Peter Casey believes Travellers should not be recognised as an ethnic minority

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am expressing my opinion of what he said and how he said it and what he did next.
First of all, he targeted a community.
Secondly, he said something that is simply not true about SEMS.
Thirdly, he generalised about that community.
And Fourthly, he went to a location for a photo op, singularly designed (and successfully) to stoke anger against a community.

All the hallmarks of an incitement campaign. The results of which are all around you on this thread.

Can you please quote exactly what he said that was so offensive. I have seen multiple claims made as to what he actually said but very few of them actually reflect reality.


He said he didn't believe that travels were a separate ethnic group. (I knwo he isn't the only one that believes that or is he not allowed to express a belief that is contrary to yours ?

He said that traveler culture involved camping on other peoples land. According to travels there culture is nomadic and involves traveling. They obviously have to park up at some stage. Unless they own land all over the country they park on land that they do not own.

He said that as a community they pay less that their share of taxes. According to all the traveler groups unemployment is very high among st travels, as such they pay no income taxes as such as a group they pay far less taxes than the national average. Or is he not allowed to day that ? Can he think it ?

To be honest of the people who will vote for Casey I think only a small minority will do so because of his comments on travelers. More will do so because of his comments re the welfare state (or are those an incitement to hatred also) and as a finger in the eye to the increasingly left wing state that we have become.
There is an echo chamber liberal media, a public with an increasingly pervasive sense of entitlement and complete lack of responsibility. There is a belief that no one should ever be offended, no one should be responsible for their own action, there should be no hard and fast rules, its all exceptions and hard cases. No one can voice a thought that runs contrary to the media echo chamber and image is everything and some people are just tired of begin looked at with contempt as if we were Neanderthals. The right to free speech is dieing and the lack of tolerance among-st the so called liberal elite bears resemblance to that of totalitarian regimes. Of course there was going to be a reaction.

But ignore it all, reinterpret it as hate speech, lack of tolerance, narrow minded backwardness and look down your noses at the Neanderthals.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Bearing in mind that I may come across as a husky chasing his own tail, I don't think anyone yet has given any sort of coherent argument as to how calling for equality equals hatred.

Casey was asked a question and answered it.

Perhaps the makers of the podcast should have edited it out?
Perhaps Casey shouldn't have said what what he believed in (thats called lying)?
Perhaps his comments shouldn't have been used to try and incite hatred (against Casey)

Only in Ireland could you be asked a bloody question, answer it truthfully, and be accused of stoking up hatred.

He committed blasphemy, not against a religion or a God but against modern "progressiveness".

There is a very strong tendency in many on the modern Left /liberal spectrum to go ape when someone expresses a counter view or does not conform.

It is a serious problem for them at the moment.

Irregardless of the topic, disagreement or counter point is a sin.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Can anyone answer this?

If Casey hadn't of been asked the question about the travellers, would any one be any the wiser of what his opinion on them was either way?

Running an election where he stood on a platform ridiculing them, I could entertain the incitement to hatred baloney.

What j see was a question asked of a presidential candidate, and a very poor hatchet job attempt on his answer.

The bigot racist and hatred accusations are a load of nonsense, but everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Casey would still be on 2% had he not been 'asked' the traveller question Johnny.
Arranged interviews for PR purposes come with a list of leading questions from the handlers, generally.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Casey would still be on 2% had he not been 'asked' the traveller question Johnny.
Arranged interviews for PR purposes come with a list of leading questions from the handlers, generally.

You have proof that he arranged for that question to be asked I assume?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Casey would still be on 2% had he not been 'asked' the traveller question Johnny.
Arranged interviews for PR purposes come with a list of leading questions from the handlers, generally.

It should also be pointed out Francie, Peter Casey was also the only candidate who didn't identify as a feminist, a question they were all asked by the Irish Independent, lets be honest about it, doing that alone in this day and age showed bravery.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, if you bothered to research them there is not a 'love-in' going on around travellers in the media. Another untruthful conspiracy theory.

You have a thing about conspiracy theories. One could almost say you have a conspiracy theory about them. The main media outlets in Ireland are extremely pro-traveller. RTE only ever mentions them in a positive light, as a poor put-upon "culture".

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said I probably couldn't. Can you now comment on the links that show hundreds of refusals of various types of social housing for a variety of reasons including unsuitability (the travellers in Tipp point) that I posted that show it is a problem across the entire welfare system and not just among travellers. And vindicate Casey's reasons for targeting one community?

Did you? I must have missed that .......:rolleyes:

Why would I give a damn about people refusing housing that's not suitable? Did they ask for stables? Fields? Poor try at deflection.

BattleCorp wrote: »

You have proof that he arranged for that question to be asked I assume?

Nope, and I never said I have.
I said (read a bit more carefully this time please) it bears all the hallmarks of a stunt to incite the kind of hatred and anti-traveller sentiment we have seen in bundles on this thread alone.
He even admitted last night that he knew it was a divisive thing to say after previously wringing his hands that he didn't mean to stoke up division, to Aine Lawlor before he took his 'break'

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nope, and I never said I have.
I said (read a bit more carefully this time please) it bears all the hallmarks of a stunt to incite the kind of hatred and anti-traveller sentiment we have seen in bundles on this thread alone.
He even admitted last night that he knew it was a divisive thing to say after previously wringing his hands that he didn't mean to stoke up division, to Aine Lawlor before he took his 'break'

Nasty, snide attempt at slander with no basis whatsoever. Every post of yours is groundless conjecture, you can't back up a thing. You are a spoofer.

mariaalice wrote: »

That's not answering the question :pac: I have never come across anyone on the left who is full of hate-filled bile lots of bonkers ideas and intolerance on the left, but hate-filled bile not as much.

I have and I suspect I am not the only one who has.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

taxi man just told me

He
Everyone in his family
And all his friends

Are voting for Casey tomorrow.

Be some craic If he won

The odds have gone down significantly the past few days.. I put 10 quid on him to win at 41/1 and now it's 11/1 only 2-3 days later.

I'm still not convinced he'll win but it looks like he's a good bet for 2nd place now which would still be a good way to get a debate started.

CASEY #1... Spread the word

BattleCorp wrote: »

What might play in Higgin's favour is that there will probably be a shockingly low turnout.

Older people tend to vote more than young people and they would be typical Higgins voters.


By the way, shockingly bad publicity on the Blasphemy referendum. Very little information put out by the referendum commission. Anyway, I apologise, nothing to do with this thread.

I think that's the idea of RTE, the IT etc. suddenly toning down all the hysteria they had last week - they are now realising this is an election they don't want a high turnout for.

BattleCorp wrote: »

What might play in Higgin's favour is that there will probably be a shockingly low turnout.

Older people tend to vote more than young people and they would be typical Higgins voters.


By the way, shockingly bad publicity on the Blasphemy referendum. Very little information put out by the referendum commission. Anyway, I apologise, nothing to do with this thread.

You might be right.


I think in general young people would be more likely to vote for Michael D though?


The only thing I saw about the blasphemy thing was that Ronan Mullen was on campaigning for a No - I am definitely a yes then!