It was ironic that in the same week the Government rushed legislation through the Dáil to make trespass a criminal offence the Government-backed National Anti-Racism Awareness Programme posted leaflets to every household in the State on "What You Can Do Against Racism". Ironic, but not entirely surprising, given the Government's tendency towards inconsistency, hypocrisy, or both, when tackling the issue of racism, writes Joe Humphreys.
Those who are eager to dismiss claims that the legislation is racist should open their State-sponsored leaflets and read the "10-point code to follow".
Rule number one says: "Treat people from minority groups with the same respect you show to other people." How does this square with the Department of the Environment's refusal to consult Traveller groups on the trespass legislation? Perhaps Noel Dempsey can explain.
A second rule says: "Do not pre-judge or label people because of their cultural or ethnic origin." Yet what does this law do if not pre-judge Travellers? It seeks to tackle vandalism, such as that at the Dodder in Dublin last year, but does so by criminalising trespass. It thus labels Travellers - or, at least, those still living in unauthorised or roadside encampments - as vandals. And in seeking to address the actions of a few, it makes criminals of them all.
Respecting difference
The code continues: "Extend a hand of friendship to persons of different cultural backgrounds. . .Teach children to respect different cultures." The latter has particular resonance since children are less influenced by what adults say as by what they do. And what the Government - supported by Fine Gael - did was to lock Traveller families outside the gates of Leinster House while it introduced a law that made them criminals because of where they lived.
An interesting aspect of the move was the intolerance shown to dissenters in the Dáil and on the airwaves. Such people were contemptuously described as "familiar objectors", as if they objected to everything, or "politically correct", a largely vacuous term of abuse frequently used as a substitute for argument.
The Fianna Fáil TD and former junior minister Mr Chris Flood, for instance, was berated by Liveline listeners for abstaining in the Dáil vote. His crime: to describe the legislation as heavy-handed and ill-timed, given that local authorities had provided just 111 of 2,200 Traveller-specific units, which the Government said would be supplied by the year 2000.
Mr Flood, who incidentally is not seeking re-election, was right. By introducing the law at this time, the Government rewards those local authorities and politicians who have done least to accommodate Travellers. And it penalises those Travellers who were not fortunate enough to get into one of 111 places provided to date.
Name-calling
There are other grounds for finding this law disturbing and, indeed, for calling it racist. Yet doing so will not help the debate - any more than the name-calling against Mr Flood and others. It is far better to spell out exactly what the law means in the current environment; and that is a rejection of pluralism.
In the absence of sufficient accommodation to meet Traveller needs, the legislation, if enforced, will outlaw a nomadic way of life practised in Ireland since the 16th century, and possibly as early as the 12th Century. (See: Travellers: Citizens of Ireland, published by the Parish of the Travelling People, Dublin).
This lies at the heart of the so-called Traveller debate. There are those who believe the State should accommodate people who chose to live differently from them, and there are those who do not believe so. And one can only conclude, from the manner in which this legislation was passed by the Dáil, politicians believe the latter are in the majority.
A footnote: consider this passage from Magill magazine, written in January 1984: "Nearly 12 months after the latest report was presented to the Minister for the Environment, over 1,000 travelling families will spend the winter on the side of the road, sleeping in caravans and cars; without sanitation or water. . .There is no sign of a change in attitudes. It is more likely that Travellers will continue to be treated as drop-outs that need to be put into houses, put into schools, rehabilitated and got out of the way.
"Travellers don't vote. People don't like them very much and nobody is going to get elected telling people about what they are going to do for the knackers."
Infant mortality
That was 16 years ago. Today, there are more than 1,200 Traveller families living on the roadside or in other unauthorised sites. A Department of Health report earlier this year showed infant mortality among Travellers was almost three times as high as among settled people. It said just 1 per cent of Travellers lived past 65 years, a life expectancy similar to that of the general population in the 1940s.
How these figures will be helped by a law which means Traveller families can be evicted by the Garda every 24 hours, on threat of a €3,000 fine and/or a month in prison, is difficult to comprehend.
Foolishly, perhaps, I'm waiting for politicians to call to my door to tell me what they are going to do for Travellers. If none show up by next month, Chris Flood is getting my number one. Call it a spoilt vote if you like.
But what choice is there?