I have a question about this whole issue of barring travellers

Xterminator

OK

First up, I support the principle of non discrimination.
I dont nessacarily feel the current laws are the answer to this problem

Here is my point.

When I'm entering a bar, a shop, or getting on a bus, or any of those many things i do in a day, usually the person on the other side of the counter does not know me.

I am a stranger to them. But im not finding my self barred for no reason either.

Now when I apply this principle to a person or group of persons entering a pub, (or any other private premises or business) I find it hard to understand how a traveller can be barred from a place they are not known in, unless they have the words traveller tatooed on their foreheads! (not curently mandatory!)

How could this stranger be any more barred than me, a settled person?

The barmen are not psychic, nor are the bouncers.

Unless we are talking about people who are known to the publican, which is different.

I mean if you associated with a group of friends, who start trouble, and are kicked out etc, and when you come back to a bar, you are told you are barred, (by association) that is fair enough isnt it?
It certainly is the accepted norm, anyway.

Thus if a traveller is a known to the publican, or is an associate of troublemakers, to bar him for that is not discrimination on the basis of race creed etc, but because of the trouble .

It seems the balance here has swung so far that the minorities have rights that the majority do not enjoy,
which is in itself discriminatory. At least thats my thinking on the subject.

X

gurramok

The problem for the publicans is that settled people will not stay in a pub partly full of travellers, thats how society is whether we like it or not. Its similar to the NIMBY people from posh areas of dublin who wont allow halting sites in their area.

ie..if a publican lets a few travellers in for the evening, you would be guaranteed that there would be less people in the pub, settled people would just leave and the pub will lose alot of business !!

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
I find it hard to understand how a traveller can be barred from a place they are not known in, unless they have the words traveller tatooed on their foreheads! (not curently mandatory!)

How could this stranger be any more barred than me, a settled person?

The barmen are not psychic, nor are the bouncers.

Actually, the vast majority of travellers share some traits, one of which is a very distinguishable accent. This, more than anything is how they are recognised as members of the travelling community.

The point you make is very valid. Publicans should have the right to deny access to any known troublemaker, or indeed to anyone in the company of same, on the basis of security.

However, if a publican wishes to ban anyone simply because they have an accent.....then there are problems.

Funnily enough, I heard several stories about pubs in Dublin city centre who's bouncer's were allegedly instructed to refuse entry to anyone with an inner-city or northside accent.

Effectively, its discrimination through racial profiling.

The problem is the backfiring of such tactics, which is what I believe we are now experiencing. Rather than banning trouble-makers etc., some publicans took it on themselves to ban anyone who fit a certain racial profile.

Such discrimination is completely illegal (regardless of whether we consider it fair or not) and the travellers had every right to stand up for themselves.

However, what we will now see is that when the publicans eventually lose this battle (as they will), they will also lose virtually any grounds to ban any traveller ever, because the "race" card will be played. Ultimately, I think they will find that their attempt to make life better for themselves will, in fact, have made it worse.


jc

p.s. We already have a thread about the rightness/wrongness of the current ban policy (should the publicans be allowed to do it). There are other aspects which can be discussed here. Please try and avoid turning this into a mirror of the other thread.

DadaKopf

The Equal Status act does not say that a Traveller - or for that case an invalid, a person over 18, a woman, a gay person, an ethnic group etc. - any more rights than any other individual. And it certainly does not infer that publicans are not within their rights to bar customers who have caused trouble on their premises in the past. What it enshrines in law is the fundamental equality of any customer of any service and that it's also illegal to discriminate against nine very specific grounds also.

So if a Traveller is banned from a pub, and takes his case to the Director of Equality Investigations, it must be proven that the publican did discriminate on one of those nine grounds if any kind of compensation is to be awarded. Otherwise, it's business as usual.

Blade

Originally posted by bonkey
The point you make is very valid. Publicans should have the right to deny access to any known troublemaker, or indeed to anyone in the company of same, on the basis of security.

I mean if you associated with a group of friends, who start trouble, and are kicked out etc, and when you come back to a bar, you are told you are barred, (by association) that is fair enough isnt it?
It certainly is the accepted norm, anyway.

Well thats not the case because just as a coincidence the very first case of a traveller taking a publican to court that I happened to read of was of a traveller who was refused service on the grounds that he was in the company of a gang of travellers who had caused murders in the pub a week before hand. He won his case against the publican because it was determined that he should not have been treated as guilty by association alone.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Xterminator
OK

First up, I support the principle of non discrimination.
I dont nessacarily feel the current laws are the answer to this problem

X

Couldn't have put it better myself, Xterminator. I agree with most of what you said, just can;t be arsed quoting your entire message.

I think the problem may be with an antiquated law dating from the 19th century and that is in sore need of refurbishment.

I heard the not very articulate minister in charge of this issue Willie O'Dea ('Let me give it to you in words of less than two syllabi' ) on the radio talking about the discrepancy in the interpretation of the law which appears to give recourse to legal action to members of certain defined minorities but doesn't give the same opportunities to white, educated respectably dressed middle class sober Irish people above the age of 21. (er such as myself)

Mr O'Dea implied that the legislation would be 'looked at' to see if it could be improved. Good. The only problem I foresee is that with the power of the publican's lobby this legislation will probably only increase the discretion they currently enjoy. But here's hoping.