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

Idbatterim · 31-10-2018 05:37PM

listermint wrote: »

No ELM we get it,

This conversation needed to be had, Travellers are the cause of all the countries current woes. Thank the lord we had Casey to point it out.

What would be your solution to this problem.

you think they should be treated differently?! Nobody is above the law, you build more prison spaces and you put away anybody that commits serious crimes! No bloody discrimination, just any citizen of planet earth!

All this bull**** about whats the solution, is it trolling or serious?

ELM327 · 31-10-2018 05:40PM

listermint wrote: »

Oh they did, You thanked it.

Keep the vilification coming i lap it up. It just demonstrates clearly the hilarious ranty levels people can get to in their pursuit to expose leftys. Whilst looking rather ridiculous themselves.

Hyberbole ? Youve a degree in it in here.

I most certainly do not engage in hyperbole. Certainly not at your PHD level, if I have a degree.

There is no vilification. It was first classed as "racism". When that was roundly derided and disproven, then it was moved on to vilification. Eventually we'll get to the truth. Which is the wave of crime perpetrated by these people, and the fear that people outside the pale live in daily.

Pubs in many rural towns (including my own) close the doors en masse when they hear "the travellers" are out on the town. They would rather close up than risk having them on the premises. As a commercial decision.

The_Kew_Tour · 31-10-2018 05:44PM

listermint wrote: »

so let me see.

So far we are laying the blame on all the social issues, all rural crime, the housing crisis, welfare fraud, and now suicide in rural ireland at the door of one group of people.

Grand job, the oul vilification of a small section of society for all our ills is strong in this one.

Ye folks really need to take a look at yourselfs. But im sure you wont like what you see. This is why you are angry so hard on the internet about it.

No just more hysteria here from you.

Just people pointing out what they have come across and no action has been taken.

If you think ordinary people who mind their own business is the problem then it's you that needs a good look at yourself

Try_harder · 31-10-2018 05:53PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Didn't realise the gays had a spokesperson. Are you david norris or panti bliss?

I believe planespeeking has a similar outlook of equal treatment for all as I do, rather than advocating for the rights of one group over another.

I wasnt addressing you. The gays were told we couldnt have equality and were blamed for evils in society like HIV and paedophilia. So I understand some of what they experience- prejudice

ELM327 · 31-10-2018 05:55PM

Try_harder wrote: »

I wasnt addressing you. The gays were told we couldnt have equality and were blamed for evils in society like HIV and paedophilia. So I understand some of what they experience- prejudice

It's a public forum. If you want to just address one user and exclude everyone else then I suggest the PM function.

hill16bhoy · 31-10-2018 05:55PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I have no issue with treating people with respect irregardless of their colour, creed, nationality, sexuality etc etc on condition, like the rest of us, contribute in a positive manner to society....it is one of the responsibilities a citizen gets along with the rights of that same citizen.

See, according to this, you're actually now telling us that you should be able to legitimise any sort of bigotry based on colour, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, disability etc., because you include a qualifier.

"Contributing in a positive manner society" is one of these nebulous "how long is a piece of string" comments.

One can dream up any old **** to justify saying people are "not contributing positively to society". This notion itself relies on prejudice.

Is a person who is paralysed from the neck down "contributing positively to society"? What if they're a gay or a black person who is paralysed from the neck down?

Is somebody with dementia "contributing positively to society?

One can easily envisage how all sorts of people can be vilified as "not contributing positively to society".

The Nazis claimed the Jews were not contributing positively to society and justified their vilification and ultimate slaughter of them on exactly this basis.

This thread is full of the same type of justification for vilification and racism against Travellers.

Now you're telling us with a straight face that the very basis on which the Nazis vilified and ultimately slaughtered the Jews, is actually legitimate grounds for discrimination and vilification of people on grounds of "colour, creed, nationality, sexuality etc."!!!!!!

In the reality of civilised, liberal societies, there are and should NEVER be ANY qualifiers for anybody to have the right to be treated with dignity and respect based on their colour, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender or bodily characteristics.

The ignorance of history is utterly astounding.

31-10-2018 05:55PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Travellers absolutely ARE entitled to be treated with dignity and respect and to not be discriminated against or vilified because of their ethnicity, in the same way every other person in the world is.

This doesn't just apply to ethnicity, it applies to nationality, sexual orientation, gender, colour, class, disability and body characteristics etc.

As an Irish person I rightly expect that if I travel to another country I should not and will not face discrimination based on my Irishness.

Travellers are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to demand that they should not be subject to discrimination or generalised vilification ou and

I agree with all that in theory but then again I wouldn't blame a Publican for being apprehensive about hosting a traveller wedding or funeral. Would you? Honestly now, be straight up.

ELM327 · 31-10-2018 05:56PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

See, according to this, you're actually now telling us that you should be able to legitimise any sort of bigotry based on colour, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, disability etc., because you include a qualifier.

"Contributing in a positive manner society" is one of these nebulous "how long is a piece of string" comments.

One can dream up any old **** to justify saying people are "not contributing positively to society". This notion itself relies on prejudice.

Is a person who is paralysed from the neck down "contributing positively to society"? What if they're a gay or a black person who is paralysed from the neck down?

Is somebody with dementia "contributing positively to society?

One can easily envisage how all sorts of people can be vilified as "not contributing positively to society".

The Nazis claimed the Jews were not contributing positively to society and justified their vilification and ultimate slaughter of them on exactly this basis.

This thread is full of the same type of justification for vilification and racism against Travellers.

Now you're telling us with a straight face that the very basis on which the Nazis vilified and ultimately slaughtered the Jews, is actually legitimate grounds for discrimination and vilification of people on grounds of "colour, creed, nationality, sexuality etc."!!!!!!

In the reality of civilised, liberal societies, there are and should NEVER be ANY qualifiers for anybody to have the right to be treated with dignity and respect based on their colour, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender or bodily characteristics.

The ignorance of history is utterly astounding.

You use this word, racism, but I don't think you understand what it means. For reference:

ELM327 wrote: »

Here's an example of the first few google results for "define race"
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(sociology)

In short, these are the races. And I do not see "Irish Travellers" mentioned
Caucasoid (White) race

Negroid (Black) race

Capoid (Bushmen/Hottentots) race

Mongoloid (Oriental/ Amerindian) race

Australoid (Australian Aborigine and Papuan) race

The Bishop Basher · 31-10-2018 05:58PM

Try_harder wrote: »

I wasnt addressing you. The gays were told we couldnt have equality and were blamed for evils in society like HIV and paedophilia. So I understand some of what they experience- prejudice

That was prejudice.

A 70 year old farmer hiding out in a shed all night with a shotgun because he knows a gang of travelers are going to come and assault, rob and potentially murder him isn't prejudiced..

He's just terrified.

31-10-2018 06:00PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I think they're known in far right circles as "edgelords", or something.

They're about as "edgy" as a blancmange.

I'd love to know how having a problem with a group's disproportionate crime stats equates to being "far right". You defeat yourself with that type of tripe.

hill16bhoy · 31-10-2018 06:03PM

ELM327 wrote: »

You use this word, racism, but I don't think you understand what it means. For reference:

You don't understand the term "racial discrimination".

The UN defines it as such:

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

I place a lot weight in that definition.

You haven't even offered a definition, though we can all assume it doesn't include anti-Traveller prejudice.

Earlier on you told us that there could be no such thing as racism (racial discrimination) between white Europeans.

According to your own definition of race and racism, can you tell us, was the Holocaust racist?

Pyr0 · 31-10-2018 06:06PM

Omackeral wrote: »

I agree with all that in theory but then again I wouldn't blame a Publican for being apprehensive about hosting a traveller wedding or funeral. Would you? Honestly now, be straight up.

Publicans are just showing another level of discrimination, travellers have done nothing wrong for publicans to treat them this way.

Sure ask anyone, they'll tell ya!

The Bishop Basher · 31-10-2018 06:09PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You don't understand the term "racial discrimination".

The UN defines it as such:

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

What's the objective of this ?

I couldn't give a sh1te if my dislike for travelers is labeled as "racial discrimination". You can label it whatever you like. It's born out of 45 years of negative personal experience and there's nothing you, the government or the UN can do or say to change that.

You love to throw these labels about as if they hold some extra meaning or power. They don't and even if they did, you overuse them to the extent that you belittle those who do suffer genuine racism, bigotry, prejudice etc.

You are part of the problem and you can't see it.

hill16bhoy · 31-10-2018 06:09PM

Omackeral wrote: »

I'd love to know how having a problem with a group's disproportionate crime stats equates to being "far right". You defeat yourself with that type of tripe.

I see you're still trying to rationalise and justify racism by choosing to airbrush Peter Casey's racism from history.

To listen to you, one would think racism doesn't even count as "far right" now.

31-10-2018 06:09PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

See, according to this, you're actually now telling us that you should be able to legitimise any sort of bigotry based on colour, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, disability etc., because you include a qualifier.

You are desperately trying to include the colour, nationality, sexual orientation factor here and all it's doing is going against your point. Most people have no issues with Chinese folks, gay people or anyone law except for... you guessed it. I doubt a pub's landlord would sh*t themselves if a few dozen French people came to their premises, for example. You trying to tie those other groups in kinda damages your argument rather than enhance it.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The Nazis claimed ......

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

hill16bhoy · 31-10-2018 06:11PM

Rennaws wrote: »

What's the objective of this ?

I couldn't give a sh1te if my dislike for travelers is labeled as "racial discrimination". You can label it whatever you like. It's born out of 45 years of negative personal experience and there's nothing you, the government or the UN can do or say to change that.

You love to throw these labels about as if they hold some extra meaning or power. They don't and even if they did, you overuse them to the extent that you belittle those who do suffer genuine racism, bigotry, prejudice etc.

You are part of the problem and you can't see it.

Another one shamelessly justifying anecdote-based racial discrimination.

"No blacks, no dogs, no Irish."

tayto lover · 31-10-2018 06:12PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Casey: easily engaged with those easily ennraged. Two or three week wonder and the pack will move on to the next thing

Wrong.
Casey spoke for those who saw recently how the entitlement culture works and how our taxes are being used. He is a one hit wonder for sure but the issues are still there if an actual politician wants to take them up.

Plus he made a good bit of money for those of us who predicted how "the easily enraged" would rightfully react. Why did they react that way? Well you know yourself Francie. You were here long enough.

hill16bhoy · 31-10-2018 06:12PM

Omackeral wrote: »

You are desperately trying to include the colour, nationality, sexual orientation factor here and all it's doing is going against your point. Most people have no issues with Chinese folks, gay people or anyone law except for... you guessed it. I doubt a pub's landlord would sh*t themselves if a few dozen French people came to their premises, for example. You trying to tie those other groups in kinda damages your argument rather than enhance it.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Please come back when you've decided to deal with the actual substantial points I've raised.

31-10-2018 06:13PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I see you're still trying to rationalise and justify racism by choosing to airbrush Peter Casey's racism from history.

To listen to you, one would think racism doesn't even count as "far right" now.

I don't comsoder criticising a group's practises and lifestyle choices to be racism whatsoever. It's nothing to do with race. They could be black people in wheelchairs carrying on the same way and I'd say the same.

hill16bhoy · 31-10-2018 06:15PM

Omackeral wrote: »

I don't comsoder criticising a group's practises and lifestyle choices to be racism whatsoever.

Again, you're refusing to deal with the actual racism by obfuscating and deflection.

Keep sticking your head in the sand, by all means.

31-10-2018 06:15PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Another one shamelessly justifying anecdote-based racial discrimination.

"No blacks, no dogs, no Irish."

"Anecdotal". Here's a stat for you. 50% of inmates in Castlerea are Travellers. That's not an anecdote, that's a fact.

31-10-2018 06:16PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Please come back when you've decided to deal with the actual substantial points I've raised.

You're just going to ignore those very clear points I made because you haven't a hope of going against them. You're either a troll or absolutely off your nut.

31-10-2018 06:17PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Again, you're refusing to deal with the actual racism by obfuscating and deflection.

Keep sticking your head in the sand, by all means.

You're going back on ignore, I can feel my IQ dropping when I read your posts.

Tipsy McSwagger · 31-10-2018 06:17PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

See, according to this, you're actually now telling us that you should be able to legitimise any sort of bigotry based on colour, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, disability etc., because you include a qualifier.

"Contributing in a positive manner society" is one of these nebulous "how long is a piece of string" comments.

One can dream up any old **** to justify saying people are "not contributing positively to society". This notion itself relies on prejudice.

Is a person who is paralysed from the neck down "contributing positively to society"? What if they're a gay or a black person who is paralysed from the neck down?

Is somebody with dementia "contributing positively to society?

One can easily envisage how all sorts of people can be vilified as "not contributing positively to society".

The Nazis claimed the Jews were not contributing positively to society and justified their vilification and ultimate slaughter of them on exactly this basis.

This thread is full of the same type of justification for vilification and racism against Travellers.

Now you're telling us with a straight face that the very basis on which the Nazis vilified and ultimately slaughtered the Jews, is actually legitimate grounds for discrimination and vilification of people on grounds of "colour, creed, nationality, sexuality etc."!!!!!!

In the reality of civilised, liberal societies, there are and should NEVER be ANY qualifiers for anybody to have the right to be treated with dignity and respect based on their colour, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender or bodily characteristics.

The ignorance of history is utterly astounding.

………that the travellers were a great bunch of lads.

ELM327 · 31-10-2018 06:18PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You don't understand the term "racial discrimination".

The UN defines it as such:

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

I place a lot weight in that definition.

You haven't even offered a definition, though we can all assume it doesn't include anti-Traveller prejudice.

Earlier on you told us that there could be no such thing as racism (racial discrimination) between white Europeans.

According to your own definition of race and racism, can you tell us, was the Holocaust racist?

For the fourth time now, these are the races. And I do not see "Irish Travellers" mentioned

Caucasoid (White) race
Negroid (Black) race
Capoid (Bushmen/Hottentots) race
Mongoloid (Oriental/ Amerindian) race
Australoid (Australian Aborigine and Papuan) race

The holocaust. Let's see. Was that an issue of ethnicity? Absolutely, as ethnic Germans were favoured over ethnic groups such as Jews, Roma etc.

But was it a racial issue? Well, as no two groups in the 5 distinct races were in direct conflict, no it is not a racial issue. An ethnic issue, yes, but most certainly not a racist one.

Silentcorner · 31-10-2018 06:18PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

See, according to this, you're actually now telling us that you should be able to legitimise any sort of bigotry based on colour, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, disability etc., because you include a qualifier.

"Contributing in a positive manner society" is one of these nebulous "how long is a piece of string" comments.

One can dream up any old **** to justify saying people are "not contributing positively to society". This notion itself relies on prejudice.

Is a person who is paralysed from the neck down "contributing positively to society"? What if they're a gay or a black person who is paralysed from the neck down?

Is somebody with dementia "contributing positively to society?

One can easily envisage how all sorts of people can be vilified as "not contributing positively to society".

The Nazis claimed the Jews were not contributing positively to society and justified their vilification and ultimate slaughter of them on exactly this basis.

This thread is full of the same type of justification for vilification and racism against Travellers.

Now you're telling us with a straight face that the very basis on which the Nazis vilified and ultimately slaughtered the Jews, is actually legitimate grounds for discrimination and vilification of people on grounds of "colour, creed, nationality, sexuality etc."!!!!!!

In the reality of civilised, liberal societies, there are and should NEVER be ANY qualifiers for anybody to have the right to be treated with dignity and respect based on their colour, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender or bodily characteristics.

The ignorance of history is utterly astounding.

You do realise that treating someone with respect, whoever they may be, does not mean that I am suggesting legalising bigotry if they don't.....you nutter!!!

So, I will ask, for a third time, where is my or anyone else's sense of entitlement evident in our opinions?

ELM327 · 31-10-2018 06:18PM

Omackeral wrote: »

"Anecdotal". Here's a stat for you. 50% of inmates in Castlerea are Travellers. That's not an anecdote, that's a fact.

Stop being racist!
That's racist against prisoners! Apparently everything can be a race now!

mickdw · 31-10-2018 06:20PM

Rennaws wrote: »

X1000

I agree with Casey and have zero time for political correctness in fact i love nothing more then winding up SJW's..

But what I found so incredibly sinister in all of this was the manner in which our entire state successfully manipulated this election.

How dare a Taoiseach tell a country how to vote.

What the government did to Casey is not all that different to what was done to Maurice McCabe.

It's sickening and honestly makes me nervous to live in a state as corrupt as ours has become..

As for our current President, I used to have great respect for the man. I have none now and i sincerely hope he ends up regretting doing second term.

Now, when are we going to see these expenses ?

To be honest, I didn't believe the main stream media still had this power in these times with the numerous online media however they appear to have far far too much power still.

Where does a fight back come from?

hill16bhoy · 31-10-2018 06:21PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Wrong.
Casey spoke for those who saw recently how the entitlement culture works and how our taxes are being used. He is a one hit wonder for sure but the issues are still there if an actual politician wants to take them up.

Plus he made a good bit of money for those of us who predicted how "the easily enraged" would rightfully react. Why did they react that way? Well you know yourself Francie. You were here long enough.

Peter Casey and his supporters are the very embodiment of an "entitlement culture".

Casey supporters tell us that they are "afraid of being shouted down".

That's weasel code for "I should be able to say whatever racist nonsense I want, unchallenged."

That's not how it works.

It shows zero understanding of living in the real world, it shows zero personal responsibility, zero understanding of history, and it shows zero regard for free speech.

In other words, Casey supporters are the most delicate, entitled snowflakes around.

Real pretend victims.

Tipsy McSwagger · 31-10-2018 06:22PM

Omackeral wrote: »

You're going back on ignore, I can feel my IQ dropping when I read your posts.

Casey said travellers were Irish and should be treated equally to everyone else, like the Polish, Africans and anyone else who comes to this country. Somehow this is racist and he is like the Nazis. You’re wasting your time debating this because there’s nothing to debate.

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

Comments