4 March 1999 Edition
Travellers' way of life under attack
BY ROISIN De ROSSA
A Co. Mayo Fine Gael councillor, John Flannery, came before the court in Galway this week in the first case to be brought under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, of 1989, where the councillor was charged on the basis of abusive remarks he reportedly made about travelling people at a Western Health Board meeting. The meeting was discussing the reluctance of some travellers to join FAS courses. Judge Thomas Fitzpatrick dismissed the case.
The Travelling community have long pointed out the ineffectiveness of the act, against racist abuse. They have called on Fine Gael to withdraw its endorsement of John Flannery, who is nominated by Fine Gael to stand in the Swinford electoral area in June. As yet Fine Gael haven't done so.
The Horses Act has grave implications for Tavelling people. ``Horses are our livelihood - they are a way of life to the travelling people. Councils are now legally obliged to provide halting sites for travellers, but what use is that if they take away our means of living at the same time.'' says Jim O'Brien, who is a traveller himself and a Director of the Bray Partnership.
``They want us travellers to come in on their terms - to conform to their standards. To live in houses and be like everybody else. But some of us have a different way of life, and they won't take it away from us And horses are part of that.''
Jim O'Brien, who co-ordinates the Bray Travellers Development Network, sees the Horses Act as very much directed at Travellers. ``They started implementing it on April Fools Day last year. You had to have a horse tagged and chipped. You can't do that to a horse, may be a cow or a sheep, but not a horse. I put it to the travellers at a meeting, last year, in the Royal Hotel, which over 80% of the Wicklow travellers came to. There are over 100 families in Wicklow Co. They laughed in my face. They were horrified at the idea.''
``The horse holds a special place amongst travelling people. They never consulted with the travelling peoploe before they brought in this act - that is what maes us so very angry. Where did partnership go?
``They had been taking horses off us for 15 years. A local farmer had a reputation for this. He'd contact us and tell us he had 3 horses in his yard, and we'd have to go down and fix up with him, before we could get them back'' But things have changed since then. ``That was extortion. Now its an attempt to suppress our way of life. There is no way that we can bring the horses into the halting sites, or houses which we are offered.''
Look at the way they've been allowed to shut off the common land on Calary, (settled people call it the Sugar Loaf) which means ``The long hill'', 5 miles up from Killmanogue. Jim explains ``Travelling families always came here in the summer, and grazed may be 50 to 70 horses on the commonage.
Recently neighbouring farmers took the law into their own hands and dug deep trenches accross any access route. If a traveller done that he would be locked up. What will happen this summer to the families who move up here?''
Jim thinks that discrimination against travellers is getting worse. ``A generation ago there wasn't discrimination. Travellers were welcomed where they went. They were welcomed as seasonal labourers, and for their many skills, tinsmiths, fortune telling, story telling, music, their knowledge of horses, the goods they repaired or they brought to sell and for the news and old traditions they carried with them. Often they were welcomed as old friends in the days when people shared what little they had. In those days half the men in the West had to leave home, travel, to earn a shilling or two across the water.
All that has changed now. ``Discrimination against travellers, like it is today, only started in the seventies. Words were used then which hurt. I can't put me finger on what happened but travellers ceased to be accepted.
Some say these changes merely reflect the fact that the economic base of travellers' separateness - their trades and skills - have changed. ``But'' says Jim, ``it is one thing for travelling people to adapt themselves to changing circumstances. It is quite another for people to tell us how to adapt. Government wants `an integrated package' for Travelling people. They want travellers to fit into the boxes they have for the settled people. They want us to conform to their ways of life. But the vast majority of travellers will always remain travellers, and, I hope, be proud of it - regardless of what laws are passed.''
A Co. Mayo Fine Gael councillor, John Flannery, came before the court in Galway this week in the first case to be brought under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, of 1989, where the councillor was charged on the basis of abusive remarks he reportedly made about travelling people at a Western Health Board meeting. The meeting was discussing the reluctance of some travellers to join FAS courses. Judge Thomas Fitzpatrick dismissed the case.
The Travelling community have long pointed out the ineffectiveness of the act, against racist abuse. They have called on Fine Gael to withdraw its endorsement of John Flannery, who is nominated by Fine Gael to stand in the Swinford electoral area in June. As yet Fine Gael haven't done so.
The Horses Act has grave implications for Tavelling people. ``Horses are our livelihood - they are a way of life to the travelling people. Councils are now legally obliged to provide halting sites for travellers, but what use is that if they take away our means of living at the same time.'' says Jim O'Brien, who is a traveller himself and a Director of the Bray Partnership.
``They want us travellers to come in on their terms - to conform to their standards. To live in houses and be like everybody else. But some of us have a different way of life, and they won't take it away from us And horses are part of that.''
Jim O'Brien, who co-ordinates the Bray Travellers Development Network, sees the Horses Act as very much directed at Travellers. ``They started implementing it on April Fools Day last year. You had to have a horse tagged and chipped. You can't do that to a horse, may be a cow or a sheep, but not a horse. I put it to the travellers at a meeting, last year, in the Royal Hotel, which over 80% of the Wicklow travellers came to. There are over 100 families in Wicklow Co. They laughed in my face. They were horrified at the idea.''
``The horse holds a special place amongst travelling people. They never consulted with the travelling peoploe before they brought in this act - that is what maes us so very angry. Where did partnership go?
``They had been taking horses off us for 15 years. A local farmer had a reputation for this. He'd contact us and tell us he had 3 horses in his yard, and we'd have to go down and fix up with him, before we could get them back'' But things have changed since then. ``That was extortion. Now its an attempt to suppress our way of life. There is no way that we can bring the horses into the halting sites, or houses which we are offered.''
Look at the way they've been allowed to shut off the common land on Calary, (settled people call it the Sugar Loaf) which means ``The long hill'', 5 miles up from Killmanogue. Jim explains ``Travelling families always came here in the summer, and grazed may be 50 to 70 horses on the commonage.
Recently neighbouring farmers took the law into their own hands and dug deep trenches accross any access route. If a traveller done that he would be locked up. What will happen this summer to the families who move up here?''
Jim thinks that discrimination against travellers is getting worse. ``A generation ago there wasn't discrimination. Travellers were welcomed where they went. They were welcomed as seasonal labourers, and for their many skills, tinsmiths, fortune telling, story telling, music, their knowledge of horses, the goods they repaired or they brought to sell and for the news and old traditions they carried with them. Often they were welcomed as old friends in the days when people shared what little they had. In those days half the men in the West had to leave home, travel, to earn a shilling or two across the water.
All that has changed now. ``Discrimination against travellers, like it is today, only started in the seventies. Words were used then which hurt. I can't put me finger on what happened but travellers ceased to be accepted.
Some say these changes merely reflect the fact that the economic base of travellers' separateness - their trades and skills - have changed. ``But'' says Jim, ``it is one thing for travelling people to adapt themselves to changing circumstances. It is quite another for people to tell us how to adapt. Government wants `an integrated package' for Travelling people. They want travellers to fit into the boxes they have for the settled people. They want us to conform to their ways of life. But the vast majority of travellers will always remain travellers, and, I hope, be proud of it - regardless of what laws are passed.''