So...Ok then...How do we talk about it? (Irish Presidential Election Result)

demfad

If you get 12.5% of the vote you get your expenses back. I wonder was this a consideration for Casey? He had no chance of winning and he did not start his campaign on an anti-traveller footing. Looks opportunist to me.

James Brown

demfad wrote: »

If you get 12.5% of the vote you get your expenses back. I wonder was this a consideration for Casey? He had no chance of winning and he did not start his campaign on an anti-traveller footing. Looks opportunist to me.

Certainly opportunist, but I'd say it had more to do with lack of imagination and desperation to bring some semblance of relevance to his campaign other than ego driven business man wants to impress American business friends.

An Ciarraioch

He's done the Jason O'Toole political interview in the current Hot Press, so if like the others, will be extremely wide-ranging in scope.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Certainly opportunist, but I'd say it had more to do with lack of imagination and desperation to bring some semblance of relevance to his campaign other than ego driven business man wants to impress American business friends.

I can't believe you are dismissing the concerns that Casey raised so easily as bring lack of imagination and desperation. He wasn't bigoted, he wasn't racist, his comments were fair and broadly true.

Traveller culture has huge problems, as does Muslim culture, as does aspects of African culture. Irish culture has problems too - the maniacal attachment to the language of some being one example. Criticising these cultural problems is not racist or bigoted.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I can't believe you are dismissing the concerns that Casey raised so easily as bring lack of imagination and desperation. He wasn't bigoted, he wasn't racist, his comments were fair and broadly true.

Traveller culture has huge problems, as does Muslim culture, as does aspects of African culture. Irish culture has problems too - the maniacal attachment to the language of some being one example. Criticising these cultural problems is not racist or bigoted.

What concerns did Casey raise?

That SEMS give travellers more rights...untrue.

That travellers are basically people who camp on other peoples land...wholly untrue.
That specific travellers had turned down houses in Tipp, but failed to mention that these 'refusals' happen hundreds of times across society.

So on the one true thing he said, he willfully targeted one community.

What other 'concerns' has Casey raised?
None, he threw in those grenades and knew that they would stir a particular pot.
Neither had he any solutions to offer, he has more or less just walked away and knocked on FF's door looking for the top job.

oscarBravo

Ann-Marie Flynn made some good points in this week's Mayo News:

In recent days, the most common rationale has been that Casey spoke for those who do not feel they are represented by the political establishment. This doesn’t quite stand up. A wealthy businessman, who pays no tax in this country, who punches down on the most vulnerable in society will represent the unrepresented more than a man who has spent his political career campaigning for social equality? Forgive me if I’m bewildered.

...like it or not, the Traveller community are also citizens of this country, represented by our President. To have a candidate so publicly denigrate fellow citizens is unseemly at best, and displays – once again – a thorough and wilful misunderstanding of the role of President by Casey. And really, since when has Michael D Higgins been afraid of speaking his mind? Far from the cuddly persona portrayed in the media, he is not afraid to bare his teeth, and has never had any problem in saying exactly what he thinks. The difference being that what Higgins thinks tends to not be intolerant of minorities.

While he may have some business acumen, Peter Casey is no political mastermind. Inconsistent and indecisive throughout, he struck gold with some cheap shots, made hay as a result and made it up as he went. Would you stand for this from your doctor, accountant or builder? A fifth of voters saw this trait and incredibly, figured this man would be worthy of President. Are we not better than this?

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ann-Marie Flynn made some good points in this week's Mayo News:

Having read the full article, it is clear she missed the point completely.

Wanderer78

Populism is alive and well in Ireland , the ge will be interesting to say the least

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote: »

Having read the full article, it is clear she missed the point completely.

That is the crux of the matter. Some think she missed the point and that what Peter was simply saying all people should be treated equally.

But, they themselves seem to miss the point that many supporters of Casey actually think he was specifically speaking about the way travellers behave.

How many of the posts on boards actually speak about fairness for all? They don't, they speak about the negative stories which we hear about travellers.

oscarBravo

blanch152 wrote: »

Having read the full article, it is clear she missed the point completely.

Well, that's a comprehensive and devastating takedown. Well argued, sir. Well argued.

Tell me how wrote: »

That is the crux of the matter. Some think she missed the point and that what Peter was simply saying all people should be treated equally.

Sure: let's treat everybody equally, including disadvantaged minorities. What could possibly go wrong?

I've made the point in another forum that all people seem to want to do is complain about Travellers, and they voted for Casey because he validated their view: he had nothing constructive to offer either, other than vindication of their complaining.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, that's a comprehensive and devastating takedown. Well argued, sir. Well argued.



Sure: let's treat everybody equally, including disadvantaged minorities. What could possibly go wrong?

I've made the point in another forum that all people seem to want to do is complain about Travellers, and they voted for Casey because he validated their view: he had nothing constructive to offer either, other than vindication of their complaining.

Precisely the point about this. He has nothing to offer in solutions nor do his supporters. In terms of anything implementable.

What Casey's point should have been was that the whole policing policy of the state isn't working. From infrastructure through to courts and prisons.
You don't need to infringe anyone's rights or target one community to begin to address that

A reminder again that Casey sees his future ideally as part of FF. There are enough warnings there.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Having read the full article, it is clear she missed the point completely.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, that's a comprehensive and devastating takedown. Well argued, sir. Well argued.

I would have thought the flaws in her article and her reasoning were blatantly evident, but if further explanation is needed, let's start with this quote:

"Affluent white men expressing disdain for minorities and poorer people is not new."

This single line was sufficient to render the whole article pointless. A remark that others might believe was racist and sexist but that she would defend as fair comment because in her opinion it is mainly true.

What Casey said was mainly true not only in his opinion but in the opinion of 23% of the electorate. Others may well believe that his opinion was racist and sexist.

No difference between what she said in that sentence and what she accuses Casey of. To put it another way,

"And like it or not, the Traveller community white men are also citizens of this country, represented by our President. To have a candidate journalist so publicly denigrate fellow citizens is unseemly at best, and displays – once again – a thorough and wilful misunderstanding of the role of President"

Her lack of self-awareness for someone pontificating from a height is staggering. A throwaway unneccesary remark castigating all white men renders her point completely moot and leaves her looking stupid.

Casey could have rephrased her sentence I quote above as follows:

"The travelling community expressing disdain for women and the settled community is not new"

In fact, you could go further and say that

"The travelling community expressing disdain for women by marrying them off as young girls in arranged measures and preventing them from being educated is not new"

or

"The travelling community expressing disdain for the settled community by not respecting their personal and property rights through endemic criminality is not new"

But then, she would no longer be attacking white men.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What Casey said was mainly true not only in his opinion but in the opinion of 23% of the electorate. Others may well believe that his opinion was racist and sexist.

What Casey said, was not 'true'.

SEMS does not give travellers extra rights or even extra entitlements that they already had.

Travellers are NOT basically people who camp on other people's land.

The family in Tipp have not been given anything more than what Tipp Co Co said they were going to give.

James Brown

23% or the 43% that bothered to vote
What's that roughly 10% of the electorate? With that logic PBP might make the junior partner in the next minority government

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What Casey said, was not 'true'.

SEMS does not give travellers extra rights or even extra entitlements that they already had.

Travellers are NOT basically people who camp on other people's land.

The family in Tipp have not been given anything more than what Tipp Co Co said they were going to give.

Also, they were happy were they were by all accounts and Tipp CoCo came to them.

An Ciarraioch

Just got my Hot Press today - apparently, we should chip in our 2% contribution to NATO, even though as Casey himself admits, no-one is likely to attack us. Also, we should push for whatever deal Britain gets, as the UK and American export markets are more important (never mind that most exports to the US are from American companies, here partly at least because of Single Market access).

oscarBravo

blanch152 wrote: »

"Affluent white men expressing disdain for minorities and poorer people is not new."

This single line was sufficient to render the whole article pointless.

Maybe you should tell her to make you a sandwich while you're at it.

James Brown

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Just got my Hot Press today - apparently, we should chip in our 2% contribution to NATO, even though as Casey himself admits, no-one is likely to attack us. Also, we should push for whatever deal Britain gets, as the UK and American export markets are more important (never mind that most exports to the US are from American companies, here partly at least because of Single Market access).

We've Russia coming into our air space all the time. It's not so much invading us, (we're still partially occupied by the British) but more to do with our space being used to brow beat neighbours.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe you should tell her to make you a sandwich while you're at it.

I don't think I can add anything further to your previous post.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, that's a comprehensive and devastating takedown. Well argued, sir. Well argued.

oscarBravo

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think I can add anything further to your previous post.

Fair enough, but it was hard to think of anything constructive to offer in reply to your outrage that a mere woman had the bloody nerve to be critical of men.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough, but it was hard to think of anything constructive to offer in reply to your outrage that a mere woman had the bloody nerve to be critical of men.

Her outrage at a mere member of the settled community having the bloody nerve to be critical of the travelling community was what set it off.

She is guilty of the same amount of crassness and bigotry as she accuses Casey of.

oscarBravo

blanch152 wrote: »

She is guilty of the same amount of crassness and bigotry as she accuses Casey of.

No, she's not. It's truly bizarre that you have no problem with what Casey said, because you're not a member of the group he criticised, but you are outraged at what Flynn said, because you are a member of the group she criticised.

You didn't even bother to address whether or not what she said was true (which it is), while baldly asserting that what Casey said was true (which it's not) - and, worse, using an argumentum ad populum in support of your assertion. What's worse still is that your logical fallacy was flawed in its own right, because you appealed to the authority of the minority in the process.

The hypocrisy you're demonstrating here is, frankly, mind-boggling.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, she's not. It's truly bizarre that you have no problem with what Casey said, because you're not a member of the group he criticised, but you are outraged at what Flynn said, because you are a member of the group she criticised.

You didn't even bother to address whether or not what she said was true (which it is), while baldly asserting that what Casey said was true (which it's not) - and, worse, using an argumentum ad populum in support of your assertion. What's worse still is that your logical fallacy was flawed in its own right, because you appealed to the authority of the minority in the process.

The hypocrisy you're demonstrating here is, frankly, mind-boggling.

And where did I say I was outraged?

I have highlighted my comment on her in bold and I stand over every word. As for whether what she said is true, the following statements are also true:

(1) Criminality is endemically entrenched within the Traveller community.
(2) Traveller culture is deeply homophobic
(3) Traveller culture is deeply misogynistic and in some ways as hostile to women as Muslim culture is.
(4) Traveller culture has little regard for the property rights of the settled community
(5) The criteria used for ethnicity have little scientific rationale and could be applied to many other groups including Aran Islanders


Her statement about affluent white men is a lazy stereotyped sexist comment that was possibly true decades ago but has lost its currency in the modern world. She is still fighting that battles of the 1970s.

blanch152 wrote: »

I would have thought the flaws in her article and her reasoning were blatantly evident, but if further explanation is needed, let's start with this quote:

"Affluent white men expressing disdain for minorities and poorer people is not new."

This single line was sufficient to render the whole article pointless. A remark that others might believe was racist and sexist but that she would defend as fair comment because in her opinion it is mainly true.

What Casey said was mainly true not only in his opinion but in the opinion of 23% of the electorate. Others may well believe that his opinion was racist and sexist.

No difference between what she said in that sentence and what she accuses Casey of. To put it another way,

"And like it or not, the Traveller community white men are also citizens of this country, represented by our President. To have a candidate journalist so publicly denigrate fellow citizens is unseemly at best, and displays – once again – a thorough and wilful misunderstanding of the role of President"

Her lack of self-awareness for someone pontificating from a height is staggering. A throwaway unneccesary remark castigating all white men renders her point completely moot and leaves her looking stupid.

Casey could have rephrased her sentence I quote above as follows:

"The travelling community expressing disdain for women and the settled community is not new"

In fact, you could go further and say that

"The travelling community expressing disdain for women by marrying them off as young girls in arranged measures and preventing them from being educated is not new"

or

"The travelling community expressing disdain for the settled community by not respecting their personal and property rights through endemic criminality is not new"

But then, she would no longer be attacking white men.

oscarBravo

blanch152 wrote: »

I have highlighted my comment on her in bold and I stand over every word.

Well, you can keep standing indignantly over whatever you want, but you're actually wrong.

She said: "Affluent white men expressing disdain for minorities and poorer people is not new." This is objectively true.

In order to make sure you were good and offended by it, however, you decided to mansplain to us what she meant: "A throwaway unneccesary remark castigating all white men renders her point completely moot and leaves her looking stupid."

The thing is, she didn't castigate all white men. I can see how you could decide to interpret it that way, but frankly the only reason I can think of for interpreting it that way is so you can dismiss her out of hand as someone who doesn't know what she's talking about.

Sure: maybe she should have anticipated the irrational knee-jerk reaction some fragile male egos may have suffered, and carefully couched her language in terms delicately crafted to avoid any possibility of touching those oh-so-shallow nerves. But why should she? Do you edit your posts carefully with an eye to ensuring that you don't upset anyone who doesn't share your unique perspective on the world?

As for whether what she said is true, the following statements are also true:

(1) Criminality is endemically entrenched within the Traveller community.
(2) Traveller culture is deeply homophobic
(3) Traveller culture is deeply misogynistic and in some ways as hostile to women as Muslim culture is.
(4) Traveller culture has little regard for the property rights of the settled community
(5) The criteria used for ethnicity have little scientific rationale and could be applied to many other groups including Aran Islanders

Ah, I see. You're one of those people who subscribe to the view that the best way to solve the problems of the Travelling Community is to bitch about them harder.

Her statement about affluent white men is a lazy stereotyped sexist comment that was possibly true decades ago but has lost its currency in the modern world. She is still fighting that battles of the 1970s.

You should probably tell her that. I'm sure she'd find your white male perspective on feminism utterly fascinating, not to mention completely original.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, you can keep standing indignantly over whatever you want, but you're actually wrong.

She said: "Affluent white men expressing disdain for minorities and poorer people is not new." This is objectively true.

In order to make sure you were good and offended by it, however, you decided to mansplain to us what she meant: "A throwaway unneccesary remark castigating all white men renders her point completely moot and leaves her looking stupid."

The thing is, she didn't castigate all white men. I can see how you could decide to interpret it that way, but frankly the only reason I can think of for interpreting it that way is so you can dismiss her out of hand as someone who doesn't know what she's talking about.

Sure: maybe she should have anticipated the irrational knee-jerk reaction some fragile male egos may have suffered, and carefully couched her language in terms delicately crafted to avoid any possibility of touching those oh-so-shallow nerves. But why should she? Do you edit your posts carefully with an eye to ensuring that you don't upset anyone who doesn't share your unique perspective on the world?

You are the one expressing outrage, I only saw amusement in her hypocrisy. It made her whole article pointless, as I said, because she lowered herself to Casey's level.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, I see. You're one of those people who subscribe to the view that the best way to solve the problems of the Travelling Community is to bitch about them harder. You should probably tell her that. I'm sure she'd find your white male perspective on feminism utterly fascinating, not to mention completely original.

I see you didn't dispute a single truth I posted. I take that as tacit agreement.

As for feminism, how any feminist can defend the travelling community is beyond me. They don't let women be educated, they marry them off at 15 to other close relatives, they take up a hugely disproportionate (overwhelmingly so) share of battered women's refuges, yet in your eyes and hers, affluent white men are the problem.

It would be funny if it wasn't so scary. I can tell you something I am outraged about - the treatment of women in the travelling community. If you prefer to direct your outrage to affluent white men and posters like me, off you go.

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) Criminality is endemically entrenched within the Traveller community.
(2) Traveller culture is deeply homophobic
(3) Traveller culture is deeply misogynistic and in some ways as hostile to women as Muslim culture is.
(4) Traveller culture has little regard for the property rights of the settled community
(5) The criteria used for ethnicity have little scientific rationale and could be applied to many other groups including Aran Islanders

Point 1 is something I would like to see debated out in the open. This is why I started this thread, to discuss how and where can we get to a point where both sides are asked to prepare for a discuss such a point. Let facts and figures be presented to support what are heretofore often just opinion based statements.

Point 2 and 3 are debatable in my view. Would gay traveller Martin 'Beans' Ward agree that homophobia is deeply entrenched within the community? Any more than it was in Ireland just 30 years ago?
Similarly, I understand that within many traveller families, there is a matriarchal structure. And again, if not in general, is it not just lagging behind the wider culture which could be argued was misogynistic up until relatively recently (and is still so according to some).

Point 4. Again, I would like to see debated objectively.

Point 5. If there are so like the rest of us, why does everyone know what group is being described when the word travellers is mentioned. That when someone suggests traveller accommodation, modes of transport, accents or clothing, that most don't feel the need to ask for further description. I am not qualified to judge on ethnic status but I definitely see them as an identifiable group within society and one which has links to our cultural history.

I feel objective discussion could lead to exposure of what cannot be denied facts which both sides then need to acknowledge and address objectively.

My personal sense is that you are probably closer to correct than incorrect on some of the points above but I also think that the view of the settled community in just lambasting travellers and telling them they have to change or we that we don't want them amongst us is partly responsible for how they behave. (And I do say partly now).

blanch152

Tell me how wrote: »

Point 1 is something I would like to see debated out in the open. This is why I started this thread, to discuss how and where can we get to a point where both sides are asked to prepare for a discuss such a point. Let facts and figures be presented to support what are heretofore often just opinion based statements.

Point 2 and 3 are debatable in my view. Would gay traveller Martin 'Beans' Ward agree that homophobia is deeply entrenched within the community? Any more than it was in Ireland just 30 years ago?
Similarly, I understand that within many traveller families, there is a matriarchal structure. And again, if not in general, is it not just lagging behind the wider culture which could be argued was misogynistic up until relatively recently (and is still so according to some).

Point 4. Again, I would like to see debated objectively.

Point 5. If there are so like the rest of us, why does everyone know what group is being described when the word travellers is mentioned. That when someone suggests traveller accommodation, modes of transport, accents or clothing, that most don't feel the need to ask for further description. I am not qualified to judge on ethnic status but I definitely see them as an identifiable group within society and one which has links to our cultural history.

I feel objective discussion could lead to exposure of what cannot be denied facts which both sides then need to acknowledge and address objectively.

My personal sense is that you are probably closer to correct than incorrect on some of the points above but I also think that the view of the settled community in just lambasting travellers and telling them they have to change or we that we don't want them amongst us is partly responsible for how they behave. (And I do say partly now).

I am open to persuasion on all of the points I have made.

What I am not open to is being shouted down and told I am a bigot for having put forward reasonable hypotheses.

Edit: Should be clear that I am not accusing you of shouting down, others have been doing that across these threads.

blanch152

Tell me how wrote: »

Point 5. If there are so like the rest of us, why does everyone know what group is being described when the word travellers is mentioned. That when someone suggests traveller accommodation, modes of transport, accents or clothing, that most don't feel the need to ask for further description. I am not qualified to judge on ethnic status but I definitely see them as an identifiable group within society and one which has links to our cultural history.

I feel objective discussion could lead to exposure of what cannot be denied facts which both sides then need to acknowledge and address objectively.

On this point, everyone knows what group is being described in the "Dublin City Zombies" thread in After Hours.

Similarly, everyone knows what group is being described when Healy-Rae supporters are being lumped in together.

That doesn't make them an ethnic group.

oscarBravo

blanch152 wrote: »

I am open to persuasion on all of the points I have made.

I doubt it - certainly not if the person doing the persuasion gives you the tiniest foothold of an excuse to dismiss everything they say out of hand on the flimsiest of pretexts.

What I am not open to is being shouted down and told I am a bigot for having put forward reasonable hypotheses.

What hypotheses? You put forward a series of sweeping generalisations about an entire community, while simultaneously berating a female journalist for allegedly doing the same (which she didn't).

I'll ask again: what positive steps do you believe Irish society should take to address the problems faced, and presented, by the travelling community?

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

Point 1 is something I would like to see debated out in the open. This is why I started this thread, to discuss how and where can we get to a point where both sides are asked to prepare for a discuss such a point. Let facts and figures be presented to support what are heretofore often just opinion based statements.

Point 2 and 3 are debatable in my view. Would gay traveller Martin 'Beans' Ward agree that homophobia is deeply entrenched within the community? Any more than it was in Ireland just 30 years ago?
Similarly, I understand that within many traveller families, there is a matriarchal structure. And again, if not in general, is it not just lagging behind the wider culture which could be argued was misogynistic up until relatively recently (and is still so according to some).

Point 4. Again, I would like to see debated objectively.

Point 5. If there are so like the rest of us, why does everyone know what group is being described when the word travellers is mentioned. That when someone suggests traveller accommodation, modes of transport, accents or clothing, that most don't feel the need to ask for further description. I am not qualified to judge on ethnic status but I definitely see them as an identifiable group within society and one which has links to our cultural history.

I feel objective discussion could lead to exposure of what cannot be denied facts which both sides then need to acknowledge and address objectively.

My personal sense is that you are probably closer to correct than incorrect on some of the points above but I also think that the view of the settled community in just lambasting travellers and telling them they have to change or we that we don't want them amongst us is partly responsible for how they behave. (And I do say partly now).

Like the poor there are certain traits that fester within low/no income groups.
All these arguments come back to the ridiculous suggestion that people exactly like us in every way, bar socio-economic environment, are somehow different and can be labelled as having various traits based purely on being born into a particular group. It's a nonsense. It takes away free will and the right of the individual to a fair shake.
Our time would be better spent looking at the environment producing any law breakers and ner-do-wells rather than writing the entire community off. The only decent thing to do, IMO, is take each incident on a case by case. Although I'm against the giving of ethnic status to Travelers, maybe they need the protection it may afford to them if they are to be completely written off, (as listed) by biased interests with nothing more than anecdotal evidence.
I know it's the forbidden word but when you start looking down on a group or assigning them with negative traits due to them simply being born into that group it's essentially bordering on racism.

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity.

I'm not trying to close down the debate. If we're going to openly discuss it, let's do so.

There is a move to put members of the public into groups and popular divisive political entities thrive on bringing one side on board by pointing at another. That's all Casey did IMO. It's low gutter level populism.