are ethnic travelers to avail of these nice extras. Many examples of such here in Australia where 100% white people who declare themselves as 1/8 aboriginal get these extra hand outs, which as I said takes the piss. The argument then is that being an aboriginal is not about skin color but state of mind and heritage. Gets quite confusing to follow tbh.

jank wrote: »

Take for example the right to housing. It should not matter what your ethnic background is. Your right to social housing should be blind to that fact and based on per need basis.

As per the zero sum game, well we have some innate rights which are quite basic and true for all. But today everyone has these extra special rights with sparkles and glitter, right to free clean water that someone else pays for, right to not be offended and a right to safe spaces and all that, which actually then takes away the innate right to free speech.
Again, we should go back to the classic liberal position, not the modern progressive form of 'liberal'

To be fair, the Irish legal system has always been extremely reluctant to get involved in telling the state how to distribute resources, so granting ethnic status to travellers is unlikely to result in what you're predicting. in the O'Reilly v Limerick case, the Supreme Court denied that Limerick Corporation had an obligation to provide services for a Traveller halting site on the basis that this is an issue for the legislature, not the judiciary.
Likewise, in the Sinnott case, the Supreme Court denied that the state had an obligation to provide lifelong primary education for an autistic adult.

I'm no expert on Australian law but in Ireland (which is what we're discussing for travellers), human rights impose far less positive state obligations than you seem to think.
Like I said, human rights aren't a zero sum game. At least, not in the Irish context.

Likewise, the right to water does not require it to be free and those able to pay for it can be required to pay for it.
Completely with you on the idea of "safe spaces" though. Luckily, they don't seem to have any basis in Irish law. There is a trend to conjure up new rights across the world (The right to internet for example) but these aren't be implemented by the Irish judicial system. The Supreme Court has found rights that aren't expressly enumerated in the Constitution (like the right to privacy) but these are applied very sparingly.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Deemed by whom? There in lies the issue. Every individual and family has a different need, so not sure why the state or local authority in question should treat everyone but travelers the same yet travelers have unique needs which then should be catered for.

There are finite financial resources so if one is catering more for one group then that is taking away in practice someone else right to shelter.

I think we're going down a rabbit hole here. Following the above we'd deny the physically disabled aid.

Bringing in "resources" is a goalpost shift from rights, which was the matter you originally referred to. You have yet to address the question posed.

Akrasia

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I would say that liberalism has been largely supplanted by social justice. Social justice seems to be about privilege as opposed to genuine equality. Your rights should be determined by the fact that you're human, not under which category you fall.

I am so sick of this speciesist attitude around here.

demfad

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Don't have the exact figures to hand, but in the wake of the Carrickmines fire I recall seeing that halting sites use about twice as much ground per family in order to accommodate a caravan as well as a house, i.e. if it was 'normal' social housing, twice as many families would be housed in the same space but because Travellers are 'special', they get extra space. And this is besides the extreme cost of constructing 'Traveller appropriate' housing; due to the likelihood of it being damaged / destroyed, it is constructed with extra reinforcement, higher grade materials etc - naturally reducing the money available to spend on those less likely to trash their free / cheap gaff.

1.The Carrickmines traveller family were denied their original temporary site more or less because local settled people didn't want to live beside travellers. Is this the special treatment you mean?

2.The Carrickmines family actually ended up being accommodated in a car park beside a dump. Is that because they are special too?


Before you issue the standard reply that they bring it on themselves, please swap 'black' with 'traveller' and see if you would still issue that reply. Just because you believe your racist comments to be correct doesnt make them any less racist.

Now, I have no substantiation for this but I'm fairly certain its true.
Every traveller child at some point at a young age will approach a parent and ask: Why are they calling me k nacker? Why are they calling me gypo?
Is this the special treatment you mean?

El_Duderino 09

Giving the travellers ethnic status is an acceptance of the idea that they are unable to compete with the rest of us in the real world. That they need a leg up now and for ever more. That they don't have what it takes to put their chosen disadvantages behind them and get on an even keel with the literate majority. Certain disadvantages are brought on by their chosen lifestyle such as not staying in school and choosing not to engage in conventions like getting third level education.

Declaring them an ethnic group based on the fact that they don't do as well as the average citizen is racist and should not be supported.

demfad

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Giving the travellers ethnic status is an acceptance of the idea that they are unable to compete with the rest of us in the real world. That they need a leg up now and for ever more. That they don't have what it takes to put their chosen disadvantages behind them and get on an even keel with the literate majority. Certain disadvantages are brought on by their chosen lifestyle such as not staying in school and choosing not to engage in conventions like getting third level education.

Declaring them an ethnic group based on the fact that they don't do as well as the average citizen is racist and should not be supported.

Travellers meet all the current international definitions of ethnicity: they have a shared history, culture and traditions, including a nomadic way of life.
Ethnic minority status (like in Britian and NI) acknowledges this and is in no way racist.

Acknowledging that they are different to the majority does not imply that they are inferior as you seem to believe.

El_Duderino 09

demfad wrote:

Travellers meet all the current international definitions of ethnicity: they have a shared history, culture and traditions, including a nomadic way of life. Ethnic minority status (like in Britian and NI) acknowledges this and is in no way racist.

Maybe you're right.

demfad wrote:

Acknowledging that they are different to the majority does not imply that they are inferior as you seem to believe.

Declaring them a different ethnicity would be an acceptance that they can't compete with the rest of the country though. It would mark them out as different type of people who should be held to different standards. It would be an excuse for their different outcomes in life and would ingrain their status as another kind of people. 'It's not that X% of them are illiterate, they are following their heritage by travelling around and not going to school'. It would mean they would be stuck in the 19th century and would be ethnically bound to remain in a poverty trap instead of doing something to improve their situation. Poverty and illiteracy would move from being a terrible situation in need of a solution, to being an inherited characteristic of their ethnicity.

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Giving the travellers ethnic status is an acceptance of the idea that they are unable to compete with the rest of us in the real world. That they need a leg up now and for ever more. That they don't have what it takes to put their chosen disadvantages behind them and get on an even keel with the literate majority. Certain disadvantages are brought on by their chosen lifestyle such as not staying in school and choosing not to engage in conventions like getting third level education.

Declaring them an ethnic group based on the fact that they don't do as well as the average citizen is racist and should not be supported.

We already have various ethnic groups in Ireland. They come from all over the world. The Muslims practice their own beliefs. The Indians and Chinese have their own customs. Different peoples from Africa, Russians and Polynesians. They are all from different ethnic backgrounds and are treated the same.

By forcing all these groups under a multicultural system rather than bridging diverse communities together your pushing them away. Irish travellers apply the same way just like all those other ethnic groups they differ from settled life, it is only good then to demonstrate we appreciate their community by granting them recognition of their ethnicity.

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

I think we're going down a rabbit hole here. Following the above we'd deny the physically disabled aid.

That said though accommodation for the physically disabled is made with the intention of giving them the ability to live in their own house.
They have a definite need for this.
Do travellers have a definite need to have space beside their houses to carry out their business and for the state to provide this?
How come they are entitled to special emergency accommodation?

demfad wrote: »

1.The Carrickmines traveller family were denied their original temporary site more or less because local settled people didn't want to live beside travellers. Is this the special treatment you mean?

That's not being accurate.
The residents of Rockville Drive had been living beside these travellers for years.
Their objection was based on actual experience rather than prejudice.
That and they also had serious concerns about the suitability of the site and how temporary it would be.

2.The Carrickmines family actually ended up being accommodated in a car park beside a dump. Is that because they are special too?

So they are being provided with traveller specific emergency accommodation.
Where as someone in the settled community would be housed in a Hotel or a Hostel.
So they have a choice then which settled people wouldn't have.

Before you issue the standard reply that they bring it on themselves, please swap 'black' with 'traveller' and see if you would still issue that reply.
Just because you believe your racist comments to be correct doesn't make them any less racist.

Why are you replacing a racial group with a cultural one.
Do black people assert that the share the same culture, as travellers do?

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

We already have various ethnic groups in Ireland. They come from all over the world. The Muslims practice their own beliefs. The Indians and Chinese have their own customs. Different peoples from Africa, Russians and Polynesians. They are all from different ethnic backgrounds and are treated the same.

You're right there. You're probably right that they technically qualify.

KingBrian2 wrote:

By forcing all these groups under a multicultural system rather than bridging diverse communities together your pushing them away. Irish travellers apply the same way just like all those other ethnic groups they differ from settled life, it is only good then to demonstrate we appreciate their community by granting them recognition of their ethnicity.

I suppose my aversion to it is about some the characteristics of their culture.

Their culture dictates certain behaviours which mean that they can't get seriously involved in education because they tend to move around. It would take serious commitment to education and engagement with the education system to get a good education if you live a nomadic lifestyle. I don't think their culture holds formal edication in high regard in the same way that they don't tend to engage with the rest of society.

They appear to be happy to avoid formal rducation. Less well educated people tend to be; poorer, more unhealthy, more likely to be unemployed, more likely to be involved in petty crime, less likely to vote or be involved politically, live as a dependant of the state, die younger and have more social problems.

Celebrating a culture which leads to these outcomes is a bad idea in my opinion. It's signing their death warrant as a functioning culture and making them protected species in something like a panda breed programme.

Maybe it's not our job to help them. Maybe it's just our job to provide all the services we can to them and allow them to push themselves further out of education and into perpetual poverty

Dubl07

demfad wrote: »

1.The Carrickmines traveller family were denied their original temporary site more or less because local settled people didn't want to live beside travellers. Is this the special treatment you mean?

Part of the site was damaged. Most of the damage was outside the perimeter of the originally authorised site and no information has been forthcoming as to whether the prefab which was the source of the blaze was authorised.

The undamaged dwellings on the site should still be habitable. I won't seek emergency accommodation if my neighbour has a fire.

2.The Carrickmines family actually ended up being accommodated in a car park beside a dump. Is that because they are special too?

The Rockville residents have experience of living close to the people concerned. They feel that their responsibilities as citizens of the borough are outweighed by their concerns for their own children, lives and property. They have rights to peaceful enjoyment of their property.

Before you issue the standard reply that they bring it on themselves, please swap 'black' with 'traveller' and see if you would still issue that reply. Just because you believe your racist comments to be correct doesnt make them any less racist.

Every group of itinerants will develop a reputation over the years. None of the local halting sites opened their arms to these families.

Now, I have no substantiation for this but I'm fairly certain its true.
Every traveller child at some point at a young age will approach a parent and ask: Why are they calling me k nacker? Why are they calling me gypo?
Is this the special treatment you mean?

A child is innocent, but do you suggest society removes innocents from their parents and raises them to become model citizens? I doubt that would be acceptable. When we fund and permit the current ex-tinsmith, ex-itinerant, dole-claiming, anti-education, misogynistic lifestyle of the community who term themselves travellers, we doom many of them to a sad and sorry life. We doom their women, their children, their dogs and their horses.

JacquesSon

Every ethnic minority could exist independently and build a self sustaining society without the others except Gypsys/Travellers.

Traveller culture is anti-social and should not be subsidised.

KingBrian2

JacquesSon wrote: »

Every ethnic minority could exist independently and build a self sustaining society without the others except Gypsys/Travellers.

Traveller culture is anti-social and should not be subsidised.

Hold on just to be clear do you feel other ethnic groups can coexist in society as separate ethnic groups like the Nigerian ethnic groups or the various Polynesians or the Kurds or the various other groups that practise their beliefs and all that but that the Irish traveller community is not comparable to all those ethnic groups.

JacquesSon

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Hold on just to be clear do you feel other ethnic groups can coexist in society as separate ethnic groups like the Nigerian ethnic groups or the various Polynesians or the Kurds or the various other groups that practise their beliefs and all that but that the Irish traveller community is not comparable to all those ethnic groups.

Just to be clear:

You have no concept of cultural or ethnic integration.

One Russia policy.

Padraig Mor

demfad wrote: »

1.The Carrickmines traveller family were denied their original temporary site more or less because local settled people didn't want to live beside travellers. Is this the special treatment you mean?

2.The Carrickmines family actually ended up being accommodated in a car park beside a dump. Is that because they are special too?


Before you issue the standard reply that they bring it on themselves, please swap 'black' with 'traveller' and see if you would still issue that reply. Just because you believe your racist comments to be correct doesnt make them any less racist.

I answered a question with two facts - 1. Traveller families get more space per family on halting sites than social housing generally - fact. 2. Halting sites need to be (expensively) constructed utilising reinforcement due to the likelihood of the Travellers destroying it - fact.

That you instantly descend to accusations of racism in response to FACTS just underlines how little you and your ilk have to contribute. Unsurprisingly given Boards' apparently official strong pro Traveller stance, your comments have been allowed to remain despite violating the charter. Quelle surprise.....

I have no substantiation for this but I'm fairly certain its true.

LOL. Great evidence there buddy....

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

That said though accommodation for the physically disabled is made with the intention of giving them the ability to live in their own house.
They have a definite need for this.
Do travellers have a definite need to have space beside their houses to carry out their business and for the state to provide this?
How come they are entitled to special emergency accommodation?

These were people who lost 10 members of family. I'm not getting into a slanging match over a tragedy.

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

These were people who lost 10 members of family. I'm not getting into a slanging match over a tragedy.

That's a fairly cheap shot to look like you're taking the moral high ground.
That comment wasn't judging the families of the Carrickmines fire.
Feel free to actually address the post when you're finished strawmanning.

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

That's a fairly cheap shot to look like you're taking the moral high ground.
That comment wasn't judging the families of the Carrickmines fire.
Feel free to actually address the post when you're finished strawmanning.

I'm not getting in to it, as per the previous post.

Little CuChulainn

demfad wrote: »

Travellers meet all the current international definitions of ethnicity: they have a shared history, culture and traditions, including a nomadic way of life.
Ethnic minority status (like in Britian and NI) acknowledges this and is in no way racist.

Acknowledging that they are different to the majority does not imply that they are inferior as you seem to believe.

In the UK they refer to them as Irish Travellers. They share a historical nationality. Current day travellers do not meet the definitions of ethnicity. Their "nomadic way of life" is gone. They settle in one particular site. Sometimes they go on a holiday to another county but many Irish families do.

Their culture of the past is non existent. I'm not sure if you've ever seen the pavee point video on traveller culture but it is supposed to consist of bringing news from town to town, creating small metallic tools and items and providing services to local farms. Their current culture is overwhelmingly one of crime and since they refuse to acknowledge this then their claim of a shared culture cannot be recognised.

They have some traditions that seem different, but so do the people of Cork. Having big weddings and wanting to live near your family is not a tradition, it's what most people would like. Unfortunately the government will only fund this if you identify as a traveller.

And where is it set in stone that a culture must be treasured and respected just because it exists? Some cultures do not deserve recognition because of their negative aspects. Modern day traveller culture definitely falls in this category.

As for getting government assistance, travellers get more than anyone. It's ridiculous. They can literally tear down their home and then the council will build them a new one. If you want to see an example, look at Labre Park on the Kylemore Road (Don't actually go there). Oldest traveller site in Ireland. It's an absolute kip. The council can't even go in there to fix things without Garda support. And the level of crime emanating from there is staggering.

KingBrian2

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

In the UK they refer to them as Irish Travellers. They share a historical nationality. Current day travellers do not meet the definitions of ethnicity. Their "nomadic way of life" is gone. They settle in one particular site. Sometimes they go on a holiday to another county but many Irish families do.

Their culture of the past is non existent. I'm not sure if you've ever seen the pavee point video on traveller culture but it is supposed to consist of bringing news from town to town, creating small metallic tools and items and providing services to local farms. Their current culture is overwhelmingly one of crime and since they refuse to acknowledge this then their claim of a shared culture cannot be recognised.

They have some traditions that seem different, but so do the people of Cork. Having big weddings and wanting to live near your family is not a tradition, it's what most people would like. Unfortunately the government will only fund this if you identify as a traveller.

And where is it set in stone that a culture must be treasured and respected just because it exists? Some cultures do not deserve recognition because of their negative aspects. Modern day traveller culture definitely falls in this category.

As for getting government assistance, travellers get more than anyone. It's ridiculous. They can literally tear down their home and then the council will build them a new one. If you want to see an example, look at Labre Park on the Kylemore Road (Don't actually go there). Oldest traveller site in Ireland. It's an absolute kip. The council can't even go in there to fix things without Garda support. And the level of crime emanating from there is staggering.

You can't say traveler lifestyle leads to crime. Plenty of Irish people find themselves involved in all sorts of precarious and criminal activity. You have to acknowledge the input to our society that the traveller community bring us. Their is a place for them with us as long as they reciprocate and respect our ways and rules.

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe you're right.



Declaring them a different ethnicity would be an acceptance that they can't compete with the rest of the country though. It would mark them out as different type of people who should be held to different standards. It would be an excuse for their different outcomes in life and would ingrain their status as another kind of people. 'It's not that X% of them are illiterate, they are following their heritage by travelling around and not going to school'. It would mean they would be stuck in the 19th century and would be ethnically bound to remain in a poverty trap instead of doing something to improve their situation. Poverty and illiteracy would move from being a terrible situation in need of a solution, to being an inherited characteristic of their ethnicity.

poverty hah. Travellers as a group are very far from poor.

illiteracy and a lack of education is already a part of 'their culture' declaring them as a separate ethnic group would move that from being illegal bad parenting into a protected element of their 'culture' that has to be left alone.

you talk about travellers not competing with the rest of us. Well in order to even be in that race they'd have to live inside the same rules as the rest of us, which they don't. A situation that especially from a justice / law enforcement perspective needs to be seriously remedied.

looksee

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You can't say traveler lifestyle leads to crime. Plenty of Irish people find themselves involved in all sorts of precarious and criminal activity. You have to acknowledge the input to our society that the traveller community bring us. Their is a place for them with us as long as they reciprocate and respect our ways and rules.

Could you be specific please?

KingBrian2

looksee wrote: »

Could you be specific please?

Well they contribute in the form of poetry, music and stories.

swarlb

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well they contribute in the form of poetry, music and stories.

What poetry.. music or stories are specifically related to 'travellers' that would define them ?
And don't reply simply by choosing members of the travelling community that are involved in the arts... as they generally speaking, are the exception to the rule.

What 'traveller' piece of work, be it prose or verse, painted or sculpted that is inherently 'traveller'.

How do you claim something as part of your culture, that defines it.. was the Book of Kells something that defines the 'Irish'. Are Travellers not 'Irish', and if not what are they.... where are they from, where did they come from, what is their past ?

jank

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You can't say traveler lifestyle leads to crime. Plenty of Irish people find themselves involved in all sorts of precarious and criminal activity. You have to acknowledge the input to our society that the traveller community bring us. Their is a place for them with us as long as they reciprocate and respect our ways and rules.

I am not sure what this means? Is this supposed to whitewash the problems?
What are these tangible inputs may I ask, rather than some romanticised view of the past?

It is like looking back with a teary nostalgic sense and wish the Roman Catholic Church still had moral superiority of Irish social and cultural life as life was 'better' then.

On the last point I agree, there is a place for them. Indeed there is a place for anyone AND everyone who respects the law and rules.

As an aside I was listening to Sean O'Rourke on RTE Radio last week and they had a Traveler rep on the show. The issue of education came up and it was stated that only 14% of Travelers completed secondary school which is a shocking figure. The sole reason the traveler rep gave was discrimination, which imo is nonsense.

The main issue here is the nomadic way of life that many want to have. In many counties in Ireland, people register their child in local schools before their first birthday such is the demand. One cannot expect to up shacks, arrive in an new area on a Sunday and expect a place in a local school on a Monday. Sorry but that is fantasy.

I would support some sort of home schooling scheme perhaps where someone could be schooled at home. But again how would this be financed? Perhaps some public-private partnership between the state and private traveler money?
In the extreme end of the spectrum should we hold parents liable for truism and how involved should the state get. Many Statist's get very quite when this question arises.

jank

Lockstep wrote: »

To be fair, the Irish legal system has always been extremely reluctant to get involved in telling the state how to distribute resources, so granting ethnic status to travellers is unlikely to result in what you're predicting. in the O'Reilly v Limerick case, the Supreme Court denied that Limerick Corporation had an obligation to provide services for a Traveller halting site on the basis that this is an issue for the legislature, not the judiciary.
Likewise, in the Sinnott case, the Supreme Court denied that the state had an obligation to provide lifelong primary education for an autistic adult.

I'm no expert on Australian law but in Ireland (which is what we're discussing for travellers), human rights impose far less positive state obligations than you seem to think.
Like I said, human rights aren't a zero sum game. At least, not in the Irish context.

Likewise, the right to water does not require it to be free and those able to pay for it can be required to pay for it.
Completely with you on the idea of "safe spaces" though. Luckily, they don't seem to have any basis in Irish law. There is a trend to conjure up new rights across the world (The right to internet for example) but these aren't be implemented by the Irish judicial system. The Supreme Court has found rights that aren't expressly enumerated in the Constitution (like the right to privacy) but these are applied very sparingly.

Some fair points and I stand corrected on some.

However, my worry would be that once a group, any group gets a special status then we will then enter a new form of a politicised American judiciary, where the legislature will by their own acts be acting 'illegally' if extra resources are not put into play and extra rules,rights, privileges are hoisted on these groups. All these well meaning and well intentioned acts do is increase resistance, resentment and hostility from the mainstream. It also shields the implementers of these laws from criticism. One should judge based on the result, not the intention.

We in Ireland are already entering this new age of 'rights' based mandates. The right to water (but someone else has to pay) has spawned on a new political grouping called right 2 change. It seems the word 'right' or 'rights' in of itself is enough to convince people that one has a right to free stuff or things that are not actually a right at all.

Water is a human 'right'. Grand, but essentially in an Irish context its code for 'someone else but me should have to pay for it'. No where else in the OECD as far as my knowledge does one not pay to use water. Are we geniuses or perhaps Germany and Sweden have a better model?

The right2change policy document makes interesting reading where new rights are conjured up left right and centre. Rights to a decent job, rights to debt relief, rights to political reform, rights to a sustainable environment.

A Progressive Government will make protection of the
rights of Mother Earth a Constitutional imperative subject
to democratic control and declare that natural resources,
including water, are a public good and cannot be privatised.

Like WTF?

The people quoted in the document is also interesting. Everyone from Tony Benn, Russel Brand, Naomi Klien and Noam Chomsky has their say.