WILLIAM BINCHY,
Sir, - The decision to create an offence of criminal trespass is mistaken and unjust, in my view.
It treats nomadism as a capricious desire rather than an authentic expression of human need. A nomadic way of life may have absolutely no appeal to members of the settled community but for others, over millennia throughout the world, it has provided a central focus of meaning for their lives. To treat it as an aberration warranting a criminal sanction is to blind oneself to the diversity of human beings.
When we add the failure of our society to respond at all effectively to the accommodation and health entitlements of Travellers, the creation of this new offence is an even harder burden. It will affect not only adults but also their children.
The legislative provisions take no account of the constitutional concerns underlying the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v Feely in 1980; they conflict with the human rights philosophy inspiring the recent equality legislation and they offer a stark contrast to the recognition of the rights of Travellers afforded by the Durban Declaration on Racism.
Although drafted formally in neutral terms, they are targeted against Travellers as a group, in so far as they manifest their nomadic disposition.
It is wrong for legislation to target groups in this way. Apart from the inherent injustice it involves, it fuels the passions of prejudice and makes it harder to develop social policies that respect and rejoice in the differing human needs of members of our society. - Yours, etc.,
WILLIAM BINCHY,
Regius Professor of Laws,
Trinity College,
Dublin 2.