Casey started a conversation on Travellers that needs to be had

I AM one of the 342,727 people who voted for Peter Casey in the presidential election.

I am not anti-Traveller. When their ethnic status was recognised last year, I wrote a column in these pages welcoming it.

During the recent election, on Midlands 103 radio’s Friday Panel discussion, I pointed out that the Thurles housing story was more nuanced than was generally reported.

In response to a point about the disproportionally high number of Travellers in prison, I said there is a proven link between jail and poor levels of education.

So there were two aspects to my vote.

However awkwardly or inadvertently, Peter Casey started a conversation that needs to be had. For example, around what constitutes reasonable comment and what is racism.

Especially since, to my mind, the relationship between Travellers and settled communities is worsening, not improving.

Speaking on Brendan O’Connor’s Cutting Edge TV show, gay Traveller comedian Martin ‘Beanz’ Warde really hit the nail on the head: “I don’t think that Peter Casey is racist. I think it’s populist politics. I do think that the people who voted for Peter Casey are not racist. They are disenfranchised,” he said.

“If you are constantly told you can’t criticise a group of people in society, you are going to build resentment. If you are afraid to offend, you are not talking about the issues and the concerns.”

Martin added that he was talking in a personal capacity, not representing the Traveller community.

The other aspect of my vote was one of protest.

About what? Off the top of my head: holding a race where one horse was already on the final bend while the others were still on the starting line; the failure of politicians to learn anything from the last boom (the housing crisis, traffic gridlock, malfunctioning health service); our crazy bail laws; the near impossibility of securing a conviction for the possession of stolen goods.

In fairness, President Higgins did a good job last time round and I have every trust that he will successfully navigate the nation through the choppy waters coming our way over the next few years.

All the other campaigns had morphed into one, apparently focused on the President’s spending. I have no problem with a bit of extravagance by our Head of State (if that’s even what it was).

So when Peter Casey took a cut at Travellers and social welfare recipients, he ignited what had, up to then, been a dull and futile contest.

Had there been the slightest chance that Casey would have won, I wouldn’t have voted for him. Nor would I vote for him if his name ever appeared to me on another ballot paper.

So, Casey aside, how can the relationship between Travelling and the settled communities be improved?

There is no simple solution. But, as I previously wrote, the onus is on us, the broader society, to lead the way.

The one thing that seems obvious is the way that the State interacts with Travellers needs to be more responsive. It is not a matter of allocating more resources — it’s to find a way to target them appropriately.

We need, for example, to help build Travellers’ sense of self-worth (yes, really). We also need to show respect for their culture, while demonstrating ours and the merits of respecting it a;sp, critical and all as we may be of it at times.

We can build all the jails we like; people are more likely to emerge from them hard and bitter rather than reformed.

As a parting point, to anyone who remains unconvinced that Travellers are disadvantaged, ask yourself one question: would you want to be seen by society as they are seen?

WE NEED TO HELP BUILD TRAVELLERS’ SENSE OF SELF-WORTH AND ALSO SHOW RESPECT FOR THEIR CULTURE