Romas

by Feminist Thu Jul 26, 2007 17:14

Thanks Con, I put this on an article on the newswire, but I think its important that people
realise that women are organising for themselves and have much to say>>>.

http://europeanfeministforum.org/spip.php?rubrique92

by Anti racist Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:35

Michael McDowell has obviously been exhumed from his political grave and reincarnated in the form of Brian Lenihan. Not only the determination to rigidly enforce a racist deportation policy, but the totalitarian attempt to criminalise opposition to it.
When the Roma people were asked to 'voluntarily' leave by a horde of Gardai descending upon them under cover of darkness, Pavee Point encouraged them to stand up for their rights. It was 100% legal for the Roma to challenge their deportation. Lenihan's threat basically says 'Shut up and don't challenge my policy, or I'll shut you down'.
Meanwhile, the Roma are now EU citizens denied the right of free movement throughout the EU. They are excluded from Ireland for 3 years without ever getting the chance to defend themselves before a court of law. Fortress Europe is alive and well, Lenihan is patrolling it, and trying to gag anyone who thinks differently.

by G Fri Jul 27, 2007 15:00

A few days ago the Romanian ambassador to Ireland tried to claim that the Roma are not discriminated against in Romania. In today's Irish Times the mayor of Tileagd - the northern Romania town to which the Roma were deported - is quoted as saying "In the first place Ireland was negligent to let them in.....They should have known from the way the Roma looked when they arrived what they were like and what they would try to do, and they should have stopped them entering the country...."
Don't suppose any intrepid RTE or Irish Times or Indo journalist is going to contact the Romanian ambassaor for a comment

by corkman in cork Thu Aug 02, 2007 19:58

"first they came for the Jews, I didn't speak out I was not a Jew. then they came for the Communists. I didn't speak out. then they came for people with disabilities. I didn't speak out. then they came for me. no one spoke out for me."

Yes, it's exactly like the Holocaust all over again. What a fine grasp on history you have.

by Pat Nolan Thu Aug 02, 2007 21:35

The nazis carted their targeted victims off to extermination camps. In this case people who were clearly intended welfare migrants were voluntarily repatriated to their country of origin. There is a big difference. Any Justice Minister has to be firm on certain things, Lennihan included. McDowell did not invent this. His predecessor O’Donohue was just as firm on immigration issues. The issue with Pavee point is whether they were encouraging law braking, not if they were against the Minister. The State cannot fund an organisation that advocated law breaking moreover outside its mandate. It is not a issue of freedom of speech but of state funding. If Pavee Point were a private NGO this would not arise. But they cannot have it both ways – both public funding and advocacy of law breaking. Also to be accurate, the Roma are not denied the right of free movement throughout the EU. They are free to travel to Ireland as tourists or to work under certain conditions. There is a distinction between the freedom to travel as persons, the freedom of movement of labour and the issue of entitlement to health, social welfare and housing benefits which it is important not to blur.

by aristotle Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:19

1. Romanians and Bulgarians (whether Roma or not) are not allowed to travel to Ireland other than as tourists or with a permit which allows them to take up a specific job-offer. They cannot claim social-benefits and they cannot travel here to seek work.

2. I would have thought that if the EU had felt it necessary to withhold normal EU freedoms from the nationals of new accession-states it might have been taken as a sign that either the EU was unready for further expansion, or that the new states were not up to joining the EU. We now have within the EU several states whose nationals do not enjoy the full rights inherent in the EU charter, and several states who have got away with blatant discrimination against their ethnic minorities. The worst of the latter does not concern the Romas or Romania. The baltic states have been allowed into the EU despite laws and practices which deprive their substantial Russian-speaking minorities of their rights as full citizens.

3. This is a democracy. Pavee Point has a right to comment freely on political matters. Advocating caution before deportation and prioritizing the health of these Roma over the niceties of their immigration-status is not the same thing as advocating a breach of the law. Threatening their funding for speaking out or voicing (undeniably) unpopular opinions is objectionable.

4. If Pavee Point is to have its funding reviewed it should be solely on the basis of its effectivness, or lack thereof, in relation to what it has received tax-payer funding for - improving the lot of Travellers. There is considerable evidence that Pavee has become nothing more than a platform for political ideologues from the settled community and has done nothing whatsoever to improve the lives and life-chances of the travelling community - in particular, women and children. In fact it is arguable that by its aggressive stance, and refusal to acknowlege the practices within the traveller community which destroy the life-chances of Traveller women and children, Pavee has contributed to a worsening of relations between the settled and travelling communities and worsened the lot of its unfortunate 'clients'.

by Pat Nolan Fri Aug 03, 2007 20:50

I don’t disagree with most of your post though I don’t think it is not the EU that has restricted the rights of Romanians - this is something left to the Member States who do retain some sovereignty in this area and Ireland had little choice but to follow the UK given the common travel area. There is not an unrestricted right to travel to avail of benefits on the part of EU citizens – this is a misunderstanding of the freedom to travel and freedom of labour provisions of the Treaties. The area is still regulated out of respect for national systems – it should not be seen as discrimination. The precise role of Pavee Point in the whole affair is something that is being probed – it is not clear what all the facts are. It is not a threat to freedom of speech but the appropriateness of certain advice that might have been given to the Roma by Pavee as well as the diplomatic embarrassment of a State financed NGO publicly describing the Government of a fellow community country as telling direct lies. Arguably the role of Pavee Point ought to be reviewed. There are aspects of traveler life which do impact badly on women and children like a patriarchal culture and tolerance of wife beating which do need to be addressed rather than a continual stress on rights of travelers. In reality Romania and Bulgaria were admitted to the EU before they were ready. This was for political purposes. They are both economically backward and pretty corrupt. By contrast the Baltic states were accession ready.

by aristotle Fri Aug 03, 2007 22:24

1. The decision given to individual member-states to derogate from the free movement of labour provisions in respect of the nationals of accession-states was made at Council of Ministers level and legislated for by the Commission.

2. The Baltic states were allowed into the EU while a blind eye was turned while these states disqualified their large Russian-speaking minorities from citizenship of their own countries and, by implication, the EU. These ethnic Russians - most of them resident in the Baltic states for two or three generations were offered "naturalization" on the basis of language and cultural tests which were loaded against them. The implicit purpose was to encourage these people to go "back" to Russia (a country most of them had never been to). The result is that these countries have hundreds of thousands of residents who cannot pass the tests necessary to gain citizenship, and not being citizens of the countries they were born in, are not EU citizens either, and do not have EU citizen rights. The word 'Limbo' comes to mind.

Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia might have been "economically" ready to join the EU, but they were not up to speed in the area of basic rights. The EU allowed expedience to take priority over morality by allowing these countries into the EU while they were in the process of dumping their inconvenient ethnic-Russian minorities. Of course, this thing is par for the course in the eastern Baltic. These Balts treated their Jewish minorities similarily and co-operated enthusiasticaly with the Nazis.

by Pat Nolan Wed Aug 08, 2007 20:23

There is some truth in what you say but the Russian population of those states is a recent plantar population who with a power of veto over the political direction of the states would have effectively paralyzed and impoverished them, keeping them broken vassals of Moscow. Moreover they were a recent migration, say like the Turks that have been out into Northern Cyprus since 1974. These questions are not easy to resolve while respecting everyone’s strict rights and a doctrinaire equality.

by Seán Thu Aug 09, 2007 08:59

"Meanwhile, the Roma are now EU citizens denied the right of free movement throughout the EU"

They haven't been denied the right to free movement in any illegal manner. There are conditions in place across the EU for movement across borders. They didn't meet the conditions.

Still, they have a good sob story and the Romanian government doesn't provide for them the same kinds of monetary benefits they'd hoped to get from the Irish government.

It's all well and good looking for every supposed 'refugee' to be looked after by the state but you should have to prove you're entitled to help rather than just expect to be given it.

by Gatlif Fan Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:59

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.


Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

by Seán Thu Aug 09, 2007 15:49

You might notice that Sara Russell from Pavee Point said they left voluntarily.

It was their access to social welfare benefits that saw them turn and go.

by Pat Nolan Thu Aug 09, 2007 21:39

There is nothing whatever in the two clauses of this Article as quoted that is not fully respected by the EU or that the Roma on the M50 did not enjoy. The EU gives citizens freedoms to travel between its member states away and beyond that set out in the UN Charter. However in no State in the world is the right to travel absolute especially the right to migrate and live as vagrants and make claims on the recipient state for social security and other benefits.