nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FG councillor on travellers.

The_Minister

I just saw this on politics.ie http://www.enniscorthyecho.ie/news/story.asp?j=27439&cat=news
All I can say is, wow.I never thought any politician would be so honest about his views (even if they are pig-plop).
I hope that Fine Gael take the nomination off him, or at least distance themselves from his remarks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

purple'n'gold

“I still find the failure to condemn this politician absolutely disgusting.”

This man is a local politician in Wexford. He is well respected and the VAST majority of the people down here are fore square behind him and agree with him totally He didn’t mean that they should be all be drowned, (but I think sensible people realize that). No one in Wexford will condemn him. By the way “travelers” is a made up word of recent origin, no one in Wexford outside the media or politics or the church call them anything else except Tinkers down here. (I know, tinkers are tin workers etc. heard it all before). But the fact is that is the way they are described by the man/woman in the street in Co. Wexford. Maybe this upsets the PC brigade, but that’s just the way it is.

moe_sizlak

the only reason that the world tinker is offensive is because someone some time ago decided it was

FTA69

I'm in two minds on the Traveller issue, I accept the fact that they are discriminated against within society, but the fact also remains that there are many negative aspects within their culture that only they themselves can address. However, being a Traveller is often a struggle, even when they are long settled and have generally adopted our sort of lifestyle. I live in London and recently went out with a few fellas I work with and one Pavee to a club in Lester Square, as we passed in the door one bouncer chastised a younger one for letting "two f*cking Irish pikeys in". He didn't even make the effort to conceal his comments. Such attitudes are far from scarce, and simply aren't justified in my opinion. I think JimiTime makes a few good points.

High illiteracy rates

True, but illiteracy in Ireland is by no means confined to Travellers, there are thousands of middle-aged people (usually rural) who are completely illiterate, normally its very hard to notice though. Nor is the above directly related to nomadism, but affects settled Pavees as well who often feel they don't fit in at schools.

Domestic violence. Anti-social behaviour. Tax evasion

Again, the same is prevalent in most working-class communities in Ireland.

A culture of bare knuckle boxing

I'm in mixed minds about the boxing (much of which is confined to sporting boxing with gloves). The bare-knuckle fighting is more often than not used to settle disputes between two individuals, which is a perfectly fair way of doing things. However it has now become very commercialised with videos of fights selling for big money in England and America and often younger Travellers are pressurised into fighting against their will.

dog fights

Pavees are more into sulky racing, in fact here in England it is young blacks and Turks who are the most prevalent for dog-fighting.

I'm friends with a few Pavees over here, some of whom have been very good to me since I came here and often they will admit the above themselves, and have no problem doing so. However you will find them fairly hostile if you seek to demand explanations from them about the actions of other Travellers, and I wouldn't blame them either. You'll get the same reaction if you badger Americans about George Bush or black people about Louis Farrakhan.

FTA69

High illiteracy rates

Domestic violence. Anti-social behaviour. Tax evasion

Again, the same is prevalent in most working-class communities in Ireland.

A culture of bare knuckle boxing

dog fights

liberty 2007

karen3212 wrote:

where does he expect them to live?

He expects them to live the same way as the rest of us. I would love to see the figures on what percentage of travellers pay tax. In the old days travellers were better behaved because if they did'nt, they were run out of town. Now with the PC brigade and all the special laws to protect them, the take advantage.

jmayo

Travellers have a right to live and to avail of services like anyone else, but they also have to abide by the laws of the land like anyone else.

What gets me is how they appear to get preferential treatment. By that I mean how come they can break the laws of the land and get away with it.
The guards don't appear to be interested.
Some people asked how come the traveller killed in Mayo had numerous outstanding warrants, but yet no effort had been made to arrest him?
Did they just not notice him?

A farmer can be prosecuted for burning rushes/briers/straw etc, but you can pass a travellers campsite where there are plumes of black smoke belching from big open fires on a nightly basis. Does anyone get prosecuted ? NO

An incident occurred in Dublin where a group of travellers squatted on a GAA pitch and left asbestos waste behind. If the authorities find a member of the so called "settled community" disposes of asbestos in that manner they are prosecuted and rightly so.

Why is there a difference in the way they are treated?
There appears to be a fear that if anything is said or done then we are unPC and racists. AFAIK we are all the same race we just chose to live differently.

moe_sizlak

the gardai screwed up big time with that padraig nally case
number 1 , the traveller who got shot had a bunch of arrest warrants to his name and 2ndly , if it was known that padraig nally was paranoid about the travellers tormenting him , why did the gardai not take the gun off him , beleive me , if the guards want to take a gun of someone , they can have it done very quickly and for much less reasons than in this case
i suspect there was no one putting any pressure on them to do so , gardai usually act if they have enough pressure coming from someone important who has a role in the case , in this case there was a poor farmer and a fugitive traveller so nothing was going to be done

FTA69

What gets me is how they appear to get preferential treatment. By that I mean how come they can break the laws of the land and get away with it.

They do in their holes. Travellers are always getting stopped by the cops, beaten up by the cops and often they aren't even let into pubs. They also have a higher percentage of population in jail than the settled.

There appears to be a fear that if anything is said or done then we are unPC and racists. AFAIK we are all the same race we just chose to live differently.

They mightn't be a different race per se, but there is an argument to be made that they are a different ethnic group, ie nomadism, different language and customs etc.

moe_sizlak

FTA69 wrote:

They do in their holes. Travellers are always getting stopped by the cops, beaten up by the cops and often they aren't even let into pubs. They also have a higher percentage of population in jail than the settled.

They mightn't be a different race per se, but there is an argument to be made that they are a different ethnic group, ie nomadism, different language and customs etc.

the reason there is a higher percentage of travellers in jail is because travellers are much more likely to engage in criminality and if you ever had any dealings with travellers you would know that they are much more prone to violence than members of the settled community , violence and lawlessness are part and parcel of traveller culture , thats just the way it is but if you want to indulge in political correctness or other high mindesness , be my guest

FTA69

the reason there is a higher percentage of travellers in jail is because travellers are much more likely to engage in criminality

True, the same way blacks in London are more likely to engage in crime. Does this mean that either group are genetically programmed to commit crime? No, it simply demonstrates the fact that poverty and social exclusion are the biggest factors in criminal activity.

and if you ever had any dealings with travellers you would know that they are much more prone to violence than members of the settled community ,

I'm from a deprived housing estate and have had many dealings with Travellers, in fact I had a pint with one earlier on today. The fact remains that if you go into Knocknaheeny or Ballymun or anywhere else you will discover that violence is much more prevalent in these areas than in their more affluent counterparts. There is a culture of "straighteners" and people are often involved in scraps over matters big and small. Settled people are well able to beat people up, steal cars and sell drugs. They do it in large numbers every day, the question is why do they do it.

violence and lawlessness are part and parcel of traveller culture , thats just the way it is but if you want to indulge in political correctness or other high mindesness , be my guest

Just because I disagree with you labelling people with generalisations doesn't mean I am a wooly liberal. Over here I have come into contact with a huge variety of groups, and all suffer the same stereotyping. The Irish are unsophisticated drunks, the Jamaicans are layabouts and crack-dealers, the Poles are drunken brawlers, the Romanians are thieves, the Nigerians are fraudsters, the Turks sell heroin, the Indians are stuck up, the Jews are tight, Boers are all racists, the Chinese are up to their necks in video piracy and gambling, the Somalis are lawless gangsters, the Bengalis are backward, the Pakistanis are fanatics... are you getting the picture?

The fact is that all stereotypes have an element of truth, usually perpetuated by a visible minority. The other fact is that the above cultures have some good aspects too, even the Travellers, and that judging entire ethnic groups with blanket statements is simply a bullsh*t argument.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

They mightn't be a different race per se, but there is an argument to be made that they are a different ethnic group, ie nomadism, different language and customs etc.

So what? Why are people so intent on painting groups as different races or ethnicities? Does belonging to a different ethnic group or race give one a carte blanche to behave as you wish in society?

If so I'd like to complain about sexual harassment laws in Ireland as they oppress by ethnic Italian customs.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

The fact is that all stereotypes have an element of truth, usually perpetuated by a visible minority. The other fact is that the above cultures have some good aspects too, even the Travellers, and that judging entire ethnic groups with blanket statements is simply a bullsh*t argument.

I'm sure that the Travelling community would welcome a study of their culture, in relation to occupation and all income (or lack thereof), tax receipts (or lack thereof) and criminal activity (or lack thereof) which would no doubt highlight how it is only a minority that puts the community in disrepute.

moe_sizlak

it was mentioned that travellers like blacks are more prone to violence due to them being more likely to live in poverty
1st of all let me say i live in an area where there are very few black people , ive met black people on a small number of occasions and i like them very much , especially black ladies , i would feel much more comofortable in the company of a black person than in the company of a traveller

on to the point about travellers being dysfunctional because they are poor
many travellers are quite rich , they by and large only deal in cash and so pay no tax , most travellers that i see drive brand new vans
there culture and ways are inherrintly dysfunctional to most settled irish people
what with there nomadic lifestyle and all it entails , the words personal responsibility spring to mind when it comes to travellers , any place they park there caravans ends up like a rubbish tip and there is no such thing as any guarentee when you either employ a traveller to do a job or buy something off them , you bought it as you saw it sir is there motto

aidan24326

FTA69 wrote:

The fact is that all stereotypes have an element of truth, usually perpetuated by a visible minority. The other fact is that the above cultures have some good aspects too, even the Travellers, and that judging entire ethnic groups with blanket statements is simply a bullsh*t argument.

Thing is most sterotypes only have an element of truth and it's often limited to a visible minority like you said. However it's very debatable whether that applies to travellers where crime and violence are part and parcel of life and not by any means limited to a small minority. Of course it's not limited to travellers either, these problems being widespread in working class parts of our cities aswell but it's travellers we're talking about here.

What do travellers in Ireland actually want though? Representatives of traveller's groups will often say that they just wanted to be treated fairly etc. but that will not happen while they continue to alienate themselves with anti-social behaviour. If a publican won't allow travellers in, it's often with good reason based on past experiences. If a community doesn't want 10 traveller caravans on their doorstep it's again not without some justification given the mess they leave behind and their known propensity for criminal activity.

I lived in the D15 area when travellers left several tonnes of rubbish on local community soccer pitches and I saw for myself what total disregard they had for the people living in that area. A group of travellers behaving like that can hardly have any complaints when they're met with hostility in the next town.

JimiTime

^^ Thats the key really. I haven't heard any traveller groups such as pave point ever come out and admit that its a problem. Until they do, I don't think i can see them being credible in a forum of discussion. Its obvious to all that there are risks in allowing travellers use your premises for a function etc. I recall a programme called 'Harbour Nights', that was on RTE about 8 years ago. It was a bit like Courtown uncovered

. There was a traveller couple looking to hire a venue for their wedding reception. Nowhere would let them, and there was a bit of the oul, 'we're just normal people, this is discrimination etc'. Eventually, one lady let them use her hotel, and took a bit of a moral high ground if I recall. A few weeks later, they returned to the hotel, post wedding. Lets just say, she wont be accusing her fellow hoteliers of discrimination again.

Now until a travellers group comes out and admits that there is an issue, I personally, cannot take them seriously. At the end of the day, when I was 17, I was not a boy racer, i was a good careful driver. But my insurance quotes were on average about £4000. Is that discrimination? No, its an insurance company saying, 17 year olds are much more likely to be involved in an accident due to inexperience, speeding and stupidity. Also, the figures show it to be such. In the same way, due to their reputation, which has a solid foundation, there is dubiousness when dealing with travellers. Just as I was a frustrated 17 year old who thought it was wholly unfair, there was good reason behind it. I think its similar from a traveller perspective.

Also, if you're a bouncer on a door, and a guy comes up in levis, gold chains and some nike air max, he would also be told 'not tonight'. The fact is, its risk evaluation. A bar owner is not going to risk his customers, or livlyhood etc, by risking an incident. IMO, travellers, if they want to integrate with the settled community, must show that they are making cultural advances towards it. Coming out and crying racism, just belittles their cause IMO.

FTA69

Corinthian,

So what? Why are people so intent on painting groups as different races or ethnicities?

Because that's the reality of the situation. How can you address inequalities without addressing race, which is often a reason for that inequality?

Does belonging to a different ethnic group or race give one a carte blanche to behave as you wish in society?

Did I say it did?

Moe,

1st of all let me say i live in an area where there are very few black people , ive met black people on a small number of occasions and i like them very much , especially black ladies , i would feel much more comofortable in the company of a black person than in the company of a traveller

That's because you live in Ireland. I guarantee you if you were in a Jamaican ragga rave in Brixton you would be a damn sight less comfortable. Over here (and the US) blacks have a reputation for disproportionate violence and crime, as I said, the reality is that there is some cultural explanation for this some of the time, but mostly it is down to poverty.

many travellers are quite rich , they by and large only deal in cash and so pay no tax , most travellers that i see drive brand new vans

Is that why they have a life-expectancy of 65? Because they are loaded? :rolleyes: Some Travellers are rich (ie the Rathkealers), most haven't a pot to p*ss in.

Jimi,

Now until a travellers group comes out and admits that there is an issue, I personally, cannot take them seriously.

Pavee Point simply states that anyone breaking the law should be dealt with through the appropriate channels. They are there as a support group for Travellers as a whole, they are not there to continuously berate Traveller criminals for the benefit of the settled community.

Its obvious to all that there are risks in allowing travellers use your premises for a function etc

Fair enough, and I'm not going to deny that Travellers often wreck pubs, I've seen them do it more than once. Don't get me wrong, if I was a publican and ten drunk Traveller men coming out of a Christening went into my pub I wouldn't serve them either. (Although large groups of males are rarely let in anywhere for that matter.) However I know a Pavee woman and her sister who wasn't even let into a London pub in the middle of the day for a gin and tonic and a bowl of soup. Are two middle-aged women going to destroy the place? No, the real reason was simply that the pub-owner didn't want Pavees "bringing the character of the place down", a similar reason why people won't let blacks or Bengalis into nightclubs. Blanket bans are unacceptable in my view, no matter what group they concern.

liberty 2007

moe_sizlak wrote:

the reason there is a higher percentage of travellers in jail is because travellers are much more likely to engage in criminality and if you ever had any dealings with travellers you would know that they are much more prone to violence than members of the settled community , violence and lawlessness are part and parcel of traveller culture , thats just the way it is but if you want to indulge in political correctness or other high mindesness , be my guest

I agree.

JimiTime

fta69 wrote:

Jimi,

Pavee Point simply states that anyone breaking the law should be dealt with through the appropriate channels. They are there as a support group for Travellers as a whole, they are not there to continuously berate Traveller criminals for the benefit of the settled community.

This type of exageration is not productive, and is one of the problems faced when trying to discuss things like this. To say 'they are not there to continually berate traveller criminals for the benefit of the settled', is presenting it as if that was my point. Its not, and very disingenuous of you. I did not say that traveller groups should do such a thing. What i said, is that they should not be just crying bigotry, when there are good reasons for certain actions and feelings towards travellers. In not showing empathy towards the settled community, and basically accusing people, wrongly, of being bigoted or racist etc when they have issue with travellers, they loose credability IMO.

Fair enough, and I'm not going to deny that Travellers often wreck pubs, I've seen them do it more than once. Don't get me wrong, if I was a publican and ten drunk Traveller men coming out of a Christening went into my pub I wouldn't serve them either. (Although large groups of males are rarely let in anywhere for that matter.)

Indeed.

However I know a Pavee woman and her sister who wasn't even let into a London pub in the middle of the day for a gin and tonic and a bowl of soup. Are two middle-aged women going to destroy the place? No, the real reason was simply that the pub-owner didn't want Pavees "bringing the character of the place down", a similar reason why people won't let blacks or Bengalis into nightclubs. Blanket bans are unacceptable in my view, no matter what group they concern.

Once again, you jump to the assumption that its some kind of class thing. You assume that the publican doesn't want to bring the standard of the pub down. No doubt, this happens, but in the majority of cases its as I said, 'risk evaluation'. The publican is just as likely to be thinking, 'if I let them in, they may bring others in, and they may feel they've got a lace that they are allowed into'. Then he thinks, in the long run that will spell trouble, so he makes a call on it. I think its very unfortunate on the innocent people that are good law abiding folk being tarred with this brush, of course it is. But its not without good reasoning. You cannot tell me its not risky! I worked in a pub in London that accepted a traveller christening. I was on my guard all night, and thankfully no violence occurred, although it threatened to a few times. But I was asked to fiddle the till, give out free drink, pestered to the point where I gave them free shots, for the situation was threatening, and I could go on. While it went, thankfully, fairly incident free, it still had its stresses, and to be honest, the guy whos child got christened seemed like a sound enough bloke. In saying that he pestered for free this or free that, and was trying to bribe me to give out free booze.

Really, m point is, I hate to see innocent folk get a raw deal. But, I also hate to see people shout bigot, at someone who says that they would have issue with travellers.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

Because that's the reality of the situation. How can you address inequalities without addressing race, which is often a reason for that inequality?

It's irrelevant to this discussion. Travellers are not a different race. They're arguably not even a different ethnic group - and certainly if so not one that is all that far removed from the rest of Irish society.

Playing the race card is just another example, as with the article that was proffered earlier, of justification through obfuscation.

Did I say it did?

You imply it.

aidan24326

They're not a different race, an ethnic group yes. They rarely breed/marry outside their own ethnic group though which brings it's own problems, a small genetic pool. Playing the race card just panders to the PC police who actually do more harm than good. Like Jimitime said the traveller's representative groups will not be taken seriously until the traveller community as a whole show that they're willing to compromise in the interests of themelves and the settled community.

Some of their issues could be solved/alleviated if they were willing to take some steps themselves. I do feel sorry for the genuine few who are persecuted for the actions of others but in the case of travellers in general it's not simply the 10% giving the rest a bad name and we all know that. They need to start the addressing the issue of why there's so much distrust there, it didn't fall out of the sky. But are they prepared to even go down that road?

purple'n'gold

Another interesting aspect of tinker (traveller if you insist) culture is the fact that when one of them takes ill, the entire tribe descends on the hospital. Vans are parked willy nilly all over the place, (they wont use the car park as you have to pay) children are allowed to run wild all over the place, they ignore the nurses and just crowd into the wards shouting and making a nuisance of them selves. They also leave the toilets in a terrible state. None of this is makey up; I have seen all of the above in my local hospital. Which of course I will not name.

Colonel Sanders

I must be seeeing things, people in positions of some kind of influence not being scared of the ultra PC brigade and saying what a lot of his voters would deam to be true. Maybe his choice of words leaves abit to be desired but i don't think he meant it literally.

I rememeber a few years back when a load of travellers descended on my home town. the first pub as you cross the bridge into town was thrashed by them and as a result a lot of other pubs closed their doors or made up excuses to only serve who they wanted to (a lot of them displayed 'Private Party' notices on doors). Who can blame them for this? A person has a right to protect his livlihood. There was what was described as their 'Spokes person' on the RTE news one of the nights giving out about their treatment and saying they 'weren't animals'. I drove by the site they were camped in a few times and must say i agreed, animals wouldn't have behaved in the way some of them were behaving.

Tha Gopher

The_Minister wrote:

I just saw this on politics.ie http://www.enniscorthyecho.ie/news/story.asp?j=27439&cat=news
All I can say is, wow.I never thought any politician would be so honest about his views (even if they are pig-plop).
I hope that Fine Gael take the nomination off him, or at least distance themselves from his remarks.

Why exactly are they pig plop? He could have worded it better, and really shouldnt have used language comparing it to a Viking raid, but you cant really be denying the basic facts are true, that they are refusing to feck off out of someones garden and that they will leave the place nice and clean when they leave.

karen3212 wrote:

I still find the failure to condemn this politician absolutely disgusting.

For anyone who wants to read about travellers in Ireland I found this site interesting.

http://www.nccri.ie/travellr.html

.

As said, he should have chosen his words better but people are more disgusted with pliticians who refuse to comment on the topic. Are you not more disgusted some poor family has a few caravans stuck on their lawn until the law slowly pulls its finger out and moves them? (personally i wouldnt wait on the law, or even involve them at all seeing as they would be useless)

And btw that site is the biggest load of apologist rubbish Ive ever read. wah ah wah, we`re all on welfare because society doesnt understand us.

FTA69

This type of exageration is not productive, and is one of the problems faced when trying to discuss things like this. To say 'they are not there to continually berate traveller criminals for the benefit of the settled', is presenting it as if that was my point. Its not, and very disingenuous of you. I did not say that traveller groups should do such a thing. What i said, is that they should not be just crying bigotry, when there are good reasons for certain actions and feelings towards travellers. In not showing empathy towards the settled community, and basically accusing people, wrongly, of being bigoted or racist etc when they have issue with travellers, they loose credability IMO.

Fair enough, you make a good point, but there is no denying that there is a large proportion of Irish society that just don't like Pavees, no matter what they do.

Once again, you jump to the assumption that its some kind of class thing. You assume that the publican doesn't want to bring the standard of the pub down. No doubt, this happens, but in the majority of cases its as I said, 'risk evaluation'. The publican is just as likely to be thinking, 'if I let them in, they may bring others in, and they may feel they've got a lace that they are allowed into'. Then he thinks, in the long run that will spell trouble, so he makes a call on it.

And do you think that's an acceptable decision to make if they were say, Somalians or Jamaicans?

Corinthian,

It's irrelevant to this discussion. Travellers are not a different race. They're arguably not even a different ethnic group -

If you think the only difference between us and them is the fact they are nomadic then you are sadly misinformed. They have their own language, customs and culture; they (loosely albeit) fit the definition of an ethnic group.

You imply it.

No I didn't.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

If you think the only difference between us and them is the fact they are nomadic then you are sadly misinformed. They have their own language, customs and culture; they (loosely albeit) fit the definition of an ethnic group.

Let me get this straight - I put forward that they are not a separate race and are arguably a separate ethnic group and you retort by not challenging the race point and arguing that they loosely fit the definition of an ethnic group. I don't see how you in any way contradict what I said.

We both appear to agree that they are not a different race and at least agree that if they are an ethnic group it's a tenuous status.

So how am I sadly misinformed? Or are you just coming out with rhetoric for the sake of it?

No I didn't.

Then why talk about racism when it's irrelevant to the topic?

FTA69

Then why talk about racism when it's irrelevant to the topic?

What? You're only obfusticating the argument now to no end.

You insinuated that because I believe that Pavees are a different ethnic group I somehow believe they have "carte blanche" to commit crime.

I state that I never said that.

You state I implied it.

I state that I didn't imply that I believe Travellers have a right to commit crime.

Then you accuse me of dragging racism into the topic when in your opinion it has no bearing on the discussion. Your points are disjointed and you are creating legions of strawmen.

In other words, you're talking through your hole and accusing me of saying things I never said.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

What? You're only obfusticating the argument now to no end.

You insinuated that because I believe that Pavees are a different ethnic group I somehow believe they have "carte blanche" to commit crime.

I state that I never said that.

You state I implied it.

Let's look at what you said:

They mightn't be a different race per se, but there is an argument to be made that they are a different ethnic group, ie nomadism, different language and customs etc.

So they may not be a different race, but given their ethnic status you imply that they may be treated in a similar fashion. You then go on a diatribe of apology which is explained by their demographic grouping (which according to you may be treated in the same fashion as race).

So, like it or not, even if you do not state it plainly, you do imply a justification for their anti-social behavior based upon ethnicity (which I take it you consider a form of racism).

If this is not the case, please tell us how you do not think their ethnicity justifies this type of behavior and what baring their ethnicity has. Also feel free to reject that one may call prejudice (whether well founded or not) based on ethnicity as racism.

If so I will unreservedly apologize on the basis of what was a genuine misunderstanding of your meaning.

Otherwise, you would realistically be the one talking through your posterior.

FTA69

You then go on a diatribe of apology which is explained by their demographic grouping (which according to you may be treated in the same fashion as race).

Indeed, but if you read over the posts I made a while back you will see the biggest reason I cited for Traveller crime was poverty, something which I believe is the biggest cause of the crime of which we are talking. I then cited the example of blacks in the US and England, ie they commit a disproportionate amount of crime but are also disproportionately poor.

Like the blacks, Pavees do face racism (or prejudice) based on their ethnicity, did I state that racism is the sole cause of crime? Not at all, it may be a factor, but never did I say it was the sole reason; and by no means did I say it excuses those Travellers who do commit crime.

The Corinthian

Fair enough on not excusing all crime, however Pavees (is that the new Traveller?) do not face racism even if they may face prejudice (be it justified or not). By definition they can't.

Using such an emotionally charged term serves only to stifle debate by labeling anyone who criticizes them as racist.

JimiTime

FTA69 wrote:

Fair enough, you make a good point, but there is no denying that there is a large proportion of Irish society that just don't like Pavees, no matter what they do.

i can and will deny such a thing. I don't think people would care all that much if they travelled from town to town, but were clean, friendly, non-threatening and law abiding folk. I agree, it would be a struggle to banish their negative reputation, but anyone I know have issues with travellers because of the criminality and anti-social behaviour. Not because they choose to live in a caravan, or speak with a different accent.

And do you think that's an acceptable decision to make if they were say, Somalians or Jamaicans?

Somalia and Jamaica are countries, so one cannot be so general. There are different cultures and customs within each of these countries. If one could tell that the Jamaican was actually a Jamaican yardie, then yes, as that would be an undesirable customer. Nothing to do with skin, or ethnicity, just behaviour. The fact is, alot of people don't know how to tell where a black person is from, so they'll either say, No Blacks, or wont care. I lived in North London, and had quite a few African friends when I was working in Chalk Farm. Sound folk, great craic, and a pleasure to serve. They thought me alot about Africa also. The thing is with Africans, is that its not even about countries, its about tribes. A very good friend of mine is Ghanan, and rather than speaking about africa in terms of how the colonies divided it, he talks about it in terms of tribes. He also informs me that there are certain tribes that he would class as scum, that they are lawless etc, and others that are very law abiding. Obviously, Joe England or Ireland is not going to be able to distinguish who is who, and in turn, if you get a few from the more 'criminal' tribes causing trouble, they may just tar them all with the same brush. Their equation may turn into 'blacks=trouble', and this in turn effects those who are the nicest law abiding Africans you could meet. The difference with travellers, is that one can distinguish them as the tribe you do not want in your bar. No doubt, as I've said, there are nice travellers that this will effect, but I can't blame the barman, or accuse him of bigotry, as he has to protect his livlihood.

To Summarise, if there was good grounds for believing that a certain group of people are a risk to your premises, then I don't think its bigotted or racist to refuse them entry. Travellers, are easily identified, but the 'bad tribes' of Africa are not. not in this country anyway. If they could be identified, then the above would apply to them also IMO. I repeat, its not about skin or ethnicity, its about behaviour!