Peter Casey's beliefs of Travellers' ethnicity Part II

tretorn

Calling out problems a tiny minority are causing the vast majority of law abiding people is not inciting hate. Can we please drop this nonsense so the traveller children being born now can have some choices in life, particularly the little girls. Make sure they get the education they are entitled to so they can decide at fifteen whether they want to continue in education or get married and live the life of their great great grandmothers.
If Peter Casey had spoken out about the Kinahan gang and their anti social behaviour no one would whine about incitement to hatred. Peter spoke out about another minority one thst has ethnic status and this status puts them above critism even though the problems they cause are the same as the ones the Kinahan gangs cause.

tretorn

padd b1975 wrote: »

Send in the CAB backed up by the ERU if needs be.

Anything that can't be proven to have been earned by lawful means, seize it and straight to the auction house!

That should wipe the sneer off their faces.

I would be in favour of this too but if you come down too hard then the burglaries will increase to make up for goods and cash seized, its not like the travellers are going to get jobs to pay for the expensive luxury items they want.

Getting CAB and the army involved means stepping up Gardai surveillance in rural areas and monitoring movement of travelling gangs, the Government must be willing to resource the Gardai properly or else we will all pay if CAB step in.

FrancieBrady

nullzero wrote: »

So you think that the huge spending on making sure travellers don't spend the Christmas period engaging in violent disorder, dangerous driving and countless other anti social activities is fine?

Casey came out and said he doesn't wish to discriminate against anyone. He made some uncomfortable statements about the reality of how travellers conduct themselves and he was suddenly the Reich Furher of a dangerous wave of far right sentiment in Ireland.

Ultimately the carry on of travellers is something that only be addressed by travellers, Pavee Point love to preach to the rest of us about our "intolerance" of their "culture". Have they every stopped to think how this lifestyle impacts on wider society? Just how tolerant of criminality and anti social behaviour should any society be? If a settled person involves themselves in criminality and violent behavior it's never acceptable, but if travellers do it we should accept it as a "cultural" issue?

Here is a report from a few years ago, two reports actually(on an issue NOBODY had addressed until Casey spoke, apparently) about the situation in Rathkeale.
Significantly it is prepared by the settled residents.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/rathkeale-s-divisions-over-traveller-community-are-laid-bare-in-report-e-1.1321788

Now forgive me but I cannot see where the townspeople are reporting huge 'criminality and anti social behaviour'

The reports state that the town has many advantages, such as sporting facilities, low reported crime rates and an unrivalled community spirit.

In fact it appears that the town suffers from being a

a practically segregated town with very clear Traveller and settled community residential zones. Only the Main Street is ‘shared territory’. The residential patterns represent a practical apartheid.”

The very thing or issue Casey has driven a further wedge between, showing that more prejudice and bias is not going to solve this.

It isn't a good situation in Rathkeale but the idea that it is 'suffering' in silence is a bit of a far fetched one.
It is a classic symptom of what happens if you foster segregation and apartheid actually.

Casey has no viable solutions to that and nor it seems, do his supporters. Only to make it worse.

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

So you think that the huge spending on making sure travellers don't spend the Christmas period engaging in violent disorder, dangerous driving and countless other anti social activities is fine?

Casey came out and said he doesn't wish to discriminate against anyone. He made some uncomfortable statements about the reality of how travellers conduct themselves and he was suddenly the Reich Furher of a dangerous wave of far right sentiment in Ireland.

Ultimately the carry on of travellers is something that only be addressed by travellers, Pavee Point love to preach to the rest of us about our "intolerance" of their "culture". Have they every stopped to think how this lifestyle impacts on wider society? Just how tolerant of criminality and anti social behaviour should any society be? If a settled person involves themselves in criminality and violent behavior it's never acceptable, but if travellers do it we should accept it as a "cultural" issue?

The huge spending in pales in comparison to the spending that the garda have spent on policing factions in crumlin and D1. It's a shame these Communities have done nothing to attempt to stop it either.

screamer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

nullzero wrote: »

So you think that the huge spending on making sure travellers don't spend the Christmas period engaging in violent disorder, dangerous driving and countless other anti social activities is fine?

Casey came out and said he doesn't wish to discriminate against anyone. He made some uncomfortable statements about the reality of how travellers conduct themselves and he was suddenly the Reich Furher of a dangerous wave of far right sentiment in Ireland.

Ultimately the carry on of travellers is something that only be addressed by travellers, Pavee Point love to preach to the rest of us about our "intolerance" of their "culture". Have they every stopped to think how this lifestyle impacts on wider society? Just how tolerant of criminality and anti social behaviour should any society be? If a settled person involves themselves in criminality and violent behavior it's never acceptable, but if travellers do it we should accept it as a "cultural" issue?

Here is a report from a few years ago, two reports actually(on an issue NOBODY had addressed until Casey spoke, apparently) about the situation in Rathkeale.
Significantly it is prepared by the settled residents.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/rathkeale-s-divisions-over-traveller-community-are-laid-bare-in-report-e-1.1321788

Now forgive me but I cannot see where the townspeople are reporting huge 'criminality and anti social behaviour'

The reports state that the town has many advantages, such as sporting facilities, low reported crime rates and an unrivalled community spirit.

In fact it appears that the town suffers from being a

a practically segregated town with very clear Traveller and settled community residential zones. Only the Main Street is ‘shared territory’. The residential patterns represent a practical apartheid.”

The very thing or issue Casey has driven a further wedge between, showing that more prejudice and bias is not going to solve this.

It isn't a good situation in Rathkeale but the idea that it is 'suffering' in silence is a bit of a far fetched one.
It is a classic symptom of what happens if you foster segregation and apartheid actually.

Casey has no viable solutions to that and nor it seems, do his supporters. Only to make it worse.

Apartheid....a lot you'd know about it. What are your viable solutions then? Decry Casey all you like but give us some viable alternatives and we'll listen to your constructive criticism rather than your loaded moaning.

FrancieBrady

screamer wrote: »

Apartheid....a lot you'd know about it.

I didn't describe it as 'apartheid' the people LIVING in Rathkeale did. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

What are your viable solutions then? Decry Casey all you like but give us some viable alternatives and we'll listen to your constructive criticism rather than your loaded moaning.

Well, there are two reports prepared by settled people.
Seems to me that the solutions to the problem that THEY see are what should be resulting from SEMS (if it was embraced by us all, as settled people)

To encourage it's aims, greater inclusivity and parity of esteem.

Of course that is a double edged sword as the onus is ALSO on the traveller communities to address the issues within itself.
That takes time, that takes huge investment - in education and interaction.

Casey's type of stirring does NOTHING to aid this.

nullzero

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here is a report from a few years ago, two reports actually(on an issue NOBODY had addressed until Casey spoke, apparently) about the situation in Rathkeale.
Significantly it is prepared by the settled residents.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/rathkeale-s-divisions-over-traveller-community-are-laid-bare-in-report-e-1.1321788

Now forgive me but I cannot see where the townspeople are reporting huge 'criminality and anti social behaviour'


In fact it appears that the town suffers from being a



The very thing or issue Casey has driven a further wedge between, showing that more prejudice and bias is not going to solve this.

It isn't a good situation in Rathkeale but the idea that it is 'suffering' in silence is a bit of a far fetched one.
It is a classic symptom of what happens if you foster segregation and apartheid actually.

Casey has no viable solutions to that and nor it seems, do his supporters. Only to make it worse.

There you go again putting words in peoples mouths. Nobody is saying the issue wasn't raised before Casey.

The notion that Ireland is an apartheid society is pathetic. We bend over backwards to facilitate travellers and their supposed culture.

alias no.9

It's funny that there's an attempt to equate no votes for SSM and the 8th with votes for Casey. My mother in law kindly informs all of her children and their significant others on how to vote correctly based on Catholic conscience, Joan Freeman was the anointed one this time around, the 8th is still an open wound and she was seen as the strongest candidate on that front.

I voted yes in both referendums. I voted for Casey, not because I wanted him to be President or thought he had a snowballs chance in hell of winning, the result was a foregone conclusion, I voted Casey because of the behaviour of people demanding he withdraw from the election. Campaign for your your preferred candidate all you want, challenge others on their credentials, that's important but demanding candidates withdraw is frankly undemocratic. First they came for the people I didn't identify with or agree with works in both directions.

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

The huge spending in pales in comparison to the spending that the garda have spent on policing factions in crumlin and D1. It's a shame these Communities have done nothing to attempt to stop it either.

It sure is a pity. One group of criminals aren't better than another, I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Damien360

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here is a report from a few years ago, two reports actually(on an issue NOBODY had addressed until Casey spoke, apparently) about the situation in Rathkeale.
Significantly it is prepared by the settled residents.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/rathkeale-s-divisions-over-traveller-community-are-laid-bare-in-report-e-1.1321788

Now forgive me but I cannot see where the townspeople are reporting huge 'criminality and anti social behaviour'


In fact it appears that the town suffers from being a



The very thing or issue Casey has driven a further wedge between, showing that more prejudice and bias is not going to solve this.

It isn't a good situation in Rathkeale but the idea that it is 'suffering' in silence is a bit of a far fetched one.
It is a classic symptom of what happens if you foster segregation and apartheid actually.

Casey has no viable solutions to that and nor it seems, do his supporters. Only to make it worse.

The segregation is enforced by travellers themselves. You will never find traveller children in a school playground with anyone other than their cousins. And it is a closed group to any other kids. I know that from my own personal experience and my own kids experience in school.

This extends into housing. Some areas become traveller only as extended families buy the housing closer to their mam. Exactly the same in the settled community (look at farming communities especially) but the difference are traveller families are generally huge so it is far more common to have whole streets owned by one extended family. This enforces the segregation.

With regards to Rathkeale and similar places with large traveller populations, there is a perception that travellers can do what they like without repercussion. This is enforced, even though settled gangs of kids cause just as much trouble, by the very label travellers use for themselves by identifying as a traveller. For example, if everyone wore a Man Utd shirt when going out to act the maggot, then Man Utd fans in that area would get a bad name and the perception (however false) that nothing is done would be enforced.

The very label that travellers see themselves as different from everyone else is at the cornerstone of the issue in my opinion. This is without dealing with the cultural differences that many settled people see as abhorrent. This is not just directed at travellers but any community that chooses to be different, be that religion or caste. Communities try to be homogeneous and anything that breaks that mold is to be challenged.

FrancieBrady

Damien360 wrote: »

The very label that travellers see themselves as different from everyone else is at the cornerstone of the issue in my opinion. This is without dealing with the cultural differences that many settled people see as abhorrent. This is not just directed at travellers but any community that chooses to be different, be that religion or caste. Communities try to be homogeneous and anything that breaks that mold is to be challenged.

That sounds very suprematist, if you put yourself into the mindset of someone who sees themselves as 'different'.

If somebody sees themselves of different, no amount of force is going to change that. Force will just deepen the divide.

That is not to condone any community whose behaviour breaks the laws of a country by the way.

nullzero

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That sounds very suprematist, if you put yourself into the mindset of someone who sees themselves as 'different'.

If somebody sees themselves of different, no amount of force is going to change that. Force will just deepen the divide.

That is not to condone any community whose behaviour breaks the laws of a country by the way.

Travellers wanted to be recognised as different to the rest of the Irish population, they have been the architects of their own further removal from the rest of us.
They have been at pains to remind the world of just how different they are, this wasn't foisted upon them.

FrancieBrady

nullzero wrote: »

You need to calm down and think about what you're writing, accusing somebody of being supremacist in their views is highly libelous and inflammatory.
Travellers wanted to be recognised as different to the rest of the Irish population, they have been the architects of their own further removal from the rest of us.
They have been at pains to remind the world of just how different they are, this wasn't foisted upon them.

I didn't accuse anyone and I think you need to read that again. I said it 'sounded' suprematist. The option is there for the poster to further explain what they mean.

I cannot take onto myself the right to tell someone 'who they are'. The GFA being a very very big example of that where we as a democracy enshrined the right of people to be 'different' and to celebrate their difference without fear or favour.

That is what SEMS was intended to be, to allow people (travellers) to be who they want to be without (and this is hugely important) fear or FAVOUR.

We simply haven't gotten that right yet. And it is going to take work by both sides.

nullzero

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't accuse anyone and I think you need to read that again. I said it 'sounded' suprematist. The option is there for the poster to further explain what they mean.

I cannot take onto myself the right to tell someone 'who they are'. The GFA being a very very big example of that where we as a democracy enshrined the right of people to be 'different' and to celebrate their difference without fear or favour.

That is what SEMS was intended to be, to allow people (travellers) to be who they want to be without (and this is hugely important) fear or FAVOUR.

We simply haven't gotten that right yet. And it is going to take work by both sides.

I deleted the first part of my post as on reflection it could be seen as back seat modding, the thing is you made that statement about that person in isolation, they were the target of what you said, whether you think "sounds like" is sufficiently qualifing language isn't really important.

FrancieBrady

nullzero wrote: »

I deleted the first part of my post as on reflection it could be seen as back seat modding, the thing is you made that statement about that person in isolation, they were the target of what you said, whether you think "sounds like" is sufficiently qualifing language isn't really important.

Communities try to be homogeneous and anything that breaks that mold is to be challenged.

I was responding to the overall tenor of the post and the bolded bit. Let's see what the poster has to say as clarification.

nullzero

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was responding to the overall tenor of the post and the bolded bit. Let's see what the poster has to say as clarification.

It's clear that he is saying that for somebody in the travelling community to break away from their norms they will be challenged.
I'm not sure how that is supremacist.

FrancieBrady

nullzero wrote: »

It's clear that he is saying that for somebody in the travelling community to break away from their norms they will be challenged.
I'm not sure how that is supremacist.

Seems to me that he/she was saying that travellers seeing 'themselves as different' was verboten.

That doesn't define a socially inclusive democracy to me anyhow and it seems to be encouraging forced assimilation which clearly has not worked.

Damien360

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seems to me that he/she was saying that travellers seeing 'themselves as different' was verboten.

That doesn't define a socially inclusive democracy to me anyhow and it seems to be encouraging forced assimilation which clearly has not worked.

No you didn't read it right. I never said anyone should be forced to be the same but communities try to be homogeneous by their very nature. That's a community.

FrancieBrady

Damien360 wrote: »

No you didn't read it right. I never said anyone should be forced to be the same but communities try to be homogeneous by their very nature. That's a community.

Yes, it is, but there is also plenty of room for 'difference'. The GFA is another example of an agreed measure to accommodate all identities that see themselves as 'different'.

We tried to forcibly assimilate this community in the past and SEMS was a measure to counterbalance/make up for that mistake.

Omackeral

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

“That it may be blew up with him in it”

Is that hate speech?

Omackeral wrote: »

What ya reckon Francie? You were fairly vocal with accusations of hate speech before. Here you have someone calling for death basically, something Casey never done. Is it hate speech?

Bump

tretorn

Nobody is saying they have a problem with anyone being different.

People have a problem with the crime rates in the travelling community. These actions directly affect those living in isolated unpoliced areas and this is the reason so many people in these areas voted for Casey. Nobody actually cared when travellers got their ethnic status, the truth is people want travellers out of sight, hence no travellers in areas where influential people live and major opposition in all other areas where halting sites are proposed.

The travellers want to be out of sight and off the radar too, this means its hard to police them, I doubt if many unarmed Gardai would be happy to patrol halting sites and the Government seems to be reluctant to send the CAB in. I very much doubt too whether school attendance officers, or social welfare inspectors, or Revenue officials go into halting sites either and this suits the ethnic minority too.

ETA, what is GFA

FrancieBrady

Omackeral wrote: »

Bump

Of course it is hate speech. Anyone can work that one out. :rolleyes:

andekwarhola

Augme wrote: »

The huge spending in pales in comparison to the spending that the garda have spent on policing factions in crumlin and D1. It's a shame these Communities have done nothing to attempt to stop it either.

The only way that analogy would make sense is if the residents of Crumlin, including organized crime families, were officially designated as an ethnic minority with a unique culture and a vocal lobby group that campaigned for wider society to understand organized crime from a cultural perspective.

That said, it's probably as unfair to expect average travellers to confront issues within their own community as it is to expect some Joe Soap to confront crime families.

What needs to happen is that social issues, especially those at epidemic proportions in specific sectors of the community, need to be addressed (and helped) without consideration of 'cultural' factors and no longer tolerate a situation where marginalization is hardwired into a community, condemning kids to a future of heightened social issues.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It very much was another attempt to attribute actions that had happened before to Casey's influence.

That is the second time at least that blunder has been made on the thread.

It's important that it is called out.
Because if you believe Casey said what he did to incite hate (and I do) then it is critical that attempts to show that that incitment has achieved anything are challenged.
It and the other example also gives the lie to the claims that nothing was being done or that this community were untouchable. because of SEMS.

If you lived in a rural area like I do, you’d understand the distrust of travellers. Peter Casey’s comments were not to incite hatred but to state facts.

Your dogged defense of them is admirable bit somewhat misguided.

omega man

Just drove by the halting site (on the N32?) near Clare hall on way to M50/M1 interchange. It was absolutely filthy with rubbish everywhere, well around the entrance areas at least. Is this everyone else’s fault they live like that? Been a while since I drove by a site I’ll admit so I was taken aback.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

If you lived in a rural area like I do, you’d understand the distrust of travellers. Peter Casey’s comments were not to incite hatred but to state facts.

Your dogged defense of them is admirable bit somewhat misguided.

I live in a rural area, well in a town of 2000-2500 people and I understand the distrust. I would have a healthy distrust of any stranger until they prove themselves tbh.

While I understand mistrust I can never understand or condone bias and prejudice and those who exploit it.

Edit: BTW I am not and have not been defending those elements of their community causing trouble.

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I live in a rural area, well in a town of 2000-2500 people and I understand the distrust. I would have a healthy distrust of any stranger until they prove themselves tbh.

While I understand mistrust I can never understand or condone bias and prejudice and those who exploit it.

Edit: BTW I am not and have not been defending those elements of their community causing trouble.

Perhaps you'll explain how to have one without the other?
Anyone who says they mistrust travellers is immediately accused of being prejudiced anyway.
To be Frank that post makes me wonder wtf you've been banging on about here since the thread start!?

FrancieBrady

Edward M wrote: »

Perhaps you'll explain how to have one without the other?
Anyone who says they mistrust travellers is immediately accused of being prejudiced anyway.
To be Frank that post makes me wonder wtf you've been banging on about here since the thread start!?

I mistrust strangers in general until I know what they want.
It doesn't matter who they are.

I don't mistrust because they come from Eir or any other company or from certain communities. That is prejudice.

I.E. I had two people in on a site this week, strangers - I dealt with both the same, one guy was a settled business man who sold tools from his van and the other was a traveller looking to see if they was any scrap to be taken or bought.
Both were treated with courtesy and the same way.

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it is hate speech. Anyone can work that one out. :rolleyes:

Yep, actual hate speech. A world away from anything Casey said. Then again, anyone could work that one out. :rolleyes:

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I mistrust strangers in general until I know what they want.
It doesn't matter who they are.

I don't mistrust because they come from Eir or any other company or from certain communities. That is prejudice.

I.E. I had two people in on a site this week, strangers - I dealt with both the same, one guy was a settled business man who sold tools from his van and the other was a traveller looking to see if they was any scrap to be taken or bought.
Both were treated with courtesy and the same way.

How was that, like how'd you treat them.