IN SPITE of the UK Government’s ‘best intentions’ to deal with elements of traveller communities, numerous English towns suffer anti-social behaviour on a regular basis.
Take the West Sussex coastal town of Littlehampton. On April 9, a group of travellers went on a rampage in a Tesco car park, harassing shoppers, stealing groceries from trolleys and trying to break into cars. One traveller was photographed defecating in the car park.
Eighteen caravans had set up outside the store, having been ordered by police to leave a nearby park. Locals said they had created a ‘very unpleasant threatening atmosphere’. Some believed the event was planned to cause the maximum amount of chaos.
Police arrived and issued a dispersal notice. But Arun District Council issued a statement: ‘As this is private land, it will be Tesco’s responsibility to instigate the appropriate action.’
Attempts to control this type of situation have long proved controversial. During the last Conservative government, Home Secretary Sajid Javid stated that the vast majority of travellers are law-abiding citizens. But illegal sites often demonstrate the opposite and cause misery to those who live nearby. While local authorities must provide secure hard standing in purpose-created caravan and camp sites, last year there were a total of 27,606 sites, but only around 80 per cent were legal.
Draft measures were set out, aimed at making it easier for officers to remove travellers from unauthorised land, but there was concern that this would threaten their way of life.
Since the Equality Act 2010, gypsy, Roma and some traveller people are protected against discrimination based on ‘race’ in England and Wales. Discrimination has been found to be prevalent; for example a 2018 Equality and Human Rights Commission report found that 44 per cent of British people expressed openly negative opinions about them.
So the Government’s view can differ markedly from the perceptions of local populations. While the authorities state that such groups are not above the law, discussion sites such as Quora suggest a different view, for example: ‘The UK courts have done a great job of creating the myth that the travelling community are victims. In fact it’s the many innocent individuals and businesses that are the victims of traveller crime. Travellers on the whole do not follow rules, be it taxing and insuring vehicles, paying for goods, living with respect of neighbours, etc. They can be vicious and threatening, using intimidation to get what they want. The police are reluctant to get involved because it rarely leads to a prosecution. Those that see it differently haven’t dealt with travellers or their crimes.’
It’s very different here in Switzerland. This month around 50 caravans of a travelling community attempted to enter the western canton of Valais without prior warning, but were blocked by police on the A9 motorway. This community had left a site in Neuchatel, having contacted the owner of a field in Gampel. The local authority refused to allow them to settle, and the owner terminated the contract.
This happens frequently in Switzerland, since overnight halts are permitted only on official sites controlled by the police. Even ‘wild camping’ by tourists is strictly controlled, and in national parks, nature reserves and federal hunting zones it is illegal. For nomadic communities, transit stops are few and far between, and generally considered inadequate, especially in winter.
Some effort has been made to create more facilities, but while Switzerland had 31 approved traveller sites in 2015 – a decrease from 46 in 2000 – only 15 were available in winter.
At the same time, the Council for Europe issued its fifth report on the protection of national minorities, stating: ‘While acknowledging the efforts made to promote a multicultural society, the committee urges the Swiss authorities to review their legislation to ensure that the principle of non-discrimination and equal access to rights for persons belonging to national minorities is secured.’
Switzerland has form when it comes to the persecution of traveller and gypsy communities. Early in the 20th century, nomadic groups including Jenisch, Sinti and Roma were afforded few rights, even to the extent of removing children from their family communities. This has long since changed, but an element of ‘structural discrimination’ remains, a sort of collective amnesia, according to Angela Mattli, co-ordinator for the Society for Threatened Peoples. This, she claims, is evident from the inadequate provision of legal sites.
The comparison between the UK and Switzerland is illuminating. Under the Federation’s system of Direct Democracy, every citizen has the right to initiate a vote, to alter existing law, or introduce new ones. To date, both federal and cantonal policy regarding traveller communities – albeit discriminatory – has the clear support of a democratic majority of voters. At the same time, Switzerland is focused on keeping its population below 10million, and maintains strict border controls.
Britain does the opposite in another example of the courts and police being at odds with popular opinion. The Equality Act criminalises discrimination against minority groups. Certainly we should welcome traveller communities who are prepared to integrate into society, engage in legal employment, pay their taxes, educate their children and above all to obey local and national laws. This is far from the case among some elements of the traveller communities, causing resentment among mainstream society.
The essential difference is that Swiss law is clear, though discriminatory, and supported legally by the majority. English law bans discrimination, but is policed on a two-tier – ie discriminatory basis – for the benefit of the minority group, not mainstream society.
Perhaps this is not at the top of everyone’s political agenda, but there are plenty of UK citizens who believe it should be. And the Swiss demonstrate that it can be managed successfully in the interest of the majority of its population.
