Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish travellers a separate ethnic group
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
That said though accommodation for the physically disabled is made with the intention of giving them the ability to live in their own house.I think we're going down a rabbit hole here. Following the above we'd deny the physically disabled aid.
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?
That's not being accurate.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?
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.
So they are being provided with traveller specific emergency accommodation.2.The Carrickmines family actually ended up being accommodated in a car park beside a dump. Is that because they are special too?
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.
Why are you replacing a racial group with a cultural one.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.
Do black people assert that the share the same culture, as travellers do?0 -
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 poverty0 -
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.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?
The undamaged dwellings on the site should still be habitable. I won't seek emergency accommodation if my neighbour has a fire.
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.2.The Carrickmines family actually ended up being accommodated in a car park beside a dump. Is that because they are special too?
Every group of itinerants will develop a reputation over the years. None of the local halting sites opened their arms to these families.
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?
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.....
LOL. Great evidence there buddy....I have no substantiation for this but I'm fairly certain its true.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's a fairly cheap shot to look like you're taking the moral high ground.These were people who lost 10 members of family. I'm not getting into a slanging match over a tragedy.
That comment wasn't judging the families of the Carrickmines fire.
Feel free to actually address the post when you're finished strawmanning.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
-
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 ?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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, ................
We have our own separate legal and political system, which is unlike the American.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..
This is all well and good, but still fails to address the original question Because they are deemed to have different needs. How does relate to "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"?
Have you any real world examples of this happening, particularily in this state? Could you explain the mechanism whereby it occurs?0 -
This is all well and good, but still fails to address the original question Because they are deemed to have different needs.
What 'different needs' do they have that supercede the normal provisions and requirements of the state? Is it that they have a 'need' that the state should provide housing with space for horses, caravans and space for scrap collecting, beside their extended family but separate from other families with whom they might be in dispute?How does relate to "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"?
Have you any real world examples of this happening, particularily in this state? Could you explain the mechanism whereby it occurs?
Real world examples?
The 'right' to race sulkies on public roads - this right frequently removes the 'right' of people trying to get to work in a timely manner - and damages the animals.
The 'right' to be provided with very specific accommodation at a cost that would house several less demanding citizens - thus using resources at a disproportionate rate to other (non-traveller) people.
The 'right' to be completely insular and removed from social responsibilities - of educating their children, for example, or abiding by planning regulations or littering legislation. All of which put a burden on state resources - and removes the children's right to an education.
The 'ah sure, there are only a few of them and what harm are they doing' argument is nonsense. There are not all that many people who choose to live on canal barges in the country, this does not mean that they entitled to have a barge supplied by the local authority, or are entitled to flush their sewage directly into the waterways.
We have just had halloween with the honoured and ancient custom of setting light to mountains of pallets and tyres on public amenity ground - does this mean that the local authorities should provide the practitioners of this historic activity with ecologically sound flammable material and a designated burning ground reserved for this purpose? That is possibly not a bad idea, but then would there be sanctions on people who still went ahead and collected rubbish to burn on freelance fires, or would it still be argued that this was their traditional right?
Giving travelers a separate identity as an ethnic group would be saying to the rest of the population, you have to abide by the rules and pay your way, but these people are special and get to use the structure of society with a free pass and no responsibilities. It is patronising, divisive and in fact disrespectful to travelers.0 -
Again, there isn't much of a risk in this in the Irish context. Ireland is interesting as its constitution includes socio-economic rights (which require the state engaging in positive action rather than refraining from certain actions) but even the expressly enumerated ones are subject to economics. The Supreme Court acknowledges this: it's a legal body and doesn't have the expertise or capacity to keep a tight rein in how the State distributes resources. The Sinnott case is a good example: even though the State has an obligation to provide free primary education, the Supreme Court held that this does not apply to a 23 year old man despite his learning difficulties.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.
Granting rights to travellers isn't necessarily a problem depending on what the rights are, particularly as the Supreme Court is conservative about applying rights which require the State to spend money.
There is certainly a loud and vocal group who think water should be free but they clearly have very limited knowledge of how rights work: there are a host of rights like housing which are still rights but which very few people think should be free for everyone (or even most people). Despite what groups like DDI and the Freeman try to push, there's nothing inherently unconstitutional about expecting people to contribute to providing their rights if they're able to do so.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?
Water would almost certainly come under this. My own understanding on it would be that the Supreme Court would find our current water charge system as constitutional (although it's been some time since I've studied Irish constitutional law so I'm open for correction here)
That said, groups like the National Citizens Movement and DDI are unlikely to have much impact in Ireland and how our rights operate. Unless they can call a referendum.0 -
separate ethnic group? no they're irish.
Separate economic group? Absolutely.0 -
Some very good sane points from looksee.
Overshadowed by Janks crowbarring water charges into it???
The travellers want to be recognised as an ethnic group. They definitely did not set up a company in a very questionable way "fact" to try get it.
There may be more reasons why ( unlike your self entitled argument) alot of people have a distaste towards the company "Irish water", not the paying for a water service. my point being it does not seem relative to this when all factors are taken into consideration.0 -
The 'right' to race sulkies on public roads - this right frequently removes the 'right' of people trying to get to work in a timely manner - and damages the animals. .
That's illegal.The 'right' to be provided with very specific accommodation at a cost that would house several less demanding citizens - thus using resources at a disproportionate rate to other (non-traveller) people..
Rather a lot of speculation there.The 'right' to be completely (................) travelers.
That seems to be just an angry diatribe, tbh.0 -
That's illegal.
yes, but is it the travellers' responsibility to abide by the law, or the state's responsibility to force them to?Rather a lot of speculation there.
accommodation? have a look here http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Housing/Travelling%20Community/Documents/DCCTravellerAccommodationProgramme2014-2018.pdf
page 25, appendix 2.
Refurbish two houses at a cost of €100,000! Rebuild 26 units (no land, no services, just rebuilding) over 5 million euro!That seems to be just an angry diatribe, tbh.
And that is an easy way of dismissing arguments. I am not at all angry btw, just trying to put forward some thoughts on the subject.0 -
This is all well and good, but still fails to address the original question Because they are deemed to have different needs.
As already asked, deemed by whom? There are over 1000 Irish families housed in hotels currently, yet the council was able to put into action at hours notice plans to build temporary accommodation to house a traveller family.0 -
I don't really see the issue - what difference does it make whether they are or aren't a separate ethnic group (I personally think they aren't but I don't really care if they are or not) The fact is they live in the state of Ireland and should be treated as any other person living here - with all the same rights and all the same responsibilities. Makes no difference if you're an irish man, a "traveller" or a martian - you're here, here's the rules they apply to everyone equally.0
-
Advertisement
-
As already asked, deemed by whom? There are over 1000 Irish families housed in hotels currently, yet the council was able to put into action at hours notice plans to build temporary accommodation to house a traveller family.
Deemed by the government.
Are you going to retract your claim "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" or back it up anytime soon?0
Advertisement