The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers: A Critical Hate Studies Perspective [1st ed.] 9781137518286, 9781137518293

Citation preview

PALGRAVE HATE STUDIES

The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers A Critical Hate Studies Perspective Zoë James

Palgrave Hate Studies

Series Editors Neil Chakraborti School of Criminology University of Leicester Leicester, UK Barbara Perry Faculty of Social Science and Humanities University of Ontario Oshawa, ON, Canada

This series builds on recent developments in the broad and interdisciplinary field of hate studies. Palgrave Hate Studies aims to bring together in one series the very best scholars who are conducting hate studies research around the world. Reflecting the range and depth of research and scholarship in this burgeoning area, the series welcomes contributions from established hate studies researchers who have helped to shape the field, as well as new scholars who are building on this tradition and breaking new ground within and outside the existing canon of hate studies research. Editorial Advisory Board Tore Bjorgo (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs) Jon Garland (University of Surrey) Nathan Hall (University of Portsmouth) Gail Mason (University of Sydney) Jack McDevitt (Northeastern University) Scott Poynting (The University of Auckland) Mark Walters (University of Sussex)

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14695

Zoë James

The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers A Critical Hate Studies Perspective

Zoë James University of Plymouth Plymouth, Devon, UK

Palgrave Hate Studies ISBN 978-1-137-51828-6 ISBN 978-1-137-51829-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgments

This book, though relatively brief, has been a long time in coming. Firstly I must thank the Gypsies and Travellers who have worked with me over many years and who have always been kind and generous enough to talk candidly to me of their experiences. I would like to thank the book series editors and Palgrave for their patience. At work I need to thank Oliver, and Tom who took an old(ish) academic on a new journey that was great. Thank you to Katie, who does so much for me and excels me already, though is only at the start. Thank you to my mum and Brov, who are always there for me and my amazing sister who is always listening. Thank you to our best friends Emma and Rich who have kept us going through the pandemic, we will be back in the vans soon I hope. Finally I want to thank my brilliant family, Ady and Rex, who give me my basecamp and inspiration, and Chyp who took me for walks.

v

Contents

1

1

Introduction

2

History and Identity

15

3

Hate Harms

39

4

Thinking Critically About Hate

69

5

Conclusion

95

Bibliography

105

Index

121

vii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract This chapter introduces readers to the key issues raised by the book and orients the reader to the social position of Gypsies and Travellers as problematised, and subsequently controlled, peoples. The chapter discusses some of the key concepts used throughout the book and gives a breakdown of the forthcoming chapters. Keywords Hate harms · Marginalisation · Control · Space and place

As I write, in Spring 2020, the world is experiencing a pandemic. The coronavirus, COVID-19, has spread across the globe at an exponential rate, resulting in a momentary pause of all aspects of daily life. For the wealthy, that pause constitutes a moment for retreat and reflection, for the planet to heal and for families to reconnect. The romanticism of this perspective belies the tragedies unfolding across nation states as the poor and socially excluded are hardest hit by the virus, including Gypsies, Travellers and Roma (Council of Europe 2020). The principle mechanism used to control the virus at this stage has been the ‘lockdown’ of people into their homes in order to manage its spread, protect health services from being overwhelmed and to ‘shield’ those most vulnerable who have underlying medical conditions. People are expected to keep a ‘social distance’ from each other, which actually means keeping a physical © The Author(s) 2020 Z. James, The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers, Palgrave Hate Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3_1

1

2

Z. JAMES

distance in public space, with no family gatherings, meeting of friends, etc. And those who become sick are required to isolate themselves, even within their households. For Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, who often live in poverty and whose accommodation is commonly overcrowded, these circumstances are worrying at best, and potentially life threatening. Gypsies, Travellers and Roma have the poorest health and welfare outcomes of any minority communities across Europe, as acknowledged by the European Commission (2019) and the United Nations (2015). The prejudice and discrimination they face in their everyday lives means that they are rarely effectively supported by health and welfare agencies, nor are they acknowledged as worthy of support from, or as part of, their local settled communities. Even in these relatively early days of the pandemic it is becoming evident that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma have been scapegoated for the spread of the virus, their needs have not been met, and their communities are at heightened risk of the virus itself or lack of service provision in the wake of the virus uptake on health services (Rorke 2020). This book intends to explore the nature of hate harms in contemporary society, and in doing so it will illuminate how we have arrived at a situation wherein the most marginalised in society are subject to the vagaries of a global pandemic. I will argue here that the harms of hate reach further than is traditionally considered within hate studies literature. The book moves beyond the criminal justice framework that addresses hate crime, while also acknowledging the capacity of such legal and policy responses to challenge the extremities of hate behaviours. The book will consider the breadth of hate harms that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma experience, including how bias-motivated discrimination and prejudice have resulted in their social, economic and political exclusion. It will conclude by considering the exacerbation of Gypsies’, Travellers’ and Roma exclusion and vilification by the nature of contemporary society that celebrates individualism over community and the instant gratification of the self over the social support of all in society.

Controlling Gypsies and Travellers On the 19 October 2011, just after dawn, over a hundred police officers dressed in full riot gear and carrying protective shields marched across a field in Essex, England on their way to facilitate the eviction of the illegal Dale Farm Traveller site. Police officers used axes to break down a

1

INTRODUCTION

3

fence at the rear of the site in order to gain entry and then faced violent clashes with Travellers and protesters within the site as they went through the six acre plot of land to make way for bailiffs to clear the site. Tasers were deployed by the police on two occasions during the initial skirmish to enter the Traveller site. By midday however, the bailiffs were able to enter the site and the focus of police attention was on the removal of protestors from a high scaffold tower that had been constructed at the entrance to the site in an effort to prevent eviction occurring. In scenes reminiscent of the English environmental protest evictions at Twyford Down and Newbury in the 1990s, protesters and Travellers were coaxed, requested and forced out of their makeshift gantry by police officers and bailiffs who used cherry pickers to access them. In the late afternoon of the 20th October, the final Travellers and protesters walked away from the Dale Farm site following a group decision to leave. Thirty four arrests had taken place over two days, largely for public order offences and breach of the peace. After ten years of legal wrangling, during which time the Travellers had fought to live on the site which they owned, but for which they had not attained planning permission, the fight for the Dale Farm site, reported to be the largest illegal site in Europe, appeared to be over. This clash between the police and Travellers epitomises the contemporary fears of Gypsies and Travellers throughout the United Kingdom (UK). Evictions of sites are rarely so complex, high profile and resource intensive, but they are common and problematic in the UK and for Roma internationally (Home 2012). Notwithstanding the previous history of prejudice, discrimination and racism experienced by Gypsies, Travellers and Roma via state and non-state violence that has subjugated their communities over centuries throughout Europe (Acton, Rostas and Ryder 2014; Alliance Against Anti-Gypsyism 2016), there have been numerous occasions in the post-war era in the UK when similarly extreme tactics to those used at Dale Farm have been used to move Gypsies and Travellers on and away from particular places and spaces, and the collective memory of them remains an integral part of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ cultural knowledge and identity. The notion that such communities can be subject to state-sponsored force through eviction affirms their historic lack of confidence in police, local authorities and state apparatus. The control of Gypsies and Travellers in the late twentieth and early twentyfirst centuries has not happened solely through forced eviction however, despite its prominence within communities’ psyches. Gypsies and Travellers are ‘policed’ within a breadth of contexts and by multiple agencies.

4

Z. JAMES

Akin to other minority communities, Gypsies and Travellers have been over-policed as offenders and under-policed as victims. Their criminalisation has occurred due to the complex interaction of social forces that have embedded prejudiced attitudes towards them in contemporary society and which harmfully impacts their daily lives. Throughout the course of this book I will outline the numerous ways that Gypsies and Travellers in the UK experience the harms of their criminalisation and victimisation as hate and subsequently how they interact with the state, its agencies and settled society generally. In real terms, Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of criminalisation are rarely as dramatic as the Dale Farm eviction (Reiner 2010); it is the potential for such criminal justice interventions, and community memories of them, that informs the fears of Gypsies and Travellers. The bulk of the story to be told here requires a consideration of how Gypsies and Travellers experience daily life under the gaze of a prejudiced society: when they are moving from one place to the next; when they try to establish a base for themselves with planning authorities; when they want to attain appropriate education for their children; or, when they are unwell and need to visit a doctor. This book therefore utilises the notion of harm to understand the multiple ways in which Gypsies and Travellers are impacted by anti-Gypsyism, or Romaphobia that is the prejudice embedded in their lived experience (see for example, McGarry 2017; Alliance Against Anti-Gypsyism 2016). Further, this book considers how Gypsies and Travellers are socially controlled by using Donzelot’s (1997) concept of ‘policing’ that allows a consideration of the roles of multiple agencies in the management of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives. Indeed, their lives are ‘managed’ because their communities are largely problematised by agencies that are unsure how to address their needs or concerns, despite extensive national and international pressure for inclusion for Gypsies and Travellers (European Commission 2019). In 2011 the European Union set out a Framework for the social and economic inclusion of Roma (including Gypsies and Travellers in the UK) in Europe by 2020. The Framework recognised that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma had extremely poor outcomes in education, health and welfare across the member states. In 2010 the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe produced a report on the policing of Roma in Europe (OSCE 2010). The report stated that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma were being discriminated against by multiple agencies and that their voices were not being heard as victims. The capacity of European Union policies

1

INTRODUCTION

5

to address the marginalisation of Roma and/or to actually augment it has been scrutinised by scholars comprehensively elsewhere (Kóczé 2018; Yildiz and De Genova 2018). The point here is to note that there has been pressure within Europe to address the problematisation of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and acknowledgment of the failure of agencies to effectively engage with them, but little change in their lived experience. There are two issues which are traditionally considered as underpinning Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of marginalisation in society, both of which will be addressed discretely in later chapters of this book, but are worthy of mention here. The first has caused me problems throughout writing these initial sentences to frame the context for this book: identity. I have utilised the titles of ‘Gypsy’, ‘Traveller’ and ‘Roma’ in an effort to encapsulate all those people across Europe whose identity is based on a Roma tradition, heritage and/or a travelling lifestyle. But these titles are insufficient to wholly represent the diverse range of peoples I intend to refer to. In European policy and documentation the tendency has become to refer to all Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, as simply ‘Roma’ (Liegeois 1994) with the aim of being entirely inclusionary, though it has been increasingly recognised that the core commonality of Roma in Europe has been the otherness imposed on them through racialised discourse (Kóczé 2018). However, in the UK the inclination is to distinguish between European Roma and other Gypsies and Travellers. Although there are commonalities among these communities for various reasons, largely due to their historic marginalisation, their ways of living vary, particularly their choice of home. In the UK, Gypsies and Travellers are commonly associated with mobility and nomadism, whereas European Roma are perceived as settled people (though they are stigmatised as migrants when they are mobile). The intention of this book is to consider the hate harms experienced by Gypsies and Travellers in some depth and in doing so my focus must intentionally be on a particular area that I may claim some knowledge of. Therefore, the discussion throughout will largely focus on Gypsies and Travellers in the UK. However, the book does provide some reflection on the comparative position of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in Europe whose experiences of social harm bare some similarity to those in the UK. Despite a comprehensive diversity agenda in most European countries and expectations of agencies to embrace multiculturalism, the ability of society and those agencies to effectively embrace these policies is questionable and academic debate on them is lively. Gypsy and Traveller

6

Z. JAMES

identities have often been devolved in this context to specific racialised (Murji 2017) or nationalised groupings that can result in further exclusion of those who do not fit within such criteria, such as New Travellers in the UK (James 2005). In exploring the hate harms experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, it is necessary to consider how identity is formed and framed, how different aspects of identity intersect, and how the politics of identity have affected the lived experience of Gypsies and Travellers. The impact of racism on Gypsies and Travellers, and Roma, is well documented (for example, McGarry 2017; Okely 2014; Frazer and Marlier 2011). Their abhorrent treatment as a consequence of biologically determinist fascist policy and practice in many European countries in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has commonly meant the decimation of Roma culture and oppressive treatment that has placed Roma in often abject circumstances (see for example, Alliance Against AntiGypsyism 2016; Achim 2004). Gypsies and Travellers in the UK have been historically associated with vagrancy, crime and criminality (Taylor 2014) and public perceptions of them are more negative than towards any other minority communities (Pew Research Center 2014; Abrams et al. 2018). Using Žižek’s (2008) framework of violence, this book will consider how direct, subjective harms of hate have manifested in this context in contemporary late modernity as physical and verbal hateful behaviours. It will consider how the systemic hate harms of prejudice and discrimination have generated and driven subjective hate by exploring state and private agencies responses to Gypsies and Travellers and civil society support for them. And further, the book will address how symbolic hate harms perpetuated through language, discourse and ideologies have been engendered by the late modern political economic norm of neoliberal capitalism which pitches people against each other in a competitive milieu, driven by consumerism and individualism. The exclusion, stigmatisation and marginalisation of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK has traditionally been perceived as underpinned by their lack of legitimate, culturally appropriate places to live. The nomadic roots of many Gypsy and Traveller communities place their culture in a different conceptual space to other settled communities. While settled western culture enjoys dramatic images of nomads, such as the Bedouin throwing up exotic tents in the desert, there is little space provided for nomadic living or identity in the UK other than through the pages of National Geographic magazine. Gypsies and Travellers experience marginalisation throughout the UK because they are limited in where

1

INTRODUCTION

7

they can legitimately live. Even when Gypsies and Travellers live settled lifestyles, their cultural nomadism, that is part of their heritage, sets them apart (Kabachnik 2009). Contemporary western society developed, and is largely maintained, by the creation of boundaries or territories. As Giddens (1985) notes, the creation of the nation state provided the origins of definitive boundaries with geographically drawn lines as ‘borders’. Further, industrial capitalism functioned by localising a flexible workforce, so physical space was divided into residential areas surrounding working areas in urban and rural settings. Likewise, settled people tended to perceive space in time as divided between ‘work’ and ‘home’, each commonly separated by our perception of how time was used and where we used it. The boundary setting of settled industrial capitalism remains encapsulated in the creation of laws that enforce boundaries, particularly the boundary of property and land ownership. Since the private Enclosure Acts of the eighteenth century, land has been bounded in the interests of land owners and the sedentary principles of the new industrial order (Kemp 1978). Land ownership is valued within legal statute, whereas rights of access to land are not (Bancroft 2000). Gypsies’ and Travellers’ commitment to a nomadic lifestyle, be that via mobility or culture, has not equated with the bounded nature of industrial capitalist social norms and ideals that have been enshrined in law and culture throughout Western Europe (Yildiz and De Genova 2018). Interestingly, as will be seen later in this book, Gypsies and Travellers have sometimes conformed to the contemporary neoliberal capitalist ideal of the flexible liberal entrepreneur, but the law of land ownership, that remains the foundation of the legal system and its associated protection of hereditary wealth, confines their mobility and their nomadic cultures that have facilitated their entrepreneurial spirit. Gypsies and Travellers in the UK have been in a constant battle to identify space for themselves where they can stop and stay or move on from, particularly since the closure of common land by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The lack of legitimate space provided to Gypsies and Travellers by state mechanisms, means that they have often occupied spaces that are inappropriate or insufficient to their needs or they have settled in to housing and hidden their identities for fear of the racism its cognisance engenders (Okely 2014). Policing agencies have then been required to ‘deal with’ Gypsies and Travellers who have been perceived as breaking the boundaries of acceptable use of space and place. Such boundaries may be physical barriers to land on which Gypsies and

8

Z. JAMES

Travellers have settled illegally, or regulatory barriers which require them to gain planning permission, place their children in education or effectively access health care for example. Policing agencies act then to control Gypsies and Travellers as much as possible, as they perceive Gypsies and Travellers as innately disordinate. That control often manifests itself as providing care to communities while it actually aims to assimilate them into a settled lifestyle that fails to recognise their cultural nomadic tradition. Gypsies and Travellers therefore exist at the nexus between care and control that has been characterised as an environment of ‘benevolent control’ (Moore 2011: 267). Gypsies and Travellers have been required to conform to settled societies’ notion of a ‘normal’ lifestyle: from living within fixed accommodation that is made of ‘bricks and mortar’ (Greenfields 2006) to aspiring to the individualist consumerist principles of neoliberal capitalism. This book considers how Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lived experiences of hate harms in society are informed by racialised perceptions of their identities and their lack of access to culturally appropriate accommodation. However, the book moves beyond these traditional precepts to appreciate how the identities and accommodation of Gypsies and Travellers are administered within neoliberal capitalism in late modernity (Kóczé 2018). Neoliberal capitalism has been identified by theorists (Harvey 2005; Davies 2017) as encapsulated by a culture of individualism, competitiveness, meritocracy and relative deprivation. In this environment, resources are distributed upwards in the social hierarchy under the false premise that everyone, including socially excluded communities such as Gypsies and Travellers will benefit from the trickle down of the wealth created. Aligned with this, neoliberal capitalist responsibilisation, teamed with deregulation and withdrawal of the state, has resulted in an environment in which judgement and regulation of others is encouraged (Harvey 2005, 2011; Dardot and Laval 2017; Davies 2017). By using a critical hate studies perspective (James and McBride 2018) to identify and analyse the social harms experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, this book is able to effectively engage with the lived experiences of those communities in contemporary society. The critical hate studies perspective, as set out in Chapter 4, uses ultra-realist theory (Hall and Winlow 2015) to appreciate the relationship between neoliberal capitalism and other structures of power in late modern society. In doing so, the perspective is able to discuss the complexity of subjective, systemic and symbolic hate harms experienced

1

INTRODUCTION

9

by Gypsies and Travellers. The harms of hate for Gypsies and Travellers cannot be reduced to the subjective teleological racist outbursts of individuals such as physical attacks committed by far-right followers. While such attacks certainly constitute hate crimes as defined by legal statute, the evidence presented here is that the harm of such hate does not represent the overarching experience of hate for Gypsies and Travellers. The research here identifies that Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of systemic discrimination and prejudice is equally harmful to them. When they are refused entry to legitimate spaces and places, over-policed as offenders and under-policed as victims (among many other things) Gypsies and Travellers experience hate. Often the discrimination and prejudice Gypsies and Travellers experience in their daily lives constitute minor incivilities, banal comments or negation of their identity. No matter how small or apparently inconsequential these experiences are (or how much Gypsies and Travellers appear to accept them) they impact significantly on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ individual subjectivity and their communities’ identities. The fear, frustration and anger that those people and their communities feel as a consequence of systemic hate harms results in defensive attitudes and behaviours and the creation of discrete boundary setting between Gypsies and Travellers and settled communities by Gypsies and Travellers themselves (Marcus 2019). The harms of hate do not stop there though. Gypsies and Travellers experience cognitive dissonance as their identities are culturally bounded through this defence, while they are expected to live according to the norms of neoliberal capitalism. So, as Heaslip et al.’s (2016) research has shown, Gypsies and Travellers feel torn between upholding their traditional identities and associated values that have strengthened in response to experiences of discrimination and prejudice and their desire to live according to the norms of neoliberal capitalism, including moving beyond traditionally bound concepts of gender, sexuality, work and lifestyle. This constitutes a symbolic hate harm.

The Basis of the Book This book represents the culmination of my research and scholarly enterprise with Gypsies, Travellers and Roma over the last twenty five years. As a Research Officer at the Home Office in the early 1990s I carried out research on the policing of the public order provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which included new trespass offences

10

Z. JAMES

that impacted on Gypsies and Travellers lives. I went on to complete my Ph.D. at the University of Surrey on the policing of New Travellers prior to my appointment at the University of Plymouth where I am now an Associate Professor. I have completed a number of research projects with Gypsies and Travellers that were funded by a range of agencies, including the British Academy, Local Authorities, the Department for Communities and Local Government and most recently the Economic and Social Research Council. That research has explored the management and control of Gypsies and Travellers, provision of accommodation, their mobility and cultural nomadism and their experiences of hate crimes, incidents and increasingly the harms of hate. My journey to engage with Gypsies and Travellers and to facilitate their voices has been a wholly enlightening one. My original research with New Travellers was predicated on personal interest, as is so much research, due to a family member living as a New Traveller. However, I have never lived as a Traveller, nor have I any Gypsy or Traveller heritage. I do appear to have a strong sense of justice however, and this, coupled with an undergraduate degree in Sociology, led me to have an early inclination to challenge prejudice and discrimination. I am also extremely stubborn, and so, when I was informed as an early career researcher by a much older, experienced academic in Romani Studies (also a non-Gypsy/Traveller) that I would not be able to continue my research career due to my lack of Gypsy ancestry and my interest in New Travellers, I became determined to do just that. I have carried out research with Gypsies and Travellers through a range of academic enquiries, both qualitative and quantitative. Largely my research has been qualitative in nature however, its emphasis has been on ensuring the development of a ‘minority perspective’ (Phillips and Bowling 2008) with Gypsies and Travellers. All of this research has been completed with the full support of the communities with whom I have worked. I have been fortunate enough to have worked with Gypsies and Travellers from all walks of life, who have told me their stories in great detail and trusted me to convey them so that their voices could be heard. I hope that the developing generation of Gypsy and Traveller academics will soon usurp me in building an appreciation and understanding of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lived experience within criminology and hate studies. This book then provides an analysis of the harms of hate for Gypsies and Travellers, as based on these research experiences outlined. The evidence drawn on in these chapters has been ascertained from my own research, completed with full ethical consideration and approval and is

1

INTRODUCTION

11

informed by research completed by esteemed colleagues in Gypsy and Traveller studies, and Gypsy and Traveller support organisations. Further, I draw here on a comprehensive review of literature from across the social sciences and particularly within criminology.

Outline of the Book Informed by a critical realist approach to research (Bhaskar 1998) I have endeavoured here to set out my discussion of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of hate by considering what we already know about hate against Gypsies and Travellers (the empirical), the hate harms my research has identified (the actual), and how we can better understand those hate harms through a critical lens (the real). In order to do this the chapters are as follows. Chapter 2, History and Identity, sets out the history of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK. It specifically focuses on the identities of Gypsies and Travellers as multiple and heterogeneous, lived according to traditions of cultural nomadism that have framed their negative experiences of accommodation provision, particularly in the late twentieth and early twentyfirst centuries. The chapter provides an account of the variable ways in which Gypsies and Travellers have experienced processes of nomadisation and racialisation that have ultimately created a distinction between Gypsies and Travellers and settled society and reinforced stereotypes of Gypsies and Travellers as either exotic curios or villainous strangers. In presenting the history and identities of Gypsies and Travellers this chapter is able to provide context for the reader on what we already know about the exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers in contemporary society and existing tensions between them and settled communities. Chapter 3, Hate Harms, depicts the extensive hate harms that Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experience in late modernity. In order to extrapolate these harms I have used Žižek’s (2008) framework of violence to define hate harms according to their experiential subjectivity or objectivity. Therefore, the chapter initially identifies the subjective hate harms experienced by Gypsies and Travellers that are clearly identifiable and include hate speech, incidents and crimes. I then go on to discuss objectively experienced hate harms that are systemic and symbolic. Systemic hate harms that Gypsies and Travellers have suffered constitute discrimination, social and economic exclusion, and criminalisation, while symbolic hate harms are those embedded within the discourse of neoliberal capitalism. The

12

Z. JAMES

chapter thus is able to provide space to the breadth of hate harms Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experience that are rarely perceived discretely. Chapter 4, Thinking Critically About Hate, draws together the findings from the previous two chapters to provide some explanation for the hate harms embedded within Gypsies’ and Travellers’ daily lives. In doing so it utilises a critical hate studies approach to understanding hate in contemporary society which, in turn, is informed by ultra-realist criminology. By taking this approach the chapter is able to consider some of the impacts of hate harms on the social and personal identities of Gypsies and Travellers that are largely unseen or not considered in light of the neoliberal capitalist norms that exacerbate and inform them. This chapter therefore begins to challenge our existing perceptions of hate in contemporary society and identifies the need to consider how harm manifests in the lived experience. Finally, the book concludes by reviewing the overarching story told throughout its pages. It identifies the core issues raised in the book as a consequence of applying a harm-focused lens to appreciate the hate experienced by Gypsies and Travellers.

References Abrams, D., Swift, H., & Houston, D. (2018). Developing a National Barometer of Prejudice and Discrimination in Britain. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Achim, V. (2004). Roma in Romanian History. Budapest: Central European University Press. Acton, T., Rostas, I., & Ryder, A. (2014). The Roma in Europe: Mechanisms of Power and Social Justice. In A. Ryder, S. Cemlyn, & A. Acton (Eds.), Hearing the voice of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities. Bristol: Policy Press. Alliance Against Anti-Gypsyism. (2016). Anti-Gypsyism – A Reference Paper. Available at: www.antigysyism.eu. Accessed on: 17/04/17. Bancroft, A. (2000). ‘No Interest in Land’: Legal and Spatial Enclosure of GypsyTravellers in Britain. Space and Polity, 4, 41–56. Bhaskar, R. (1998). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norries (Eds.), Critical Realism: Essential Readings. Abingdon: Routledge. Council of Europe. (2020). 8 April International Roma Day: Step Up Human Rights Protection for Roma and Guarantee Their Access to Vital Services During COVID-19 Pandemic. Joint Statement by Marija Pejˇcinovi´c Buri´c,

1

INTRODUCTION

13

Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and Helena Dalli, European Commissioner for Equality. Accessed at: https://search.coe.int/directorate_ of_communications/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016809e 1d95#globalcontainer. Accessed on: 09/04/20. Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2017). The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. London: Verso. Davies, W. (2017). The Limits of Neoliberalism. London: Sage. Donzelot, J. (1997). The Policing of Families. London: The John Hopkins Press. European Commission. (2019). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Report on the Implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies—2019. Accessed at: https://eur-lex.eur opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0406. Accessed on: 09/04/20. Frazer, H., & Marlier, E. (2011). Promoting the Social Inclusion of Roma. EU: Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Giddens, A. (1985). A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Greenfields, M. (2006). Gypsies, Travellers and Legal Matters. In C. Clark & M. Greenfields (Eds.), Here to Stay: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Hall, S., & Winlow, S. (2015). Revitalizing Criminological Theory: Towards a New Ultra-Realism. London: Routledge. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2011). The Enigma of Capital: And the Crisis of Capitalism. London: Profile. Heaslip, V., Hean, S., & Parker, J. (2016). Lived Experience of Vulnerability from a Gypsy Roma Traveller Perspective. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.111/jocn.13223. Home, R. (2012). Forced Eviction and Planning Enforcement: The Dale Farm Gypsies. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 4(3), 178– 188. James, Z. (2005). Eliminating Communities? Exploring the Implications of Policing Methods Used to Manage New Travellers. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 33, 159–168. James, Z., & McBride, K. (2018, December 4–7). Critical Hate Studies: A Theoretical Perspective. In Australia and New Zealand Criminology Conference. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne. Kabachnik, P. (2009). To Choose, Fix or Ignore Culture? The Cultural Politics of Gypsy and Traveller Mobility in England. Social and Cultural Geography, 10(4), 461–479. Kemp, T. (1978). Historical Patterns of Industrialization. Harlow: Longman.

14

Z. JAMES

Kóczé, A. (2018). Race, Migration and Neoliberalism: Distorted Notions of Romani Migration in European Public Discourses. Social Identities, 24(4), 459–473. Liegeois, J.-P. (1994). Roma, Gypsies, Travellers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Marcus, G. (2019). Gypsy and Traveller Girls: Silence, Agency and Power. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. McGarry, A. (2017). Romaphobia: The Last Acceptable Form of Racism. London: Zed Books. Moore, D. (2011). The Benevolent Watch: Therapeutic Surveillance in Drug Treatment Court. Theoretical Criminology, 15(3), 255–268. Murji, K. (2017). Racism, Policy and Politics. Bristol: Policy Press. Okely, J. (2014). Recycled (mis)representations: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma Treated as Objects, Rarely Subjects. People, Place and Policy, 8(1), 65–85. OSCE. (2010). Police and Roma and Sinti: Good Practices in Building Trust and Understanding. Vienna: OSCE. Pew Research Center. (2014). A Fragile Rebound for EU Image on Eve of European Parliament Elections. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Phillips, C., & Bowling, B. (2008). Racism, Ethnicity and Criminology: Developing Minority Perspectives. In B. Spalek (Ed.), Ethnicity and Crime: A Reader. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Reiner, R. (2010). The Politics of the Police. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rorke, B. (2020). Inequality, Anti-Roma Racism, and the Coronavirus. EUObserver. Accessed at: https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/147759. Accessed on: 01/04/20. Taylor, B. (2014). Another Darkness, Another Dawn: A History of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. London: Reaktion Books. United Nations. (2015). Report of the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, Rita Izsák. United Nations. Yildiz, C., & De Genova, N. (2018). Un/Free Mobility: Roma Migrants in the European Union. Social Identities, 24(4), 425–441. Žižek, S. (2008). Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador.

CHAPTER 2

History and Identity

Abstract This chapter provides a historical account of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives in the UK in the late modern period in order to contextualise the subsequent chapters. In providing that context the chapter addresses how existing legislation and research frames Gypsies’ and Travellers’ identities in terms of their cultural nomadism and ascribed ethnicity. The chapter identifies who the Gypsies and Travellers are that live in the UK in the twenty-first century. Keywords Mobility · Accommodation · Culture and identity · Race and ethnicity

This chapter sets out existing accounts of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives in the UK in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries in order to contextualise their experiences of hate harms by framing the tension that exists between Gypsies and Travellers and wider settled society. The chapter initially addresses the culturally nomadic nature of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives in the UK and how their propensity to nomadism has been perceived and used as a mechanism to set them apart from sedentary society. It then goes on to consider how processes of racialisation (Murji 2017) have informed their experiences and the treatment of Gypsies and Travellers by non-Gypsies/Travellers. Subsequently the chapter identifies © The Author(s) 2020 Z. James, The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers, Palgrave Hate Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3_2

15

16

Z. JAMES

some of the key issues that research has evidenced as negatively impacting Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives, specifically focusing on their capacity to access accommodation. In order to understand Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lived experience of hate it is necessary initially to traverse this existing knowledge, to take account of the problematisation of Gypsies and Travellers within UK society. Detailed accounts of Gypsies and Travellers lives are available elsewhere (for example, Okely 1983; Fraser 1992; Power 2004; Clark and Greenfields 2006). However, in order to consider how and why Gypsies and Travellers have been marginalised, socially and economically excluded, and subject to hate, it is necessary to understand the variable nature of Gypsy and Traveller communities and lifestyles, how they interact and conflict with wider society and each other. Gypsies and Travellers have long been considered atavistic ‘folk devils’ in a modernising society (Cohen 1972; Richardson 2006). In the nineteenth century they were referred to as ‘vagabonds’, considered feckless vagrants, and numerous laws were passed in the UK to limit their movement and prevent them from camping on their traditional Atchin Tans or stopping places (Firth 2013). The development of multiculturalism in contemporary society and its accompanying liberal ethos largely failed to provide inclusion for Gypsies and Travellers (van Baar 2011), who Cemlyn et al. (2009) described, in their comprehensive review of Gypsy and Traveller experiences of inequality, as the most socially excluded minority in the UK. As in the nineteenth century, in the twenty-firstcentury Gypsies and Travellers remain subject to legislation that has limited their freedom of movement or ability to stop and stay in any one location temporarily or permanently. And while it would appear that contemporary equalities legislation has gone some way to facilitate inclusivity, the complexity of defining Gypsy or Traveller identity in law belies those gains (James and Southern 2019). If the concept of ‘identity’ in late modern usage can be bisected into the personal and the social (Moran 2015), so the prejudice and exclusion Gypsies and Travellers have suffered is likewise twofold. Later in the book, at Chapter 4, I will consider how hate has affected Gypsies’ and Travellers’ personal identities—that is their individual subjectivity, as a consequence of the harmful production of their social identities, that are the identities that they have been ascribed to and/or that they ascribe themselves to. Here I will set out how the social identity of Gypsies and Travellers has been moulded within late modernity to create a marginalised and racialised ‘other’, whom Ryder refers to as ‘insular minorities’ who have been ‘systematically disadvantaged’ (2011: 40).

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

17

The subjugation of Gypsies and Travellers and their association with vagrancy and thus poverty has a lengthy history (Taylor 2014) that is based in racism towards them and tied-up with their propensity to nomadism, as will be discussed further below. The allusion to Gypsies and Travellers living poorly, and therefore being unclean in some sense, or dirty, has been argued as one of the key tools used to stigmatise them and thereby set them apart from ‘normal’ society (Sibley 1988). It has also been important in providing an argument for the settlement of Gypsies and Travellers, or their assimilation within sedentary society (McVeigh 1997), wherein they can live more ‘ordered’ lifestyles in housing. Media accounts of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives have commonly referred to Gypsies and Travellers as ‘dirty’, leaving rubbish on sites and causing damage to land. Parliamentary debates on Gypsy and Traveller sites have also often devolved to similar denigration of Gypsy and Traveller communities (Turner 2002). Sibley (1988) utilises the work of Douglas (1966) on ‘purity and danger’ in order to unpack societal responses to Gypsies and Travellers. In doing so he notes the need of people to make sense of the world through processes of classification, and that those who cannot be classified are identified as pollutants, ‘as a threat to the integrity of the collective’ (Sibley 1988: 410). The threatening nature of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK is twofold, firstly by living nomadically or having a predisposition towards nomadism they pose a threat by subverting the order of places maintained by sedentarism. Secondly, and in association with their nomadic habit of life, Gypsies and Travellers pose a threat to the norms of society by the ephemeral nature of their cultures that are closely guarded and illusory. While settled people romanticise the notion of the free nomadic Gypsy in some contexts, such as in art and music, in real terms they are fearful of this ‘traumatic intruder’ whose capacity to embody the full joy of freedom is felt as a theft of what settled people see as rightfully theirs in a neoliberal capitalist society (Žižek 1993, 2008).

Nomadism The culturally nomadic nature of Gypsy and Traveller cultures in the UK is borne of historic tradition and economic necessity. As noted in the introduction to this book, Gypsy and Traveller communities are multiple and as such vary in their ways of living and traditions. However, their commonality is found in their desire to be nomadic, either in practice or in perception (Shubin and Swanson 2010). In other words, Gypsies and

18

Z. JAMES

Travellers commonly want to travel as part of their lifestyle or they see travelling as part of their identity, even if they are not mobile in practice. Their enforced movement and lack of places to stop and stay, which will be elaborated on in due course, complicate the travelling part of the identities of Gypsies and Travellers. Suffice to say, the notion of travelling or mobility, is central to the identities of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK. It is important to note here that nomadism is not necessarily relevant or important to all Roma, Gypsy and Traveller peoples in Europe, and in reality is often over-stated as a mechanism to imply Roma are stateless peoples (Yildiz and De Genova 2018). Van Baar (2011) has referred to this over-statement as constituting a process of nomadisation for Roma. For those Gypsies and Travellers in the UK who are mobile, they may be so for a variety of reasons and may travel for different periods of time, either encircling a particular locality or moving far and wide. Commonly Gypsies and Travellers are on the move in order to work as a commercial necessity. Acton (2010) notes the important difference between nomadism and migration, as nomadism refers to travelling for a purpose, rather than as a single action, in pursuit of a commercial aim. He argues that the conflation of nomadism with migration has aided the stigmatisation of Roma in Europe who were racialised and homogenised as an ethnic group in the eighteenth century and as such were vilified, executed, enslaved, and subjugated (Alliance Against AntiGypsyism 2016; Achim 2004). Subsequently nomadism has served as a historic tool to racialise and subsequently pathologise Roma, rather than recognise their historic nomadism as a positive economic enterprise in response to their poor social living conditions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the contemporary era, the free movement of people between European Union states has notably again been distorted when it comes to Roma who are stigmatised as migrants when they move beyond their home countries. The stigma they experience in this sense is imbued with racialised connotations of Roma as non-citizens that are closely linked with notions of their nomadism (Howard and Vajda 2017). The difference between various Roma, Gypsy and Traveller cultures and communities is highlighted by this matter, and potentially challenges the idea that European Union wide policy and practice can be applicable for all those communities, as if their lifestyles, wants and needs are similar (James 2020b, forthcoming; Kóczé and Rövid 2012). The mobile nature of Gypsies and Travellers lives in the UK has been culturally developmental in Acton’s (2010) construction. In the twentieth

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

19

and twenty-first centuries, Gypsies and Travellers in the UK have lived nomadically in order to work in seasonal occupations such as hop-picking, flower picking or to run fairgrounds or work at music festivals. They may travel all year round to work on road-building schemes, to trade, carry out manual labour or sell crafts, but it is likely that such movement would be localised around a particular area. Traditional work in Gypsy and Traveller communities has focused on male self-employment, though women have increasingly entered the labour market in the twenty-first century and lack of employment opportunities have impacted on Gypsy and Traveller communities as much as their sedentary neighbours, if not more (Cemlyn et al. 2009). Other reasons for mobility among Gypsy and Traveller communities has focused on family activities, so births, deaths and marriages are particularly important occasions for traditional Gypsy and Traveller communities, wherein extended families would travel long distances in order to participate in celebrations and commemorations. The nomadic lifestyles of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK, that are informed by commercial and familial needs, are somewhat distorted by the lack of space provided for them to stop and stay on as noted above. Many Gypsies and Travellers have settled into housing, but for those who have an aversion to bricks and mortar accommodation (Murdoch and Johnson 2020) it has been estimated that their accommodation needs in the UK equate to approximately one square mile of land in total (EHRC 2009). And yet, accommodating Gypsies and Travellers is considered highly problematic by sedentary communities, local authorities and parliamentarians. Negative depictions of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers are presented in national and local media which serves to amplify the perception of Gypsies and Travellers as problematic and deviant (Sibley 1981; Tremlett et al. 2017) and augments protests against their settlement. Such protests have been given greater legitimacy since the Localism Act 2011 in England and Wales that actively encouraged inclusion of local views on planning matters (Ryder 2011). While local authority planning officers have often presented inclusive approaches to accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, this has not resulted in accommodation provision as local councillors, reliant on the support of sedentary communities in elections, have given tacit support to community objections against plans for Gypsy and Traveller sites in order to win votes (Erfani-Ghettani 2012). As Kabachnik (2010) has suggested, it is Gypsies’ and Travellers’ desire for place that ignites settled communities’ fears rather than their mobility.

20

Z. JAMES

As previously noted, Gypsies and Travellers in the UK may choose to live in housing, but their cultural affiliation with nomadism means that they have often resisted assimilationist housing policy, preferring to live according to their cultural norms. Generically, Gypsy and Traveller accommodation spaces are referred to as ‘sites’, but they may constitute spaces containing a single home, or many homes together, they may be rural, suburban or urban. Legally recognised sites can be used as residential permanent living spaces; they can be used as transit sites where Gypsies and Travellers reside temporarily; or, they can be used as temporary stopping places that are safe shorter stay sites for Gypsies and Travellers to stop-over as they are travelling. Legally recognised sites may be on land owned by local authorities or privately owned land with planning permission. Unauthorised sites, on the other hand, describe settled sites on any land that does not have planning permission, including land owned by those occupying it themselves, and these sites may or may not be tolerated by local authorities. Very high proportions of planning applications for Gypsy and Traveller sites fail (Morris and Clements 2002). Unauthorised encampments are places that have been occupied, generally on the roadside, for relatively short periods of time. They are distinct due to their temporary nature and the illegitimate use of space that they often comprise (such as playing fields, car parks and lay-bys). Local authorities have not provided sufficient spaces to Gypsies and Travellers to live on resulting in what Cemlyn et al. (2009) referred to as an accommodation crisis. Historically, Gypsies and Travellers use of places to stop or to stay on were dictated by their nomadic needs. Since the Enclosure Acts of the eighteenth century Gypsies and Travellers utilised common land as traditional stopping places. However, in 1960 legislation closed the commons and by doing so, prevented Gypsies and Travellers from easily identifying places on which to rest or stay. In 1968 the Caravan Sites Act had required local authorities to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers to stop and stay in their areas. However, local authorities failed to fulfil their requirements under the Caravan Sites Act because, similar to now, councillors were unwilling to support site provision that would risk their likelihood of electoral success amidst popular prejudice against Gypsies and Travellers (Casciani 2004). Gypsies and Travellers therefore increasingly resorted to stopping places that local authorities did not formally recognise. Tensions between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community consequently

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

21

increased in the post-1968 period, as Gypsies and Travellers found themselves relying on places to stop and stay that encroached on settled communities’ lifestyles (Murdoch and Johnson 2004). So, for example, Gypsies and Travellers stopped and stayed in public spaces such as parks, community fields and car parks that caused disruption and confusion to the settled population. Settled communities felt subsequently unable to use those spaces and they were considered a mess because local authorities refused to provide services such as rubbish collection. The crisis of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers has been exacerbated by the extensive eviction actions taken by local authorities and police to move Gypsies and Travellers out of their geographical areas and beyond their responsibility (James 2006, 2007; James and Richardson 2006). Traditional debate has placed nomadism in direct contrast to sedentarism (Cresswell 2006), proposing that the civilising project of modernity is exemplified by the settlement of communities within geographically bounded areas. However, the process of sedentarisation was never simple or smooth, nor is it irreversible or mutually exclusive (McVeigh 1997). Kenrick and Clark (1999) particularly note the post-war period as a time in the twentieth century when Gypsies and Travellers lived relatively harmoniously alongside settled people in the UK. Further, Holloway (2005) and Sibley (1981) identify the variable nature of some media reports on Gypsies and Travellers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that appear to show elements of acceptance of some Gypsy and Traveller communities. Indeed, in my own research it has been apparent that Gypsies and Travellers can live amicably alongside sedentarists (Southern and James 2006) and research by Shelter (Cullen et al. 2008) has suggested that there are large numbers of Gypsies and Travellers living in housing. Therefore, to create a great divide between Gypsies and Travellers as nomads and non-Gypsy/Travellers as sedentarists is potentially false and may in fact serve to increase tensions between communities. Thus, van Baar’s (2011) discussion of the nomadisation of Roma in Europe is pertinent in the UK context. Nomadisation has served to problematise Roma as distinct from other people who require specific policies and practices to support them, which has subsequently reiterated Roma as a problem community. As van Baar’s point evidences, the tendency to romanticise nomadic lifestyles as in opposition to sedentarism, with nomads perceived as the ultimate transgressor of boundaries and order (Deleuze and Guatarri 1987; de Certeau 1984), may in reality be an academic response to a far-more complex interaction

22

Z. JAMES

between communities that intersect on multiple levels. In a contemporary society that celebrates the mobility, fluidity and impermanence of individuals and communities through complex technologies, it seems incongruous to place the stigmatisation of Gypsies and Travellers as solely a response to their nomadic propensity. It may therefore be more appropriate to consider nomadism as one aspect of the cultures of Gypsies and Travellers that challenges social norms, and is used to signify their difference by the communities themselves and by those who wish to manage them as problematic communities, particularly within the political project that is the European Union (Kóczé 2018). Further, Gypsies and Travellers utilise their nomadism to place virtual and physical boundaries between them and, in their perception, a malignant society that is hateful of them. Gypsies and Travellers move through spaces in a fluid manner, whereas sedentarists spatially striate their environment physically, socially and cognitively (Halfacree 1996). A sedentarist binary logic to Gypsy and Traveller cultures denotes that nomadic people are those that are constantly mobile without stopping, and non-nomadic people are those who stop and will never be mobile. This approach to nomadism has dictated UK governments’ policies and guidance (and those in the EU) on defining who constitutes a Gypsy or Traveller, as well as who can stop and stay in particular places as set out below. However, by taking account of the non-linear relationship between Gypsies and Travellers and their nomadic identity, it is possible to acknowledge their cultural nomadism, which refers to their predisposition to think and act in a boundless fashion. Simplistic analyses of nomadism equate it to mobility, whereas studies of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma have long-recognised the nuanced and variable nature of cultural nomadism that includes a range of approaches to living that are bound up with notions of freedom and autonomy (Halfacree 1996; Levinson and Sparkes 2004; Acton 2010; Shubin 2010). The mobility of Gypsies and Travellers may discombobulate sedentarists generally and prove challenging to control agencies who aim to manage them within particular geographically determined boundaries. But it is the obfuscating nature of nomadism that is most confusing to sedentarists. When Gypsies and Travellers attempt to identify places to stop and stay on, the challenging nature of their mobility becomes more threatening according to Kabachnik (2010) who describes Gypsies and Travellers as place invaders in the public imagination. Kabachnik argues that the UK media represents Gypsies and Travellers as in conflict with

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

23

the rest of sedentary society as they have no place to go to and there is nowhere to send them home to. Rowe and Goodman (2014) note that their perceived lack of place heightens the social exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers as it serves as a mechanism by non-Gypsies/Travellers to excuse their prejudice. Kabachnik (2010) argues that media representations of Gypsies and Travellers use three exclusionary tools to vilify Gypsy and Traveller lifestyles. So, they are presented as aesthetically problematic by their sites making places appear less attractive, they are presented as economically threatening as their sites reduce local house prices, and they present a crime problem as they partake in anti-social behaviour by leaving mess, rubbish and disruption and are associated with criminality. While a critique of the capacity of the media to wholly inform public perceptions of Gypsies and Travellers will be considered later, it is necessary now to return to the notion of Gypsies and Travellers as unclean and pollutant to sedentary communities and therefore threatening (Sibley 1988).

Race, Culture and Exclusion Race scholars (Cloke 2004) have long identified the racist use of analogies of uncleanliness for exclusion of people of colour. A number of articles and papers within Gypsy and Traveller studies have utilised the notion of racism as a determining factor in the prejudice and discrimination experienced by Gypsies and Travellers and therefore have acknowledged the historic and contemporary processes of racialisation that have impacted Gypsies and Travellers over time (for example, Greenfields 2006; Richardson 2006; Marcus 2019). Racialisation has been a contested term (Murji 2017; Goldberg 2005), however it is useful when refined to encapsulate discourses that create, ‘racial categorisations, racial explanations, racial evaluations and racial prescriptions’ (Reeves 1983: 174) that are multi-layered and multi-dimensional (Rattansi 2005). Within Romani studies there has been a tension between those who focus on the integrity of Roma identity and thus essentialise, and those who focus on the economic precursors for Roma exclusion and thus negate racialised experience (Yildiz and De Genova 2018). Here it is important to note that the racialised experience of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK over time is acknowledged and challenged. However, it is necessary to carefully consider how contemporary racialisation processes have functioned, rather than to assume a simple linear relationship between race and exclusion, as will be further discussed later in the book in light of the

24

Z. JAMES

contemporary impact of neoliberal capitalism. A critical appraisal of the literature in UK Romani Studies identifies that racialisation has served to augment the problematisation of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK, as well as Roma in Europe. Arguably a process of re-racialisation has occurred (Balibar 2009). The complexity of that process is perhaps best evidenced through scrutiny of relatively recent reports on Roma, Gypsy and Traveller exclusion in the UK. As I have noted elsewhere (James 2020b, forthcoming) the conflation of ‘Gypsies, Travellers and Roma’ into one categorised community of difference within official reports and academic writing over the past fifteen years has failed to acknowledge the significant differences between those communities, their cultures and ways of living. Again, this sort of aggregation of different racial or ethnic groups has been noted within race scholarship for a long time (Phillips and Bowling 2008), and has been justified in terms of ensuring statistical representativeness of small groups of people. However, this aggregation serves to negate the lived experiences of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, particularly through a lack of discussion of the aggregation itself. In the UK, an important report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC 2019), ‘Is Britain Fairer?’ and its associated reports, including a Spotlight Report on inequalities faced by Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in England (EHRC 2016), acknowledge and challenge the discrimination faced by Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and their associated poor outcomes in terms of health and welfare. Written within a stated discourse of antiracism, these reports specifically distinguish between the White majority and Gypsies, Travellers and Roma as a racialised other, and in doing so they compare their research findings to a previous Equality and Human Rights Commission report (Cemlyn et al. 2009) to make their point that Gypsy, Traveller and Roma exclusion has been unremittent. However, the 2009 report did not include Roma, who have largely travelled to the UK as migrants in the post-war period and whose cultures and lifestyles vary considerably from Gypsies and Travellers in the UK, particularly their propensity to nomadism as noted above. Thus comparison between these reports and aggregation of these peoples is highly problematic. This is not uncommon, in many reports and academic writings the conflation of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma occurs casually, with limited thought or consideration of whom these monikers represent or how their experiences differ (James 2020a). While there is arguably power in the solidarity provided by Gypsies, Travellers and Roma grouping together, and the capacity of that will

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

25

be discussed later in the book in relation to systemic and symbolic hate harms, the point here is to identify to whom conversations refer explicitly and carefully, with a mind to caution in defining categories of people. As noted by Murdoch and Johnson (2020), legislatively there has been an on-going debate about how Gypsies and Travellers should and can be defined, with the historical tendency of legislators to use economic purpose as the defining feature of Gypsy and Traveller identity in relation to planning particularly. This has meant that a paradox has occurred wherein planning law recognises Gypsies and Travellers according to their mobility (that is related to this notion of economic purpose) whereas equalities legislation alternately defines Gypsies and Travellers in terms of race, as noted below. The implications of this for Gypsies and Travellers is harmful, as those Gypsies and Travellers who are vulnerable and consequently unable to travel potentially have their homes placed at risk, despite their ethnic status as a Gypsy or Traveller (James and Southern 2019). The application of these either/or definitions that pitch some groups of Gypsies and Travellers as more legitimate than others and in competition with each other, simply feeds the narrative of the ‘ideal Gypsy’, that serves processes of exclusion, rather than inclusion (Kenrick and Bakewell 1990) and does not address inequalities (Howard and Vajda 2017). This draws us to the need to outline who the Gypsies and Travellers in the UK are that this book aims to provide a voice for, and to acknowledge that they are not all legally recognised racial groups, nor should they necessarily be. Overall it has been estimated that Gypsies and Travellers constitute 0.6% of the UK population (ODPM 2006), though such an estimate has been contested for its reliance on annual caravan counts carried out by local authorities (Niner 2004). Annual caravan counts generally measure numbers of caravan dwellings that are fixed or on sites in local authority areas and therefore do not take into account Gypsies and Travellers living in more hidden locations, those on the move or those living in bricks and mortar accommodation (i.e. housing). Additionally, caravan counts often do not record Gypsies and Travellers living on their own land nor do they record numbers of people, but rather, they record numbers of ‘caravans’. The completion of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments by local authorities in England and Wales, in response to the requirements of the Housing Act 2004, aimed to resolve the lack of information on Gypsy and Traveller numbers and in doing so intended to provide comprehensive information on the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. During this moment of progressive government action on

26

Z. JAMES

Gypsy and Traveller inclusion, there was significant optimism that provision of appropriate accommodation would materialise for communities. However, the ability of the assessments to do so was questioned (Brown and Niner 2009) largely because the data gathered differed across county or area boundaries, resulting in an inability to effectively estimate numbers of Gypsies and Travellers. Despite some initially excellent accommodation assessments (Home and Greenfields 2006), in time local authorities became increasingly unwilling to spend their funds on assessing the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers comprehensively, and private research companies began completing the assessments by using caravan counts as their core data to reduce costs. Subsequently, the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments lost their capacity to shed light on the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers or the numbers of Gypsies and Travellers within particular areas. Gypsies and Irish Travellers were included within the 2011 census for England and Wales as a categorised ethnic group. However, it also failed to provide any reliable statistics as only 58,000 people noted this ethnicity, likely due to a lack of Gypsies and Travellers taking part, and a historic tendency of those communities to hide their identity from formal agencies (Ruston 2013; Taylor 2014). The ability to quantify numbers of Gypsies and Travellers is therefore difficult, but a general estimate of the literature in this area might suggest that approximately 1–1.5% of the UK population are Gypsies and Travellers, either living nomadically, on sites or in housing. Of all Gypsies and Travellers, Romany Gypsies are the largest group in the UK (Clark 2006). They are recorded as having lived here since the fifteenth century, having originally travelled from India. The Indian origin of Romany Gypsies has been debated among academics, particularly focusing on the degree to which Romany Gypsies remained racially distinct, with dark hair and brown eyes, by the time they arrived in the UK (for example, Okely 1983; Hancock 2000; Matras 2004). Romany Gypsies are often perceived by non-Gypsy/Travellers as the most legitimate group among Gypsies and Travellers and romantic notions of their culture, style and ways of living are evoked through media images that are bound up with the idea that the ‘real’ Gypsies are Romany Gypsies. However, Romany Gypsies in the UK often have lighter hair and blue eyes, many Romany Gypsies have married sedentarists or people from other Gypsy or Traveller groups. What maintains the Romany identity is more bound up with their culture: their ways of living and moral

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

27

values. Romany Gypsies are family focused and they live according to relatively strict moral codes which are patriarchal in essence, though women increasingly work in paid employment and girls are encouraged to attain a good education. Central to Romany Gypsies’ way of living is following a strict hygiene code called ‘mochadi’ (meaning ‘unclean’) that requires individuals to ensure that they are clean and consider cleanliness at all times. This means regular hand washing, use of appropriate tools to carry out tasks, rather than mixing them, and generally living with an awareness of dirt at all times. Examples of such living include: ensuring hands and food are not washed in the same bowls, shoes not being worn indoors, and importantly, bodily functions being recognised as unclean and kept well away from the home. The rules of mochadi explain why Romany Gypsies have an aversion to living in housing, because central plumbing systems mean that waste and thus ‘dirt’ is in the home (Foley 2010). Also of Romany heritage are the Welsh Kale, a very small group of people in North Wales whose origins are Romany. Argument suggests that the Kale represent the more ethnically distinct Romany Gypsy, ‘Kale’ meaning ‘black’ in Romany language and representing the darkness of Welsh Kale skin. However, debate even ensues regarding whether the Kale exist at all (Clark 2006). Romany Gypsies are recognised as an ethnic group under the Equality Act (2010) in England and Wales, following case law in 1989 (Greenhall and Willers 2020). Irish, or Pavee, Travellers are recognised as having mostly come to the UK since the nineteenth century, though there are numerous records of Irish Travellers in the UK prior to that date. The history of Travellers in Ireland reaches back to the fifth century (Murdoch and Johnson 2020). Irish Traveller culture is similarly organised to Romany Gypsies, being family oriented and following patriarchal moral values. Indeed, Irish Travellers have similar rules around cleanliness to those of Romany Gypsies. Their identities are distinct however, and research has shown that they have rarely mixed as communities (Clark 2006). Irish Travellers gained recognition in England and Wales as an ethnic group in 2000 following case law, and previously in Northern Ireland within the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Act (1997) (Greenhall and Willers 2020). Scottish Travellers or Gypsies live throughout Scotland and are linked culturally to Romany Gypsies, particularly by their language in parts of Scotland. There are records of Scottish Travellers in Scotland from the fifteenth century, similar to English Romanies. Scottish Travellers again, follow similar cultural norms to other traditional Gypsies and Travellers

28

Z. JAMES

of Romany, Irish or Welsh cultures. Likewise they have been recognised as an ethnic group by the Scottish government via case law since 2008 (Greenhall and Willers 2020). It is notable, from the descriptions above, that the majority of Gypsies and Travellers have ethnic identities that are recognised in equalities legislation across the UK. Although culturally similar, the key distinction between groups of traditional Gypsies and Travellers is their different languages and their close familial ties within their own ethnic groups. As noted by Clark (2006) it is common for non-Gypsy/Travellers to confuse the groups of traditional Gypsies and Travellers living in the UK, including in media representations of them, in research reports by local authorities, in research reports more broadly and in government policy. This is because there are similarities between the communities, particularly those who are mobile or who live on Gypsy and Traveller sites. These similarities have been amplified by policies and practices that have aimed to be inclusive of all Gypsies and Travellers. In real terms this accretion, akin to the aggregation of Roma with Gypsies and Travellers, does not represent Gypsies and Travellers effectively or appropriately and can also serve to reduce those communities to one archetypal notion of the ‘Gypsy’ that is not real or representative of all. In doing so, it simply augments othering processes by distinguishing between Gypsies and Travellers as ‘them’, and non-Gypsy/Travellers, as ‘us’ through what Powell (2008) may refer to as (dis)identification. Problematic perceptions of race have created a hierarchy of Gypsy and Traveller legitimacy that places Romany Gypsies as the authentic, romantic nomad, as previously noted. Holloway (2005) carried out research on white rural residents’ responses to Gypsies and Travellers attending Appleby Horse Fair in England. In her research she found that Gypsies and Travellers were divided in the perceptions of the white residents as either a ‘true Gypsy’ or a ‘hanger on’ and distinctions were made between them via a racialising process of using bodily and cultural markers. So, the true Gypsies were perceived as having darker skin, with women dressed in long skirts and gold earrings and the men being self-employed for example. The Gypsies and Travellers who were whiter in appearance and did not wear traditional dress, were considered the ‘hangers on’ or ‘fake Gypsies’. Therefore, the process of racialising some Gypsies and Travellers proved a positive, legitimising process for those who conformed to the false phenotype of the Romany Gypsy, but those who did not were denigrated.

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

29

The lack of understanding of different Gypsy and Traveller communities is exemplified in popular television programmes such as ‘My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding’, which drew the largest television audience ever for a Channel 4 documentary on airing in 2010. More recently in 2020, another Channel 4 documentary ‘The Truth about Traveller Crime’ drew the ire of Gypsies and Travellers, their support organisations and academics alike for its inaccurate portrayal of Gypsies and Travellers and invalid research claims about crime. Despite the titles of these programmes, they largely tend to focus on Irish Travellers (who often live in the greatest poverty and exclusion of all Gypsies and Travellers, which will be discussed in due course) and completely fail to account for the reality of the lived experience for all Gypsies and Travellers. Television programmes that have explored the apparent reality of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives conflate their identities and enforce racist and prejudicial discourses of Gypsies and Travellers as exotic curios or villainous miscreants. Further, such programmes show the fascination of sedentary communities with Gypsies and Travellers, who have eluded close inspection through their mobility and nomadism noted above. Media portrayals of Gypsies and Travellers identify some of the key ways that sedentary communities fail to understand traditional Gypsies and Travellers. For example, the public stigmatisation of Gypsies and Travellers as dirty in some way when in reality their cultures evidence their commitment to cleanliness. Further, the public sexualisation of Gypsy and Traveller young people via bodily markers of dress and dance (Jensen and Ringrose 2014), when in reality their cultures evidence a commitment to strict social engagement rules. These contemporary misrepresentations of Gypsies and Travellers confirm historic stigma, and aligned with their association with crime and deviance, are likely to have informed, and justified (Rowe and Goodman 2014), negative public perceptions of their communities and associated racist behaviour, including hate, against them. The relatively recent protection provided to traditional Gypsies and Travellers within equalities legislation has provided some recognition for Gypsies and Travellers (James 2020a) who have suffered centuries of racism as noted above (Taylor 2014; Cressy 2018). However, it has been argued that processes of racialisation have not only served to problemetise Gypsies and Travellers, as per Acton’s (2010) analysis, but it has also enhanced the romantic myth of the traditional Romany Gypsy as more legitimate than other groups of Gypsies and Travellers. Defining

30

Z. JAMES

racial identity is a complex process that can be reductionist and ethnocentric (Marsh and Strand 2006) and its legal negation can serve as a tool to exclusion (Clark 2006). The variable and slow application of legal recognition of ethnic minority status for Gypsies and Travellers in the UK has increased competition and suspicion between Gypsies and Travellers themselves and with non-Gypsies/Travellers. In their discussion of inequalities experienced by Roma Howard and Vajda (2017) refer to discrimination as occurring both horizontally via social relations between families and communities, and vertically via the imposition of exclusionary policy and practice. While this book commonly and largely refers to vertical discrimination, it is relevant to note here the capacity of discrimination to function horizontally. Horizontal discrimination impacts hierarchies of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK significantly, as will be discussed further in Chapter 3. New Travellers are the most recent people to take up a nomadic style of living in the UK, having come into being in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The New Travellers, or ‘New Age’ Travellers as they were originally known, were borne of the music festival culture of the 1970s, inspired by traditional Gypsy and Traveller lifestyles. However, research has shown that they were often originally pushed into a travelling lifestyle through poverty or social exclusion (Martin 2002). They are now acknowledged as a diverse group (Webster and Millar 2001), included in Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments (Southern and James 2006; Home and Greenfields 2006), and they have been nomadic for more than a generation (Clark 1997). The tendency of legislators to define Gypsies and Travellers according to their economic purpose, rather than their racial identity, means that under planning law New Travellers are recognised as a Gypsy and Traveller community, and hence their inclusion in Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments and associated planning processes and provision (or lack thereof). Their position in the hierarchy of legitimacy of Gypsies and Travellers is however at the bottom due to their lack of racial authenticity. Indeed, many academics, policymakers and researchers do not consider New Travellers within their discussions of Gypsy and Traveller inclusion, or they simply negate them despite their presence in local, regional and national reports. Historically traditional Gypsies and Travellers have perceived New Travellers as interlopers, who should bear responsibility for the introduction of Draconian legislation in the late twentieth century that served to criminalise trespass

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

31

(James 2006). This tension between traditional Gypsies and Travellers and New Travellers identifies how protective those communities have had to be of the limited resources and spaces available to them in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Interestingly, New Travellers often conform to notions of the archetypal Gypsy stereotype, as they tend to live low-impact lifestyles, including living in horse-drawn vehicles. The use of the horse-drawn vehicle, the ‘vardo’, is strongly associated with traditional Gypsy and Traveller cultures. In contemporary times however, it is often likely that New Travellers would live in such vehicles as many traditional Gypsies and Travellers prefer to live in modern caravans. Further, New Travellers may live in ‘benders’, which are tents made from bent hazel twigs covered by canvas, that traditional Gypsies and Travellers used before the vardo. Hence, the stigmatising of New Travellers as fake Gypsies (Murdoch and Johnson 2020) is confused by their alignment to ways of living that are perceived as legitimate by those who romanticise Romany Gypsy lifestyles. Travelling Showpeople were the first community to introduce the vardo as a mode of living and transport. Showpeople are commercial Travellers who move from town to town in the fair season between February and November (Clark 2006). Showpeople have had ancient charter to hold fairs since the twelfth century and in the summer there may be as many as 250 fairs in UK towns at any one time. The Showmen’s Guild acts as representative of Showpeople in the UK and govern the large majority of fairs that run. Showpeople have similar cultures to other Gypsies and Travellers, particularly in relation to their familial bonds and cultural expectations. In law however they are treated distinctly: Showpeople are not recognised as a racial group as they are considered ‘occupational Travellers’ (Greenhall and Willers 2020: 518), but they are provided with some protection for their settlement in planning law. Showpeople require particular places, referred to as yards to stop and stay on in the winter months, wherein they can store their fairground rides. Because of their specific occupational accommodation needs, and subsequent local planning delivery, discussions of provision often leave out Showpeople. Throughout the fair season Showpeople can generally reside on land set out for their fairgrounds. However, the Showmen’s Guild has expressed concern that Showpeople, similar to other Gypsies and Travellers, have suffered a crisis of space provision in recent years for their winter yards. In addition is has been noted that changing patterns of fairs (and now the coronavirus pandemic) have impacted on Showpeople’s need of space,

32

Z. JAMES

meaning that they are likely to travel less far and are more likely to need their yards for accommodation throughout the year (Cemlyn et al. 2009). Interestingly, the exclusion of Showpeople from much research and discourse on Gypsy and Traveller issues may be impacted by their relative economic security, access to education and better welfare outcomes (Cemlyn et al. 2009). Acknowledgement of their positive outcomes may not serve the purpose of othering discourses, either those that purport to want inclusion, or those that exclude. The negation of different Gypsy and Traveller voices is discussed in the next two chapters.

Conclusion This chapter has detailed some of the existing literature on the lived experiences of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK. In doing so it has set out how Gypsies’ and Travellers’ social identities have been formed and framed by their historic categorisation, as nomads and as ethnic groups, and how this has often negated the rich and varied bricolage of cultures represented by the limiting moniker of ‘Gypsies and Travellers’. As I have alluded to throughout this chapter, Gypsies and Travellers have suffered racialisation, marginalisation and exclusion throughout their history, resulting in their subjugation. Their outcomes in terms of health, education and welfare are very poor and some excellent research has been done in these areas as will be discussed further in due course (Brearley 2001; Wilkin et al. 2010; Frazer and Marlier 2011; Greenfields and Brindley 2016). The commonality between different Gypsy and Traveller communities is often oriented around their experiences of marginalisation and the precarious nature of their daily lives. Embedded within that precarity is the tension that exists between Gypsies and Travellers and sedentary communities that can bleed into and inform tensions between different Gypsy and Traveller communities themselves. In order to fully appreciate the lived experiences of Gypsies and Travellers the next chapter will address the reach and span of the harms of hate in contemporary society.

References Achim, V. (2004). Roma in Romanian History. Budapest: Central European University Press. Acton, T. (2010). Theorising Mobility: Migration, Nomadism, and the Social Reconstruction of Ethnicity. In Romani Mobilities in Europe Conference. University of Oxford.

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

33

Alliance Against Anti-Gypsyism. (2016). Anti-Gypsyism – A Reference Paper. Available at: www.antigysyism.eu. Accessed on: 17/04/17. Balibar, É. (2009). Foreword. In N. Sigona & N. Trehan (Eds.), Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilisation and the Neoliberal Order. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Brearley, M. (2001). The Persecution of Gypsies in Europe. American Behavioural Scientist, 45(4), 588–599. Brown, P., & Niner, P. (2009). Assessing Local Housing Authorities’ Progress in Meeting the Accommodation Needs of Gypsy and Traveller Communities in England. London: EHRC. Casciani, D. (2004). Prejudice Defeated Gypsy Reform. BBC News. Accessed at: www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3704167.stm. Accessed on: 21/10/04. Cemlyn, S., Greenfields, M., Burnett, S., Matthews, Z., & Whitwell, C. (2009). Inequalities Experienced by Gypsy and Traveller Communities: A Review. London: EHRC. Clark, C. (1997). “New Age” Travellers: Identity, Sedentarism and Social Security. In T. Acton (Ed.), Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Clark, C. (2006). Who Are the Gypsies and Travellers of Britain? In C. Clark & M. Greenfields (Eds.), Here to Stay: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Clark, C., & Greenfields, M. (Eds.). (2006). Here to Stay: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Cloke, P. (2004). Rurality and Racialised Others: Out of Place in the Countryside? In N. Chakraborti & J. Garland (Eds.), Rural Racism. Collumpton: Willan. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee. Cresswell, T. (2006). On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. London: Routledge. Cressy, D. (2018). Gypsies: An English History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cullen, S., Hayes, P., & Hughes, L. (2008). Good Practice Guide: Working with Housed Gypsies and Travellers. London: Shelter. de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. London: University of California Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: The Athlone Press. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Purity and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. EHRC. (2009). Gypsies and Traveller: Simple Solutions for Living Together. London: EHRC.

34

Z. JAMES

EHRC. (2016). England’s Most Disadvantaged Groups: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. London: EHRC. EHRC. (2019). Is Britain Fairer? The State of Equality and Human Rights 2018. London: EHRC. Erfani-Ghettani, R. (2012). Localism, Populism and the Fight Against Sites. Available at: http://www.irr.org.uk/news/localism-populism-and-the-fightagainst-sites/. Accessed on: 15/10/15. Firth, R. (2013). Extermination of a People Through Destruction of a Way of Life. Travellers Times. Accessed at: www.travellerstimes.org.uk. Accessed on: 28/03/13. Foley, A. (2010). Trailers and Tribulations: Crime Deviance and Justice in Gypsy and Traveller Communities. Ph.D. thesis, Cardiff University. Fraser, A. (1992). The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell. Frazer, H., & Marlier, E. (2011). Promoting the Social Inclusion of Roma. EU: Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Gheorge, N. (1997). The Social Construction of Romani Identity. In T. Acton (Ed.), Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Goldberg, D. (2005). Racial Americanization. In K. Murji & J. Solomos (Eds.), Racialization: Studies in Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenfields, M. (2006). Gypsies, Travellers and Legal Matters. In C. Clark & M. Greenfields (Eds.), Here to Stay: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Greenfields, M., & Brindley, M. (2016). Impact of Insecure Accommodation and the Living Environment on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Health. The Traveller Movement. Greenhall, O., & Willers, M. (2020). Using Domestic Legislation to Tackle Race Discrimination. In M. Willers & C. Johnson (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law (3rd ed.). London: Legal Action Group. Halfacree, K. (1996). Out of Place in the Country: Travellers and the “Rural Idyll”. Antipode, 28(1), 42–72. Hancock, I. (2000). The Emergence of Romani as a Köiné Outside of India. In T. Acton (Ed.), Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle: Commitment in Romani Studies. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Holloway, S. L. (2005). Articulating Otherness? White Rural Residents Talk About Gypsy-Travellers. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(3), 351–367. Home, R., & Greenfields, M. (2006). Cambridge Sub-Region Traveller Needs Assessment. Cambridge: Anglia Ruskin University.

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

35

Howard, J., & Vajda, V. (2017). Navigating Power and Intersectionality to Address Inequality. IDS Working Paper. 2017:504. ISBN: 978-1-78118-4127. James, Z. (2006). Policing Space: Managing New Travellers in England. British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 470–485. James, Z. (2007). Policing Marginal Spaces: Controlling Gypsies and Travellers. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7 (4), 367–389. James, Z. (2020a). Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Lived Experience of Harm: A Critical Hate Studies Perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 24(3), 502–520. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1362480620911914. James, Z. (2020b, forthcoming). Roma, Gypsies and Travellers as a Community of Difference, Really? Challenging Inclusivity as an Anti-Racist Approach. Critical Romani Studies. James, Z., & Richardson, J. (2006). Controlling Accommodation: Policing Gypsies and Travellers. In A. Dearling, T. Newburn, & P. Somerville (Eds.), Housing and Crime. Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing. James, Z., & Southern, R. (2019). Accommodating Nomadism and Mobility: Challenging the Application of a Sedentarist Binary Approach to Provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 39(3/4), 324–336. Jensen, T., & Ringrose, J. (2014). Sluts that Choose vs. Doormat Gypsies. Feminist Media Studies, 14(3), 369–387. Kabachnik, P. (2010). Place Invaders: Constructing the Nomadic Threat in England. The Geographical Review, 100(1), 90–108. Kenrick, D., & Bakewell, S. (1990). On the Verge: The Gypsies of England. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Kenrick, D., & Clark, C. (1999). Moving On: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Kóczé, A. (2018). Race, Migration and Neoliberalism: Distorted Notions of Romani Migration in European Public Discourses. Social Identities, 24(4), 459–473. Kóczé, A., & Rövid, M. (2012). Pro-Roma Global Civil Society: Acting for, with or Instead of Roma? In M. Kaldor & H. L. Moore (Eds.), Global Civil Society 2012: Ten Years of Critical Reflection. Gordonsville: Palgrave Macmillan. Levinson, M. P., & Sparkes, A. C. (2004). Gypsy Identity and Orientation to Space. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36(6), 704–734. Marcus, G. (2019). Gypsy and Traveller Girls: Silence, Agency and Power. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Marsh, A., & Strand, E. (Eds.). (2006). Gypsies and the Problems of Identities: Contextual, Constructed and Contested. Istanbul and London: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul and I.B.Tauris.

36

Z. JAMES

Martin, G. (2002). New Age Travellers: Uproarious or Uprooted? Sociology, 36(3), 723–735. Matras, Y. (2004). The Role of Language in Mystifying and Demystifying Gypsy Identity. In N. Saul & S. Tebbutt (Eds.), The Role of the Romanies: Images and Counter-Images of Gypsies/Romanies in European Cultures. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. McVeigh, R. (1997). Theorising Sedentarism: The Roots of Anti-Nomadism. In T. Acton (Ed.), Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Moran, M. (2015). Identity and Capitalism. London: Sage. Morris, R., & Clements, L. (2002). At What Cost? The Economics of Gypsy and Traveller Encampments. Bristol: The Policy Press. Murdoch, A., & Johnson, C. (2004). Introduction. In C. Johnson & M. Willers (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law. London: Legal Action Group. Murdoch, A., & Johnson, C. (2020). Introduction. In M. Willers & C. Johnson (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law (3rd ed.). London: Legal Action Group. Murji, K. (2017). Racism, Policy and Politics. Bristol: Policy Press. Niner, P. (2004). Counting Gypsies and Travellers: A Review of the Gypsy Caravan Count System. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. ODPM. (2006). Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments: Draft Practice Guidance. ODPM: Gypsy and Traveller Unit. Okely, J. (1983). The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, C., & Bowling, B. (2008). Racism, Ethnicity and Criminology: Developing Minority Perspectives. In B. Spalek (Ed.), Ethnicity and Crime: A Reader. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Powell, R. (2008). Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies: Power and the Dialectics of (Dis)Identification. Housing, Theory and Society, 25(2), 87–109. Power, C. (2004). Room to Roam: England’s Irish Travellers. London: Action Group for Irish Youth. Rattansi, A. (2005). The Time/Spaces of Racialization. In K. Murji & J. Solomos (Eds.), Racialization: Studies in Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reeves, F. (1983). British Racial Discourse: A Study of British Political Discourse about Race and Race-Related Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, J. (2006). The Gypsy Debate: Can Discourse Control?. Exeter: Imprint Academic. Rowe, L., & Goodman, S. (2014). ‘A Stinking Filthy Race of People Inbred with Criminality’: A Discourse Analysis of Prejudicial Talk About Gypsies and Travellers. Romani Studies, 24(1), 25–42. Ruston, R. (2013). The Impact of Discourses of Authenticity on the Development and Application of Statutory Definitions of Gypsies and Travellers: A Study of

2

HISTORY AND IDENTITY

37

Their Legal Access to Accommodation in England and Wales Since 1959. Ph.D. thesis, University of the West of England. Ryder, A. (2011). Big Bang Localism and Gypsies and Travellers. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 2(2), 27–45. Shubin, S. (2010). Where Can a Gypsy Stop? Rethinking Mobility in Scotland. Antipode, 43(2), 494–524. Shubin, S., & Swanson, K. (2010). “I’m an Imaginary Figure”: Unravelling the Mobility and Marginalisation of Scottish Gypsy Travellers. Geoforum, 41, 919–929. Sibley, D. (1981). Outsiders in Urban Societies. Oxford: Blackwell. Sibley, D. (1988). Purification of Space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 6(4), 409–421. Southern, R., & James, Z. (2006). Devon-Wide Gypsy and Traveller Housing Needs Assessment. Social Research and Regeneration Unit, University of Plymouth. Taylor, B. (2014). Another Darkness, Another Dawn: A History of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. London: Reaktion Books. Tremlett, A., Messing, V., & Kóczé, A. (2017). Romaphobia and the Media: Mechanisms of Power and the Politics of Representations. Identities, 24(6), 641–629. Turner, R. (2002). Gypsies and British Parliamentary Language. Romani Studies, 12(1), 26. van Baar, H. (2011). Europe’s Romaphobia: Problematization, Securitization, Nomadization. Society and Space, 29, 203–212. Webster, L., & Millar, J. (2001). Making a Living: Social Security, Social Exclusion and New Travellers. Bristol: Policy Press. Wilkin, A., Derrington, C., White, R., Martin, K., Foster, B., Kinder, K., et al. (2010). Improving the Outcomes for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Pupils: Final Report. Research Report DFE-RR043. Department for Education. Yildiz, C., & De Genova, N. (2018). Un/Free Mobility: Roma Migrants in the European Union. Social Identities, 24(4), 425–441. Žižek, S. (1993). Tarrying with the Negative. Durham: Duke University Press. Žižek, S. (2008). Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador.

CHAPTER 3

Hate Harms

Abstract The harms of hate are apparent in all aspects of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives. This chapter elucidates this by distinguishing between hate harms that are most easily identifiable as they are subjectively experienced, and hate harms that are less readily visible as they are systemic and symbolic and thus require an objective view to see them clearly. The chapter therefore initially examines hate crimes, incidents, and speech against Gypsies and Travellers. It then goes on to consider how discrimination, social and economic exclusion, and criminalisation affect Gypsies and Travellers and how those hate harms are embedded within and articulated through the norms of neoliberal capitalism. Keywords Subjective, systemic and symbolic hate harms · Hate crime · Criminalisation · Social and economic exclusion · Discrimination · Neoliberal capitalism · Precarity

To take a harm-based approach to the study of hate is not new, nor is it particularly innovative. Studies of hate have consistently recognised the long term impact of bias-motivated behaviours on individuals and their communities (Bowling 1999; Iganski 2008; Bernier 2017) as well as the figurative power of hateful acts to inform other actions and/or to hold up hegemonic norms (Perry 2001). This chapter aims to identify and draw © The Author(s) 2020 Z. James, The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers, Palgrave Hate Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3_3

39

40

Z. JAMES

out how we can perceive the harms of hate against Gypsies and Travellers in the contemporary, late modern context. My research with Gypsies and Travellers over the last twenty five years has increasingly identified the need to consider and elucidate the breadth of harms that they experience in order to represent their voices truthfully. When we discuss hate with Gypsies and Travellers, they do not distinguish between crimes and discrimination as different problems in their lives. Indeed, they see them on a cyclic continuum (James 2015). The effect of what may be measured as a minor hate incident by the authorities can be long lasting, upsetting and disturbing for the victim that is exacerbated by the lack of seriousness with which it is treated by formal agencies. In the same vein, a hate crime may be brushed-off as an inconsequential part of everyday life that victims of hate have become resilient to (Williams and Tregidga 2014; Allen et al. 2018). By using the perspective of harm, it is possible to identify the multiple and varied, normalised and complex range of experiences Gypsies and Travellers have spoken to me about over time (James 2015, 2020). In order to frame the hate harms experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, I will draw on the philosophical writings of Žižek (2008) in this chapter. For my purposes here, and in light of discussion in this area (Sheehan 2012; Legassick 2012) I have utilised Žižek’s work to frame hate harms as follows. Žižek argues that violence is that which we experience both subjectively and objectively. Subjective harms are those physical acts and behaviours that we can see clearly in relation to ourselves; hate crimes, incidents and speech that are largely recognised and acknowledged within policy and legislation. Objective violence manifests in two ways, as systemic violence and symbolic violence. They are objective by their distance from our perception of social reality, though they affect that reality via systems and symbols. So, systemic harms are those that are inherent within processes and structures of governance: discrimination, social and economic exclusion, and criminalisation that are partially recognised by policy and practice but often negated. Symbolic harms are the ‘language and forms’ (Žižek 2008: 1) that frame the lived experience: the neoliberal capitalist norms in late modernity that have augmented and facilitated systemic harms. In order to represent the cyclic continuum of harm experienced by Gypsies and Travellers it is necessary to discuss subjective violence, but we should not be distracted by it as it is representative of systemic violence that is articulated via symbolic violence.

3

HATE HARMS

41

To expound the ways in which Gypsies and Travellers have experienced hate harms in the late modern context the chapter will go on to give voice to the Gypsies and Travellers I have worked with (James 2006, 2011, 2015, 2020) and who have contributed to research on hate and discrimination that also incorporates Roma (Traveller Movement 2016a, b; Thomson and Woodger 2018). There is a lack of research in this area and, notwithstanding some on-going projects that hope to illuminate the dark figure of hate harms (James et al. 2019; Greenfields and Rogers 2020, forthcoming), much of the data presented here has been either reliant on secondary analysis of data sets garnered for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments, or from small scale and localised research projects. Despite this, that which has been gathered thus far is extensive enough for us to assert that Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lived experiences of hate are ubiquitous and highly problematic for them. In the next chapter, I will discuss the impacts of the harms of hate described here and how they may be explained, but in the first instance, it is necessary to give voice to the experiences of Gypsies and Travellers.

Subjective Hate Harms As noted above, subjective harms are those that are most obvious to us and for the purposes of this Chapter 1 I have broken these harms down into hate crimes, hate incidents and hate speech. Within hate studies, these areas have formed the central focus of the majority of research in an effort to expose the physical proximity and regularity of hateful behaviours for victims and the need for criminal justice responses to them. These hate acts are defined by the motivation of the offender in committing them. This is a specifically problematic and challenging aspect of legislating against bias-motivated acts as the victim, or any other person who has witnessed the event, must evaluate the motivation for the act and so too must the practitioner who responds to any such reported behaviour. In legislative terms this is extremely difficult as evidence of premeditation must be identified and it has been argued by some that all bad behaviour is motivated by some sort of bias or ‘hate’ (Jacobs and Potter 1998). While I will scrutinise the existing literature on hate motivation further in the next chapter, it is sufficient to say here that there has been general agreement within hate studies that crimes and incidents, including hate speech, that are motivated by bias against a person’s identity are more harmful than those that are not (see for example, Iganski

42

Z. JAMES

2008; Bernier 2017). UK governments have embraced this perception and have subsequently set up hate crime reporting centres, support mechanisms, and allowed sentence enhancement of offenders who commit crimes on the basis of a bias-motivation. Within hate crime support and guidance there has been recognition that hate incidents that are noncrime bias-motivated events should also be recorded and supported due to the negative effect they have on victims, their likely cumulative impact (Bowling 1999), and their potential to escalate to hate crimes (Hall 2005). In my previous work I have noted the capacity of criminal justice practice, policy and legislation to address hate crimes and incidents against Gypsies and Travellers and thereby recognise their victimisation at this subjective level (James 2020). Within a theory of recognition (Honneth 1996; Yar 2012), provision of respect to people through formal mechanisms, such as policy and legislation, form part of the process of acknowledgement and support they need to flourish as human beings. Gypsies and Travellers are included within UK government policy papers that direct policing and public service agencies to address hate crimes, incidents, and speech to some degree (Public Prosecution Service 2010; Home Office 2016; The Scottish Government 2019). Traditional Gypsies and Travellers of Romany or Irish descent are acknowledged within legislation as ethnic minorities protected by equalities law and are therefore included within associated legislation that allows for sentence enhancement for offences committed on the basis of racist motivation. In order to prosecute hate crimes to attain sentence enhancement lawyers must evidence the bias-motivated hostility or prejudice of the offender in court. Defining that hostility and detailing it can be challenging, as is evident for example in the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales Guidance (2017), which refers to hostility as, ‘ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, and dislike’. The difficulty in successfully prosecuting crime as motivated by hate was felt closely by the Irish Traveller community following the murder of Johnny Delaney in 2003. Johnny, a 15 year old Irish Traveller boy was brutally kicked and beaten to death. The teenagers who carried out the murder made racist comments while they assaulted Johnny, including referring to him as ‘only a …Gypsy’ (Greenfields 2006). The police did treat the case as a racist offence, but the court did not follow suit and enhance the sentence given to the offender. Perhaps reference to someone as ‘only a Gypsy’ was not deemed sufficiently hostile for sentence enhancement.1

3

HATE HARMS

43

Research has identified hate incidents and crimes committed against Gypsies and Travellers that ranged from name calling and abuse, to criminal damage of vehicles (homes), stone throwing and serious physical assault which overall constitutes an ‘endemic level of hostility towards Gypsies and Travellers’ (James 2011: 141). That research, the Traveller Movement (2016b) study and Thompson and Woodger (2018) note that experiences of bullying, harassment and crimes against Gypsies, Travellers and Roma were reported as having occurred on sites, in housing, in school and at work, as well as in social environments such as pubs and restaurants, and in delivery of public and private services. Evidence of physical attacks on Gypsies and Travellers have identified their serious nature. In research completed by the Traveller Movement (2016b: 5) Gypsies and Travellers noted cars having been burnt out or vandalised, as well as physical attacks and ‘rocks thrown at trailers ’ (homes). Likewise, research by Greenfields (2010: 63) quoted one participant referring to their ‘windows blown out by a shotgun’. In a small research project I completed in the South West of England, the breadth of hate crimes and incidents were surprising given the small number of people and the remote locations of some Gypsy and Traveller sites in the area (James 2020). The 79 people who completed the survey reported a total of 225 hate crimes or incidents committed against them on the basis of their identity as a Gypsy or Traveller. Bias-motivated crimes they experienced included minor damage to property (30% of respondents), serious damage to property (20% of respondents), minor physical assault (20% of respondents) and serious physical assault (15% of respondents). Other offences experienced were: burglary, theft, stone throwing, brick throwing, being shot at and arson (overall 19% of respondents). Bias-motivated incidents they experienced included hate speech through name calling (81% of respondents), general bullying (71% of respondents) and serious threats and intimidation (29% of respondents), including sexualised intimidation, harassment and unwanted photography and filming. Further, Thompson and Woodger (2018) analysed hate reports to the GATEHerts Report Racism website from 2016 to 2018, noting that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma were victims of ‘damage to property and theft’, ‘physical violence’, and ‘sexual violence’. That report also noted what they have referred to as ‘encampment attacks’ (Thomson and Woodger 2018: 23) wherein large groups of people descended on temporary encampments shouting abuse at them. In addition, they noted a report of derogatory graffiti on the settled house of an Irish Traveller.

44

Z. JAMES

The public denigration of Gypsies and Travellers through hate speech that targets people via face to face name calling, online bullying and through local actions as noted above are hugely problematic to Gypsies’ and Travellers’ daily lived experience. The prominence of these microaggressions (Sue 2010) within the research outlined here evidences their impact, especially given that reporting of hate behaviours via any mechanism by Gypsies and Travellers is generally low (James 2020). While the next section of this chapter will consider how hate speech manifests as systemic harm, it is worth drawing out the subjective nature of it further here. Thompson and Woodger (2018) identified very high levels of ‘online hate’ in their research, with 67% of people who reported to the GATEHerts Report Racism website saying they had experienced issues in that area. The Traveller Movement (2016a) refers to research by Hatebase, a hate speech on Twitter monitoring database, which found that ‘the most common hate speech in the UK derive from insults used against the Traveller or Gypsy community’ (Shubber 2014: n.p.). While the Hatebase research does not suggest that the primary targets of hate speech are Gypsies and Travellers, this database elucidates an interesting issue—that slurs against Gypsies and Travellers are commonplace in the public lexicon as exemplified by the 2003 Firle Bonfire case. As part of their annual bonfire night celebrations, the small village of Firle in Sussex, England, burnt an effigy of a Gypsy caravan. The effigy was a large cardboard construction of a caravan that contained the image of a family, two adults and two children, and had a licence plate of ‘P1 KEY’. This incident led to just one complaint from a villager to the authorities, who was herself subjected to threats and intimidation by other villagers for having complained. The Commission for Racial Equality (now Equality and Human Rights Commission) intervened in the case, which appeared not to be being pursued by the police effectively, but ultimately no conviction was sought by the Crown Prosecution Service against the organisers of the event (Greenfields 2006). In 2014 the Global Attitudes Survey (Pew Research Center 2014) found that 50% of UK respondents held negative views of Gypsies and Travellers (see also Abrams et al. 2018). It is perhaps unsurprising that public attitudes towards Gypsies and Travellers are so negative, given the hostile position taken by local and national politicians and media towards Gypsies and Travellers (Richardson 2006; Tremlett et al. 2017). Most recently, the 2020 television documentary on Channel 4, entitled, ‘The Truth about Traveller Crime’ elicited in excess of 850 complaints to

3

HATE HARMS

45

Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, for its biased and discriminatory content. These complaints included 7308 comments sent directly to the Gypsy and Traveller support organisation Friends, Families and Travellers. It was predictable however that Channel 4 would invest in such programming, given that its production of related Gypsy and Traveller programmes has historically been so successful as mentioned in Chapter 1; the series entitled, ‘My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding’ was the most watched documentary series on Channel 4 in 2010. Richardson’s (2006, 2014) research on the relationship between media and public discourse on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives is the most comprehensive in this area and reflects the findings of research across Europe (Tremlett et al. 2017). Richardson (2006) notes the political backdrop upon which media presentations in the UK are predicated, wherein public debate about the accommodation of Gypsies and Travellers has been volubly derogatory. For example, she cites Conservative MP, Andrew Mackay in a 2002 parliamentary debate discussing an unauthorised encampment, ‘They are scum, and do not deserve the same human rights as my decent constituents going about their everyday lives’ (Mackay 2002; cited in Richardson 2006: 1). More recently, politicians have learnt to curb their language somewhat, as evidenced during the parliamentary debate on Gypsies and Travellers and Local Communities in 2017. During this debate, the parliamentarians acknowledged the legitimacy of many Gypsies and Travellers as ethnic minorities, commonly living in housing. Nonetheless, in the debate they simply reverted to the dichotomous, and mythical, presentation of Gypsies and Travellers as either real or criminal, largely associating legitimacy with Romany heritage and illegitimacy with Irish heritage. This was epitomised in the introduction to his speech by MP Paul Beresford, who stated, ‘Surrey, and Mole Valley in particular, has had considerable and unpleasant experience of Travellers. Most are not Romani Gypsies. Most have very strong Irish accents’ (Beresford 2017: n.p.). Research completed by Article 12 (Cadger 2015) on the views of young Gypsies and Travellers throughout the UK found that the effect of media stereotyping on those young people was significant. They quote one young Scottish Traveller saying, ‘the media targets us, there is never anything positive said about Travellers and they always stereotype us. It makes people judge us ’ (Cadger 2015: 18). As part of their research, Article 12 scrutinised newspaper coverage of Gypsy and Traveller matters in Scotland. In doing so, they audited 195 articles over a 12-month period across 21 different publications. Of significant concern was the finding that only

46

Z. JAMES

7% of the stories reviewed were considered ‘positive’, with over half of the articles being ‘negative’ and 15% being ‘discriminatory and racist’. Additionally the report found, similar to Thompson and Woodger (2018) that online social media environments were particularly problematic as they provided public space to those wishing to express anti-Gypsy/Traveller attitudes. The Article 12 report is a useful study as it gathers the perspectives of young Gypsies and Travellers throughout the UK, which is relatively rare in Gypsy and Traveller studies as most research has focused in one or other specific country. The Article 12 network completed the research as part of their mission to realise the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 12, which states that young people should have a voice in their own governance. In its conclusion the report notes the failure of some UK states to engage effectively with the requirements of article 12 and makes numerous recommendations to address the ‘unacceptably high levels of discrimination’ faced by Gypsies and Travellers daily (Cadger 2015: 51). In order to examine Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of hate harms further, and to specifically address how discrimination manifests in their daily lives it is necessary to move on to the consideration of systemic hate harms.

Systemic Hate Harms Research and reporting on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of hate commonly identify the media as the instigator of hateful behaviours (for example, Cadger 2015; Richardson 2006). It is evident that hate behaviours against Gypsies and Travellers increase following negative media programming, as has been the case since the Channel 4 documentary ‘The Truth About Traveller Crime’ aired in April 2020 (Greenfields and Rogers 2020, forthcoming). This impact on the lived experience of Gypsies and Travellers constitutes a subjective violence, within the framework of hate speech, as noted above. Framing and informing that subjective violence is the rejection of Gypsies and Travellers by society more generally, the negation of their identities and needs, and their repudiation by those in authority: the systemic violence that Gypsies and Travellers experience as ‘more subtle forms of coercion that sustain relations of domination and exploitation, including the threat of violence’ (Žižek 2008: 9). The objective nature of systemic violence, which requires us to scrutinise ourselves as part of a system, means that it is obscured from view by violence that is subjectively experienced and thus easily

3

HATE HARMS

47

recognised. In the following section of this chapter, I will attempt to outline the systemic harms of hate that manifest as discrimination, social and economic exclusion, and criminalisation for Gypsies and Travellers. As noted previously, when Gypsies and Travellers talk about their experiences of hate, they rarely speak only about subjective hate harms. Indeed, while the hate crimes, incidents and speech against Gypsies and Travellers cause them distress and difficulty, what most troubles them is their daily ill-treatment by the general public, by officials and by service personnel (James 2015). The aspect of ill-treatment to address here is the discrimination that Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experience which Howard and Vajda (2017) have referred to as vertical discrimination. It is worth initially noting that the failure to appropriately accommodate Gypsies and Travellers, as identified in Chapter 2, means that those people who have not moved into housing experience systemic violence front and centre in their everyday lives as their homes are so insecure. As also noted in the previous chapter, akin to blaming the media for hate in society, racism is often cited as the main cause of prejudice and hate against Gypsies and Travellers. The racism experienced by Gypsies and Travellers of Romany and Irish heritage has been documented historically (Taylor 2014; Burke 2009) and should not be underplayed in discussions of their lived experience. Indeed, traditional Gypsy and Traveller cultures have developed in response to those experiences of racism and the fear of continued racist abuse and mistreatment commonly frames their interactions with settled society (Taylor 2014; Phillips 2016). Within late modernity, claims to a post-racial society have been effectively rebuked by race scholars (Goldberg 2015). It is therefore necessary to scrutinise how social systems have embedded hate harms that are enacted through a racist lens, or via re-racialisation (Balibar 2009) in contemporary society. As noted above, equalities legislation serves traditional Gypsies and Travellers when hate crimes and incidents are committed against them. Further, in accessing services, traditional Gypsies and Travellers have recourse to the law if they experience discrimination (Greenhall and Willers 2020). These protections are important and relevant for traditional Gypsies and Travellers, but in protecting some and not all Gypsies and Travellers, two problems arise. Firstly, as New Travellers and Showpeople are considered to be occupational Travellers (Greenhall and Willers 2020: 518) they are not protected from bias-motivated ill-treatment at

48

Z. JAMES

all. Secondly, as noted previously, public perceptions of Gypsies and Travellers tend to group them into a homogenous, problematic entity unless they conform to the idealised notion of the Romany Gypsy. Given that the idealised notion of the Romany Gypsy is mythical (Kenrick and Puxon 1972; Okely 1983), this means that the majority of Gypsies and Travellers are miss-labelled as problematic and thus not provided their rights of fair treatment under the law by the general public or within service provision. The distinction between Gypsies and Travellers protected by equalities legislation, and those who have no protection, has simply fed dichotomous perceptions of Gypsies and Travellers as either exotic or miscreant. Given that very few, if any, Gypsies and Travellers conform to the myth of the Romany Gypsy ideal, the significant majority of Gypsies and Travellers experience the harms of hate embedded within the system through this partial negation of their identities. Within the apparently inclusive parts of the public and civil society sectors, the harms created by the above are exacerbated by well-meaning people embracing racism as the explanation for hate against Gypsies and Travellers with little reflection on its meaning or parameters. In order to fulfil an anti-racism stance it is necessary to acknowledge the differential nature of racialisation (Brah 1996). The use of race as the defining identity characteristic of Gypsies and Travellers fails to acknowledge the cultural and economic nomadism of Gypsy and Traveller communities in the UK, as well as their different racialised histories, cultures and identities (Kóczé 2018). This failure to have a nuanced appreciation of different Gypsies and Travellers actually either over-simplifies who they are and by consequence affirms biologically determinist perceptions of race, or evidences agencies’ lack of knowledge and understanding of the people with whom they are working (as is often the case in the public sector) which constitutes unconscious racial bias in itself. While I will discuss this further in Chapter 4, it is important to note here that the harms that emerge from this failure are multiple, as Gypsies and Travellers often have to rely on the support and guidance of others to access services, education, health and welfare. It is common for Gypsies and Travellers to hide their identities from public agencies due to the discrimination they experience, as described further below. However, it is not only within these settings that Gypsies and Travellers feel compelled to hide who they are. The adoption of essentialist notions of race and racism by civil society organisations, coupled with the hierarchy of identity based on racial heritage for Gypsies and Travellers means that those who are not of Romany or Irish heritage,

3

HATE HARMS

49

but are in need of help, will either negate their own identity or assume traditional Gypsy or Traveller heritage. An example of this happening was evidenced in an interview I completed with a New Traveller in the South West of England, as my notes attest, ‘Believes she is of Irish decent and has some travelling history, e.g. her grandparents were not surprised when she moved into a vehicle and her mum travels around a lot (abroad). So, she used to say she was an Irish Traveller, but then met *Romany person* who said that *her surname* is a Romany name, so she’s calling on Romany heritage now… she had to use everything she could but that to get assistance’ (Int.7, 2005). The need for Gypsies and Travellers to traverse a challenging system, as identified here, has been evident in the research work I have done. For example, when completing needs assessment surveys with Gypsies and Travellers it was common for those responding to look quizzically at me when asked how they self-identified, as if there was an expected correct answer. The hierarchy of legitimacy for Gypsies and Travellers was particularly evident at roadside unauthorised encampments when people responded to the self-identity question with the answer, ‘Romany Gypsy’, with a heavy Irish accent. The lack of accommodation provided for and available to Gypsies and Travellers is felt across Gypsy and Traveller communities, but it is evident from the assessments of accommodation needs (particularly the tranche of better quality needs assessments carried out in 2006) that some groups of Gypsies and Travellers fare better than others when it comes to provision. Romany Gypsies were the most likely people to have settled authorised places to stop and stay, whereas Irish Travellers were more likely to live on unauthorised encampments, either by the roadside or elsewhere (Southern and James 2006). Gypsies and Travellers from all backgrounds have legal rights to site provision under planning law as discussed in more detail below, and this augments the confusion of those who do not fully understand and appreciate the nuanced, intersectional variability of Gypsy and Traveller identities. When living on a site or on an unauthorised encampment the apparent visibility of associated ‘Gypsy or Traveller’ identity informs responses to them, without a consideration of whom those communities actually constitute. The unwillingness of Gypsies and Travellers to self-identify in research as set out here should not be misinterpreted as due to their fears or vulnerability. In reality, their tentative approach was much more likely to be a demonstration of the cultural flexibility of Gypsies and Travellers, where needs must, in order to ensure they could access sorely needed

50

Z. JAMES

services, especially given the purpose of the research as needs assessment. The systemic hate harm of having to negotiate identity in order to access services is clear, and further, Gypsies and Travellers often feel compelled to hide their identity in order to avoid the discrimination they experience in their daily lives. In their research on discrimination, the Traveller Movement (2016b) found that 98% of people who responded to their survey had experienced discrimination on the basis of their identity as Gypsy, Traveller or Roma. This discrimination had occurred most commonly in education, but also in employment, health care, and in the planning system/accommodation. In addition, 55% of the respondents to the survey stated that they had been refused services on the basis of their Gypsy, Traveller or Roma identity. These high levels of discrimination resulted in 77% of the survey respondents stating that they had hidden their identity in order to avoid discrimination. The report states that respondents, ‘try to hide how they talk; wear plain black clothes; give friends’ settled addresses when asked; and, that sometimes they have to pretend to be Mediterranean’ (Traveller Movement 2016b: 7). My research (James 2014a, 2020) has found that likewise Gypsies and Travellers experienced discrimination on a regular basis, which they referred to when asked questions about their experiences of hate. In my most recent study respondents reported feeling unsafe and insecure, for example, one Irish Traveller said, ‘I’m not allowed to live anywhere, I feel looked down on by everyone’, while a Romany Gypsy stated, ‘I am victimised because racism is tolerated and there is a lack of proper provisions for sites on council land and in the planning process ’. Further, one New Traveller referred to work as an unsafe space, ‘At work [I experienced] discrimination, bullying and unfair dismissal….. [I] was refused work because of being a Traveller’. Sadly, the examples of discrimination, perceived as hate, given by Gypsies and Travellers in this research were aplenty. One Romany Gypsy said, ‘School said they had a vacancy for [our] youngest daughter until I said where we lived and was then told they made a mistake and didn’t have any vacancies ’. The lack of solidarity or esteem provided to Gypsies and Travellers by settled society identified here, means there is a lack of recognition of them as valuable members of society, which Yar (2012) would suggest comprises a harm in itself, as without such recognition the human need to flourish is stymied. It was very evident from my research, as from the Traveller Movement (2016b) study, that Gypsies and Travellers experienced bias-motivated approaches and attitudes embedded into the systems they were required to engage

3

HATE HARMS

51

with in order to access any services, to work, and to support and educate their families. The harms experienced by Gypsies and Travellers were twofold in this regard, they personally felt insecure and threatened, but also as vilified communities, they struggled to function effectively within wider society due to the systemic nature of that vilification. The incapacity for Gypsies and Travellers to function, let alone thrive, in a contemporary society that maligns them has resulted in their social and economic exclusion. That exclusion has occurred in part because traditional Gypsies and Travellers have created protective barriers around their communities and cultures over centuries in response to the racism they have experienced, and as part of their nomadic cultural heritage. As Belton (2013) notes, this might be described as them utilising their weak power (Hall 1991). New Travellers and Showpeople have likewise adopted a guarded approach to living and their cultures as has been evidenced in previous research (James 2006, 2007). However, the systemic nature and extent of the discrimination experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, despite half a century of attempts to include and engage with their communities through policy initiatives including the EU Framework for Roma Inclusion 2011–2020, continues unabated as evidenced above. This has meant that Gypsies and Travellers have not engaged with, or been engaged by, statutory and support services to the extent that their outcomes in terms of their health, education and welfare are extremely poor. The United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination periodic report (2016: 6) found that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in the UK ‘continue to face exclusion and discrimination in the fields of health, education, housing and employment’. Further, research has identified that Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children in England and Wales experience deprivation in relation to their standard of living, education and/or health (Battaglini et al. 2018). The entrenched nature of systemic hate has thus led to multiple harms for Gypsies and Travellers. I have noted above, and throughout the book thus far, the importance of accommodation within discussion of Gypsy and Traveller inclusion. The abrogation of appropriate accommodation to Gypsies and Travellers has occurred through a lack of local authority site provision, and a failure to approve planning applications by Gypsies and Travellers. Again, it is necessary to return to the issue of Gypsy and Traveller identity to fully appreciate the harms embedded in planning provision and processes. The racism Gypsies and Travellers have experienced over time has been felt

52

Z. JAMES

particularly in the definition of their identity in planning terms. In relation to provision of services, equalities legislation has provided some protections for some Gypsies and Travellers. However, in planning law, this is turned on its head, with Gypsy or Traveller status being determined by mobility and aligned with occupation. Hence why Gypsies and Travellers from all communities have rights to accommodation provision. In 1992, case law determined that to be considered a ‘gypsy’, ‘there should be some recognisable connection between the wandering or travelling and the means whereby the persons concerned make or seek their livelihood’ (cited in Murdoch and Johnson 2020: 18). This approach to identity is informed by a sedentarist binary definition of nomadism, wherein settled society perceive nomadism as being constantly mobile, without stopping, and if a person stops being mobile, so they stop being a nomad. As already established in Chapter 1, this nullifies the cultural nomadism of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK (James and Southern 2019). In the most recent planning definition of ‘travellers’ (Department for Communities and Local Government 2015) mobility was used as the key defining feature of identity. Again, as noted in Chapter 2, paradoxically this policy definition meant that those traditional Gypsies and Travellers who were not mobile were consequently deemed illegitimate ‘travellers’ in planning terms, despite their acknowledged racial identity under anti-discrimination legislation. This placed traditional Gypsies and Travellers of Romany or Irish descent who were not mobile in an exposed position, wherein those who were old or infirm, young or reliant on local childcare to work, had their accommodation provision on local authority sites placed at risk. Further, in terms of planning applications to settle or develop a site on their own land, a lack of mobility would prevent them from obtaining planning permission. The likelihood of Gypsies and Travellers attaining planning permission has been remote over many years, with research identifying 90% of Gypsy and Traveller planning applications having been refused comparative to 80% of settled applications having been accepted (Murdoch 2002; Ellis and McWhirter 2008). In 2015 the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was found in the High Court to have discriminated unlawfully against a racial group when he placed Gypsy and Traveller planning applications under special scrutiny. This additional inspection of planning applications made by Gypsies and Travellers takes us to a consideration of the demonisation of Gypsies and Travellers through further systemic mechanisms. Much of my early work with

3

HATE HARMS

53

Gypsies and Travellers focused on the way in which they were overpoliced as offenders and under-policed as victims (James 2005, 2006, 2007, 2014a). In that work it became increasingly evident that controlling Gypsies and Travellers as a problem population using any available means was the priority of local authorities and policing agencies. As has been established, Gypsies and Travellers had historically been perceived as problematic within a racist society, but the advent of a new ‘folk devil’ (Cohen 1972) in the form of New Travellers in the 1980s meant that the right-wing government of the time could capitalise on the problems created by that community to legislate against all Gypsies and Travellers. There had been an appetite to clamp down on public order issues during the late 1980s and early 1990s due to social unrest, and the government made a raft of reforms to public order law within the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That Act removed the requirement on local authorities to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers and augmented trespass legislation giving comprehensive powers to police and local authorities to evict Gypsies and Travellers from land and to take their vehicles (homes) if they refused to move on. Since the closure of the commons in the 1960s, Gypsies and Travellers had struggled to live according to their cultural expectations, but the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 placed them in an untenable position. The assimilationist nature of this legislation was an attempt to deculturate Gypsies and Travellers. Government policy suggested that Gypsies and Travellers should buy their own land and develop their own sites, despite the fact that their social and economic exclusion meant few were in a position to do so, and planning permission was rarely granted. Again, the entrenched prejudice that was imbued into legislation meant that over time Gypsies and Travellers experienced multiple associated harms. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 embodied and legitimised social attitudes to Gypsies and Travellers as trespassers on land. The legislation evidenced the lack of capacity for either cultural or mobile nomadic lifestyles in sedentary society, and the ability of such lifestyles to discombobulate the state and public alike. When Gypsies and Travellers were mobile they were subject to public order policing techniques and mechanisms that were more akin to dealing with protesters and political activists than minority communities. Police were able to evict Gypsies and Travellers immediately from land and such evictions could be physically violent. Over time, it became apparent that the cycle of evictions that Gypsies and Travellers were subject to was unmanageable (and far too

54

Z. JAMES

expensive) for police alone and increasingly partnerships between local authorities, the police and private bailiff companies would carry out eviction (James 2004). As Bancroft stated, Gypsies and Travellers were placed within a discourse of punishment (Bancroft 2000) and they increasingly came under the punitive gaze of multiple control agencies (James 2006, 2007; James and Richardson 2006). Essentially, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 criminalised Gypsies and Travellers. In the late twentieth century the capacity for plural policing to address the ills of contemporary society gained policy primacy (Loader 2000). Similar to other families living in poverty, Gypsies and Travellers experienced policing beyond the police (Donzelot 1997) within the plural policing environment. Research has shown that public agencies, that were designed to provide welfare, health, and education actually acted in a policing role when working with Gypsies and Travellers as they gathered information on them that was shared and utilised to enforce eviction and assimilate Gypsies and Travellers into housing (James 2006). The benevolence of public service providers had simply manifested as control (Moore 2011). Additionally, private agencies commissioned to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers worked closely with public agencies in order to police Gypsy and Traveller communities (James and Richardson 2006). And further, local settled communities, empowered by the Localism Act 2011, took it upon themselves to police Gypsies and Travellers by reporting unauthorised encampments to local authorities, and by compiling anti-Gypsy/Traveller campaigns, as evidenced in research by Thompson and Woodger (2018). Other actions of local settled people included making reports to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that Gypsies and Travellers in Thompson and Woodger’s (2018) research perceived as a mechanism for harassment and intimidation. In my early research work on policing (James 2007) I identified plural policing strategies of spatial exclusion, destabilisation and disruption used against New Travellers that acted as a form of hidden discipline due to its lack of accountability (Mathieson 1997). Coupled with that hidden discipline is the legal capacity for plural policing agencies to show their strength through eviction. As noted in the introduction to this book, the large-scale eviction of Gypsy and Traveller sites by multiple agencies embodies the fears of Gypsies and Travellers. The subjective violence of the eviction of the Dale Farm Traveller site in Essex, England in 2011 was a case in point; over 100 police officers in full riot gear forced entry to the unauthorised development in order to facilitate private bailiffs to carry out the eviction for the local authority. The

3

HATE HARMS

55

plural nature of the policing of Gypsies and Travellers as hidden discipline and the threat of eviction, constitute systemic hate harms that have served to undermine any remaining trust Gypsies and Travellers might have had in support agencies, local authorities or even private provision. The criminalisation of Gypsies and Travellers at the end of the twentieth century has had a lasting legacy for all communities. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 remains (and has been subsequently strengthened), though local authority welfare checks are now required and challenges to eviction protocols have been localised (for full details of Gypsy and Traveller Law, see Willers and Johnson 2020). The central tenet of the legislation in principle has remained. As detailed here, it has been accompanied by planning law changes and developments, plural policing, the threat of eviction, the general lack of site provision, and public distrust of Gypsies and Travellers. Thus, the pressure on Gypsies and Travellers to move into bricks and mortar accommodation has been intense. Some academics and activist practitioners have noted that the lack of accommodation provision for Gypsies and Travellers has made them technically homeless (Watkinson et al. 2020). While many Gypsies and Travellers live in housing happily, and celebrate their cultural nomadism from that settled base, Greenfields and Smith (2009) and Southern and James (2006) found that housed Gypsies and Travellers often wanted to return to living traditionally on sites. Thus, those Gypsies and Travellers confined to housing against their wishes have felt the harm of the criminalisation process too. Those people who continue to be mobile, particularly those who have no fixed site to return to either suffer regular evictions or move on in order to avoid eviction. The fear of eviction for Gypsies and Travellers has continued unabated as research has consistently shown over time (James 2007; Cemlyn et al. 2009; Traveller Movement 2016b). The historical notions that Gypsies and Travellers were either bad in themselves or were engaged in illegitimate work (Fraser 1992) was made concrete in the late twentieth century as they ended up having to stop and stay in illegitimate spaces due to having no appropriate accommodation spaces provided to them, and therefore they were placed in direct conflict with settled communities. In addition, much of their traditional work in the farming industry, picking crops or working the land seasonally dried up due to an influx of cheaper labour from Europe (Mawby and Gisby 2009) and other traditional work was increasingly in short supply (Belton 2005). Those Gypsies and Travellers who were able to live outside of the malevolent gaze of the public did their best to do so (James 2006; Cemlyn

56

Z. JAMES

et al. 2009), sometimes placing them in isolated spaces, away from the family and community that they relied on for support and guidance. Overall, Gypsies and Travellers have been isolated by their ill-treatment, whether physically or socially, and that isolation brings with it associated harms. For example, there have been some serious concerns raised by Gypsy and Traveller support agencies regarding the high rates of suicide within Gypsy and Traveller communities. As Kerrigan (2020) notes in her Blog for the Traveller Movement, some Gypsies and Travellers cannot access the support they need to address internal community or family issues, such as homophobia, domestic abuse or gender inequalities. The shame some Gypsies and Travellers experience within their community due to being gay or as a domestic abuse victim for example, means that they have taken their own lives. Using Yar’s (2012) theory it is possible to see that the harm Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experience in this instance, both personally and as a community, is due to the lack of recognition of their need for interpersonal love that humans require to flourish. Gypsies and Travellers are isolated in society, wherein some cultural norms in some parts of those communities such as attitudes towards sexuality and gender identity have not changed over time, and access to support for those who need it is not available. Overall, given the discrimination, social and economic exclusion, and criminalisation Gypsies and Travellers have experienced it is unsurprising that they commonly hide their identity or do not identify themselves as Gypsies or Travellers for fear of further abuse (Cemlyn et al. 2009). Neither is it surprising that Gypsies and Travellers living on unauthorised encampments cite harassment and abuse from sedentarists as one of the core reasons for moving away from their previous location, alongside their fear of eviction (James 2014b, 2020). Gypsies’ and Travellers’ trust in local authorities, policing agencies and even civil society has been disrupted by their ill-treatment over time and the multiple harms they have suffered as a consequence. As one Irish Traveller said in my research, ‘When I deal with any kind of office they reject me/turn me down’ (Res 3.7). It is therefore predictable that the reporting of hate behaviours by Gypsies and Travellers to any authority is relatively low (James 2020). The tendency to group hate behaviours into protected groups defined by the hate crime legislation also means that there is little clarity on how many Gypsies and Travellers have been subject to hate crimes, incidents, or speech, which is problematic in itself as Gypsies and Travellers feel unheard (Clark 2001). The assumption would generally be that Gypsies

3

HATE HARMS

57

and Travellers experiencing hate would be recorded within the race category of hate crimes and incidents, but given the intersectional nature of their identities and the lack of comprehensive coverage of protected groups this is unclear. Whether those who report hate against them are taken seriously is another matter. Gypsies and Travellers do not expect anything to be done by authorities about the hate they experience. In my research, Gypsies and Travellers referred to blatantly negative attitudes towards them from service personnel that evidenced the innate prejudice of those communicating with them and their characterisation as problematic. As one Romany Gypsy said in my research on her experiences of hate (James 2020), ‘Told by a policeman that people like us should be put against a wall and shot as there was no place for people like us in society’ (Res 4.5). Having established that Gypsies and Travellers experience subjective and systemic hate harms, I will now go on to consider how symbolic hate harms ensue in contemporary society.

Symbolic Hate Harms Symbolic violence, according to Žižek (2008: 1) refers to the harmful outcomes that result from social norms articulated through ‘language and forms’. Within contemporary society, particularly in Western democratic states, but increasingly across the world, neoliberal capitalism has framed the reality that we have lived in since its development as a political project in the 1960s (Harvey 2005). Its norms are expressed through language, though Žižek (2008) is typically unclear in his determination of what ‘forms’ constitute, focusing more on the capacity of language to divide each person from the other. So, Legassick (2012) draws out Žižek’s notion of symbolic violence through others use of such terminology or associated methods of appreciating the harmful ways in which normal life impacts the lived experience (including, for example, Bourdieu 1991; Butler 1990). Indeed, Richardson (2006) has utilised the Foucauldian (Foucault 1975) idea of discourse to analyse and appreciate the social exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers, their stigmatisation and persecution over time. However, the point here of using Žižek’s notion of symbolic violence is the way in which he expresses that violence as occurring through the norms of the neoliberal capitalist political economy. As noted in the introduction to this book, neoliberal capitalism has been identified by critical theorists (Harvey 2005, 2011; Dardot and Laval

58

Z. JAMES

2017; Davies 2017) as shifting the logic of social organisation from an environment ordered according to political judgement to one ordered by economic evaluation (Davies 2017). Structures of power based on race, gender, class and sexuality have therefore increasingly been co-opted or re-asserted to serve the needs of capital in a society that equates value with fiscal success, rather than political prowess. Neoliberal capitalism encourages and engenders flexibility and adaptability, individualism and competitiveness, while ensuring adherence to market principles in delivery of services, and reduction of costs in provision of welfare. In order to appreciate how symbolic hate harms manifest in contemporary society for Gypsies and Travellers, I have focused the following section on a consideration of these core elements of neoliberalism that we experience objectively as inherent in the norm. Gypsies’ and Travellers’ cultural nomadism, that incorporates and values mobility, autonomy and self-reliance, may appear on the surface to embody the ultimate liberal subject. However, Gypsies and Travellers evidently have not fitted into the cultural milieu of neoliberal capitalism, given their position at the bottom of the social hierarchy in what Standing (2014) has referred to as the precariat. The precariat is the space wherein the working classes, including ethnic minority communities, have existed following the economic, social and political changes of late modernity. As their traditional work diminished, the land they traditionally lived on closed off to them and land prices increased, and their social and economic exclusion affirmed through processes of racism, discrimination and criminalisation, so Gypsies and Travellers have become increasingly impoverished, and their lives have been defined by precariousness and insecurity (James and Smith 2017; Richardson 2017). Their position on the margins of society means that they are vying for limited resources and recognition for their human needs among the rest of the precariat. Wacquant (2008: 24) refers to this as people suffering ‘massive structural violence from above’ that consigns them to ‘neighbourhoods of exile’, that I would suggest is contemporarily realised through the symbolic violence that is inherent in the normalised language of managerialism, welfare reform and communitarianism (Hughes 2007). The apparently inclusive approach of late modern social policy in the UK that purports to aim for universal human rights, as to date informed by EU policy (though not for much longer), does not operate in a vacuum however, but rather functions within the parameters of market ideology. Those outside public services such as civil society organisations must bid and

3

HATE HARMS

59

lobby for resources in competition with private companies to support the most marginalised in society. Public authorities likewise must bid for resources and account for them based on fiscal capacities, rather than human need. Provision of appropriate accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers is not deemed a cost-effective solution for people who are considered a problem population. Gypsies and Travellers lack the fiscal or social capital to compete in this environment, as do their representative organisations (Kóczé and Rövid 2012). Gypsies and Travellers are perceived by the public and those in authority as giving nothing back to society and taking no responsibility for themselves and therefore they do not warrant rights in a neoliberal capitalist setting that ultimately excuses their assimilation and deculturation. The hyper-competitive nature of bidding for resources from the public sector and private companies pitches Gypsy and Traveller support organisations against each other to access the funds they need to exist and thrive. They therefore draw on any social capital available to them to retain their organisational advantage. Unfortunately, this means vying for position, lobbying interested parties and engaging with socially powerful issues that attract attention and funding. As noted previously, this has more recently meant the inclusion of Roma within the remit of Gypsy and Traveller support organisations and use of ethnicity as the defining feature of Gypsy and Traveller identity in order to access funds to tackle racism. I have already set out the harms engendered by this myopic approach to Gypsy and Traveller identity, not least its capacity to augment the hierarchy of Gypsy and Traveller legitimacy and to exacerbate essentialist notions of race. The point here is to highlight the role of neoliberal capitalist norms of competitive individualism in informing the difficult situation wherein Gypsy and Traveller support organisations find themselves. The complex quagmire of public service delivery in the UK currently that uses notions and language of multi-agency, streamlined, ‘joined up’ approaches to justify providing minimal resources, has resulted in a heady mix of private, civil society and public agencies competing for position to act as the voice of the marginalised (Simmonds 2019). This is appalling to witness and is ultimately harmful to those who need help and support. Aligned with the above, the pursuit to the bottom that ensues as Gypsy and Traveller support organisations attempt to gain support for their communities, means that they must engage in a discourse of vulnerability to represent Gypsies and Travellers. In order to access funding they need to evidence that Gypsies and Travellers are the most hard-done-by of the

60

Z. JAMES

marginalised. This dreadful competition, notwithstanding its capacity to give voice to the social and economic exclusion that Gypsies and Travellers do experience, legitimises the focus of agencies on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ trials rather than their triumphs. Chakraborti and Garland (2012) have used the notion of vulnerability to expand the parameters of hate studies and hate policy and thus move away from essentialised notions of identity which is laudable. However, as Walklate (2011) details, the use of vulnerability as a mechanism to identify victimisation is problematic as it fails to critically examine the relationships between victimisation, vulnerability and resilience. In order to acknowledge the structural, inherent and experiential facets of vulnerability and resilience she argues that it is necessary to see how the politics of pity (Aradau 2004) play out. Identifying Gypsies and Travellers as vulnerable not only serves to negate their agency (van Baar 2011) but also fails to acknowledge their lived experience. Gypsies’ and Travellers’ cultures have shown by virtue of their continued existence to be very resilient to direct oppression, discrimination and prejudice. That resilience is borne of their cultural nomadism that provides them with familial support and that coheres their identity beyond the gaze of settled society. The presentation of Gypsies and Travellers as vulnerable by the agencies who purport to represent them (both public and civil society) actually belies two aspects of their daily lives. Firstly, it does not recognise their resilience and therefore places them in the position of victim, which diminishes their social and personal identities. Secondly, as society does not recognise them as deserving victims, within the hierarchy of legitimate victims (Walklate 2011) they do not constitute the ‘ideal’ (Christie 1986), they do not attain the same services or support that other victims might. Thus, the intervention of apparently well-meaning people again serves simply to harm Gypsies and Travellers. Those well-meaning people are not intentionally harming Gypsies and Travellers due to some misguided sense of pity for them, they are simply trying to keep hold of their public service/civil society jobs (which they are largely committed to, despite poor pay and some poor conditions) in a competitive market, and in order to do that they must access funds from finite resources. The processes detailed here embed competition between different Gypsy and Traveller communities and their particular support organisations as ‘divide and rule’ economics serve to keep the costs of provision down. The pursuance of individual interest thus informs practice and

3

HATE HARMS

61

experience and pre-existing tensions between groups of people are exacerbated. The separation of traditional Gypsies and Travellers, whose solidarity comes from their common experiences of racism, has increased as the public consciousness has embraced the myth of the Romany Gypsy. That myth has been exploited by public policy, within the public and civil society sectors (and academic), as evidenced above, resulting in better provision made for Romany Gypsies and emphatic calls for their inclusion beyond and apart from other Gypsies and Travellers that has in turn reinforced the public lexicon about ‘real Gypsies’. While there have been greater attempts at solidarity between Gypsy and Traveller communities over time, attempts to represent all communities have commonly failed, as was the case with the Gypsy and Traveller Coalition in the early 2000s (Ryder and Cemlyn 2014). The paradox caused by defining Gypsies and Travellers in planning and equalities law differently, and the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has placed New Travellers as part of the problem of provision for traditional Gypsies and Travellers. The focus on ethnicity, race and racism among traditional Gypsies and Travellers and their representative groups presents as a nullifying process for New Travellers. Interestingly, Showpeople are rarely included in any aspect of this process of division or abjection, despite their legal status as occupational Travellers. There is increasing evidence that Showpeople have struggled to access appropriate yards to store their fairground rides and on which to over-winter (Clark 2006), however, their conformity to neoliberal capitalist endeavour, as people using their mobility to access appropriate markets to provide pleasure to the settled masses (fairs and shows), perhaps means that their convention places them beyond the purlieu of state concern. And while their traditional stopping yards are increasingly diminished, for example by urban regeneration (Goodwin and Leslie 2018), they continue to serve our dwindling desire for carnival in life (Presdee 2000) that has become increasingly commodified to serve our consumer identities (Raymen 2019). Thus, the symbolic harms of hate are realised by Gypsies’ and Travellers’ engagement with and proximity to neoliberal capitalist norms.

Conclusion This chapter has set out the harms of hate experienced by Gypsies and Travellers. In doing so, it has identified three ways in which hate manifests in contemporary society. Firstly, it has shown how subjective hate

62

Z. JAMES

harms that are hate crimes, incidents and speech, impact on all Gypsy and Traveller communities. The chapter has given voice to their subjective experiences of hate from the perspective of Gypsies and Travellers themselves. By recognising the impact of hate on all Gypsies and Travellers, the chapter has made some rectification for their negation within public discourses on hate. Hate studies, policy and practice has largely been concerned by subjective experiences of hate and thus failed to acknowledge the harms of systemic and symbolic hate that can only be appreciated through an objective perspective. Therefore, secondly the chapter has considered the embedded nature of systemic hate harms experienced by Gypsies and Travellers in contemporary society through discrimination, social and economic exclusion, and criminalisation. Finally, the chapter has addressed the symbolic hate harms that circumscribe Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lived experience through the language and ethos of neoliberal capitalism. The book will now turn in the next chapter to an explanation for the complex array of hate harms Gypsies and Travellers have experienced by using some of the examples in this chapter and the historical context of the previous chapter to elaborate on the condition of late modernity and Gypsies’ and Travellers’ position within it.

Note 1. The Traveller Movement (2016a: 4) also note the case of Barry Smith, an English Gypsy, who was murdered. Barry Smith was murdered by a woman (and her husband and friend) after she had lost her job due to verbally abusing him in the workplace. Again, similar to Johnny Delaney’s case, the police treated it as a racially motivated incident, but the judge in the case stated that the incidents were separate.

References Abrams, D., Swift, H., & Houston, D. (2018). Developing a National Barometer of Prejudice and Discrimination in Britain. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Allen, D., Greenfields, M., & Smith, D. (Eds.). (2018). Transnational Resilience and Change: Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Strategies of Survival and Adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Aradau, C. (2004). The Perverse Politics of Four-Letter Words: Risk and Pity in the Securitisation of Human Trafficking. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33(2), 251–277.

3

HATE HARMS

63

Balibar, É. (2009). Foreword. In N. Sigona & N. Trehan (Eds.), Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilisation and the Neoliberal Order. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Bancroft, A. (2000). ‘No Interest in Land’: Legal and Spatial Enclosure of GypsyTravellers in Britain. Space and Polity, 4, 41–56. Battaglini, M., Burchardt, T., Obolenskaya, P., & Vizard, P. (2018). Experience of Multiple Disadvantage Among Roma, Gypsy and Traveller Children in England and Wales (CASE Papers/208). Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE. Belton, B. A. (2005). Gypsy and Traveller Ethnicity: The Social Generation of an Ethnic Phenomenon. London: Routledge. Belton, B. (2013). ‘Weak Power’: Community and Identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(2), 282–297. Bereford, P. (2017, October 9). House of Commons Hansard Debates. Accessed at: www.hansard.parliament.uk. Accessed on: 22/03/2020. Bernier, K. (2017). The Harms of Hate: Comparing the Neighbouring Practices and Interactions of Hate Crime Victims, Non-Hate Crime Victims and NonVictims. International Review of Victimology, 23(2), 179–201. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bowling, B. (1999). Violent Racism: Victimisation, Policing and Social Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brah, A. (1996). Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London: Routledge. Burke, M. (2009). ‘Tinkers’ Synge and the Cultural History of the Irish Traveller. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Cadger, B. (2015). I Witness: The UNCRC in the United Kingdom Young Gypsy/Traveller’s Voices. Angus: Article 12 in Scotland. Cemlyn, S., Greenfields, M., Burnett, S., Matthews, Z., & Whitwell, C. (2009). Inequalities Experienced by Gypsy and Traveller Communities: A Review. London: EHRC. Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2012). Reconceptualizing Hate Crime Victimization Through the Lens of Vulnerability and ‘Difference’. Theoretical Criminology, 16(4), 499–514. Christie, N. (1986). The Ideal Victim. In E. A. Fattah (Ed.), From Crime Policy to Victim Policy. London: Macmillan. Clark, C. (2001). ‘Invisible Lives’: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. Clark, C. (2006). Who Are the Gypsies and Travellers of Britain? In C. Clark & M. Greenfields (Eds.), Here to Stay: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.

64

Z. JAMES

Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee. Crown Prosecution Service. (2017). Racist and Religious Hate Crime—Prosecution Guidance. Available at: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racistand-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance. Accessed on: 01/02/19. Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2017). The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. London: Verso. Davies, W. (2017). The Limits of Neoliberalism. London: Sage. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2015). Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. London: DCLG. Donzelot, J. (1997). The Policing of Families. London: The John Hopkins Press. Ellis, G., & McWhirter, C. (2008). Land-Use and Planning and TravellerGypsies: Towards Non-Prejudicial Practice. Planning, Practice and Research, 23(1), 77–79. Foucault, M. (1975/1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Fraser, A. (1992). The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell. Goldberg, D. T. (2015). Are We All Postracial Yet? Cambridge: Polity Press. Goodwin, K., & Leslie, C. (2018). ‘We’re Endangered’: The Glasgow Showpeople Battling Eviction. The Guardian. Accessed at: https://www.thegua rdian.com/cities/2018/jul/09/glasgow-scotland-showpeople-govan-regene ration-photo-essay. Accessed on: 21/06/20. Greenfields, M. (2006). Gypsies, Travellers and Legal Matters. In C. Clark & M. Greenfields (Eds.), Here to Stay: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Greenfields, M. (2010). Settlement and Anti-Gypsyism: ‘If You Know Someone Hates You from the Start, You Puts Up the Barrier’. In Romani Mobilities in Europe Conference. University of Oxford. Greenfields, M., & Rogers, C. (2020, forthcoming). A Pilot Study Project into the Psychological Effect of Hate Crime on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) Communities. Bucks New University Report. Greenfields, M., & Smith, D. (2009). Housed Gypsy Travellers, Social Segregation and the Reconstruction of Communities. Housing Studies, 25(3), 397–412. Greenhall, O., & Willers, M. (2020). Using Domestic Legislation to Tackle Race Discrimination. In M. Willers & C. Johnson (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law (3rd ed.). London: Legal Action Group. Hall, S. (1991). The Local and the Global. In A. D. King (Ed.), Culture, Globalization and the World System. London: Macmillan. Hall, N. (2005). Hate Crime. Collumpton: Willan. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3

HATE HARMS

65

Harvey, D. (2011). The Enigma of Capital: And the Crisis of Capitalism. London: Profile. Home Office. (2016). Action Against Hate: The UK Government’s Plan for Tackling Hate Crime. London: Home Office. Honneth, A. (1996). The Struggle for Recognition. Cambridge: Polity Press. Howard, J., & Vajda, V. (2017). Navigating Power and Intersectionality to Address Inequality. IDS Working Paper. 2017:504. ISBN: 978-1-78118-4127. Hughes, G. (2007). The Politics of Crime and Community. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Iganski, P. (2008). Hate Crime and the City. Bristol: Policy Press. Jacobs, J. B., & Potter, K. (1998). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. James, Z. (2004). New Travellers, New Policing? Exploring the Policing of New Traveller Communities Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford. James, Z. (2005). Eliminating Communities? Exploring the Implications of Policing Methods Used to Manage New Travellers. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 33, 159–168. James, Z. (2006). Policing Space: Managing New Travellers in England. British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 470–485. James, Z. (2007). Policing Marginal Spaces: Controlling Gypsies and Travellers. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7 (4), 367–389. James, Z. (2011). Gypsies and Travellers in the Countryside: Managing a Risky Population. In R. Yarwood & R. I. Mawby (Eds.), Constable Countryside? Policing, Governance and Rurality. Aldershot: Ashgate. James, Z. (2014a). Policing Hate Against Gypsies and Travellers: Dealing with the Dark Side. In N. Chakraborti (Ed.), Responding to Hate Crime: The Case for Connecting Policy and Research. Bristol: Policy Press. James, Z. (2014b). Offenders or Victims? An Exploration of Gypsies and Travellers as a Policing Paradox. In C. Phillips & C. Webster (Eds.), New Directions in Race, Ethnicity and Crime. London and New York: Routledge. James, Z. (2015). Hate Crimes Against Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in Europe. In N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi, & J. Grieve (Eds.), The International Handbook of Hate Crime. Abingdon: Routledge. James, Z. (2020). Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Lived Experience of Harm: A Critical Hate Studies Perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 24(3), 502–520. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1362480620911914. James, Z., Phillips, C., & Taylor, B. (2019, December). Gypsy and Traveller Experiences of Crime and Justice: A Neglected Minority in Criminology. British Society of Criminology Newsletter, 84, 14–21.

66

Z. JAMES

James, Z., & Richardson, J. (2006). Controlling Accommodation: Policing Gypsies and Travellers. In A. Dearling, T. Newburn, & P. Somerville (Eds.), Housing and Crime. Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing. James, Z., & Smith, D. (2017). Roma Inclusion Post Brexit: A Challenge to Existing Rhetoric? Safer Communities: A Journal of Practice, Opinion and Research, 16(4), 186–195. James, Z., & Southern, R. (2019). Accommodating Nomadism and Mobility: Challenging the Application of a Sedentarist Binary Approach to Provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 39(3/4), 324–336. Kenrick, D., & Puxon, G. (1972). The Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies. London: Chatto-Heinemann. Kerrigan, C. (2020). The Shame of Shaming—Time for Honest Conversations. The Traveller Movement Blog. Accessed at: https://travellermovement.org. uk/blog/9-blog/132-the-shame-of-shaming-time-for-honest-conversations. Accessed on: 18/06/20. Kóczé, A. (2018). Race, Migration and Neoliberalism: Distorted Notions of Romani Migration in European Public Discourses. Social Identities, 24(4), 459–473. Kóczé, A., & Rövid, M. (2012). Pro-Roma Global Civil Society: Acting for, with or Instead of Roma? In M. Kaldor & H. L. Moore (Eds.), Global Civil Society 2012: Ten Years of Critical Reflection. Gordonsville: Palgrave Macmillan. Legassick, S. (2012). Objective Violence and the State of Nature. Unpublished. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/2109483/Objective_Violence_and_ the_State_of_Nature. Accessed on: 23/04/2019. Loader, I. (2000). Plural Policing and Democratic Governance. Social and Legal Studies, 9(3), 323–345. Mackay, A. (2002, January 15). House of Commons Hansard Debates. Part 5. Accessed at: www.publications.parliament.uk. Accessed on: 16/06/03. Mathieson, T. (1997). The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault’s ‘Panopticon’ Revisited. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 215–234. Mawby, R. C., & Gisby, W. (2009). Crime, Media and Moral Panic in an Expanding European Union. The Howard Journal, 48(1), 37–51. Moore, D. (2011). The Benevolent Watch: Therapeutic Surveillance in Drug Treatment Court. Theoretical Criminology, 15(3), 255–268. Murdoch, A., & Johnson, C. (2020). Introduction. In M. Willers & C. Johnson (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law (3rd ed.). London: Legal Action Group. Murdoch, A. (2002, September). Gypsies and Planning Appeals: The Right to a Fair and Impartial Hearing. Journal of Planning and Environmental Law, 1056–1060. Okely, J. (1983). The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3

HATE HARMS

67

Perry, B. (2001). In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes. New York: Routledge. Pew Research Center. (2014). A Fragile Rebound for EU Image on Eve of European Parliament Elections. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Phillips, C. (2016). From ‘Rogue Traders’ to Organized Crime Groups: Doorstep Fraud of Older Adults. British Journal of Criminology, 57 (1), 608–626. Presdee, M. (2000). Cultural Criminology and the Carnival of Crime. London: Routledge. Public Prosecution Service. (2010). Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland: Hate Crime Policy. Belfast: Public Prosecution Service. Raymen, T. (2019). The Enigma of Social Harm and the Barrier of Liberalism: Why Zemiology Needs a Theory of the Good. Justice, Power and Resistance, 3(1), 133–162. Richardson, J. (2006). The Gypsy Debate: Can Discourse Control?. Exeter: Imprint Academic. Richardson, J. (2014). Roma in the News: An Examination of Media and Political Discourse and What Needs to Change. People, Place and Policy, 8(1), 51–64. Richardson, J. (2017). Precarious Living in Liminal Spaces: Neglect of the GypsyTraveller Site. Global Discourse, 7 (4), 496–515. Ryder, A., & Cemlyn, S. (2014). The Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition. In A. Ryder, S. Cemlyn, & T. Acton (Eds.), Hearing the Voice of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities. Bristol: Policy Press. Sheehan, S. (2012). Žižek: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum. Shubber, K. (2014). Who Is the Number One Target of Hate Speech on Twitter? Accessed at: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/hatebrain-stats-uk. Accessed on: 24/05/20. Simmonds, L. (2019). The Impact of Local Commissioning on Victim Services in England and Wales: An Empirical Study. International Review of Victimology, 25(2), 181–199. Southern, R., & James, Z. (2006). Devon-Wide Gypsy and Traveller Housing Needs Assessment. Social Research and Regeneration Unit, University of Plymouth. Standing, G. (2014). A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Taylor, B. (2014). Another Darkness, Another Dawn: A History of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. London: Reaktion Books. The Scottish Government. (2019). Improving the Lives of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers 2019–20. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.

68

Z. JAMES

Thompson, N., & Woodger, D. (2018). ‘I Hope the River Floods’: Everyday Hatred Against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities. GATEHerts Report. Traveller Movement. (2016a). Briefing: Hate Crime, Discrimination and the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma Communities. London: Traveller Movement Report. Traveller Movement. (2016b). Discrimination Experienced by Gypsies, Travellers and Roma: Results from the 2016 Survey. London: Traveller Movement Report. Tremlett, A., Messing, V., & Kóczé, A. (2017). Romaphobia and the Media: Mechanisms of Power and the Politics of Representations. Identities, 24(6), 641–629. UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (2016). Concluding Observations on the Combined Twenty-First to Twenty-Third Periodic Reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United Nations. Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/icerd-_conclu ding_observations.pdf. Accessed on: 02/03/17. van Baar, H. (2011). Europe’s Romaphobia: Problematization, Securitization, Nomadization. Society and Space, 29, 203–212. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press. Walklate, S. (2011). Reframing Criminal Victimisation: Finding a Place for Vulnerability and Resilience. Theoretical Criminology, 15(2), 179–194. Watkinson, D., McIlvaney, M., & Johnson, C. (2020). Homelessness as It Relates to Gypsies and Travellers. In M. Willers & C. Johnson (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law. London: Legal Action Group. Willers, M., & Johnson, C. (Eds.). (2020). Gypsy and Traveller Law. London: Legal Action Group. Williams, M. L., & Tregidga, J. (2014). Hate Crime Victimization in Wales: Psychological and Physical Impacts Across Seven Hate Crime Victim Types. British Journal of Criminology, 54(5), 946–967. Yar, M. (2012). Critical Criminology, Critical Theory and Social Harm. In S. Hall & S. Winlow (Eds.), New Directions in Criminological Theory. London: Routledge. Žižek, S. (2008). Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador.

CHAPTER 4

Thinking Critically About Hate

Abstract This chapter explores how hate against Gypsies and Travellers in contemporary society can be better understood by using a critical hate studies perspective. The chapter initially outlines the general theory provided by a critical hate studies approach before applying its central tenets to appreciate the impacts of hate harms on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ social and personal identities. In doing so the chapter demonstrates how all aspects of hate, from physical violence to everyday microaggressions, produce harms that negatively impact Gypsies and Travellers socially and psychologically. Keywords Critical hate studies · Ultra-realism · Neoliberal capitalism · Transcendental materialism · Social and personal identity

In the previous two chapters of this book, I have set out what we know about Gypsy and Traveller cultures and identities and the hate harms Gypsies and Travellers have experienced. In doing so, it has been possible to see how hate harms have manifested for Gypsies and Travellers in contemporary society in relation to multiple historic, complex interactions between nomadic cultures and settled society via processes of nomadisation (van Baar 2011) and racialisation (Taylor 2014; Burke 2009; Yildiz and De Genova 2018) within the context and practice of © The Author(s) 2020 Z. James, The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers, Palgrave Hate Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3_4

69

70

Z. JAMES

neoliberal capitalism (Kóczé 2018). By using Žižek’s (2008) notion of violence, I have set out the harms of hate for Gypsies and Travellers that are both subjective and objective. Subjective hate harms that constitute hate crimes, incidents and speech are recognised within policy and practice as problematic for Gypsies and Travellers. Nonetheless, what I have argued in Chapter 3 is that by using Žižek’s framework for violence, it is also possible to see beyond subjective experiences of hate, and therefore to scrutinise the hate harms Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experience objectively. Thus, I have been able to shine a light on systemic hate harms that manifest as discrimination, social and economic exclusion, and criminalisation, and symbolic hate harms that articulate neoliberal capitalist norms in the language of competitive individualism and the free market. Having established that Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of hate are both explicitly and implicitly embedded in the norms of late modernity, it is necessary to appreciate in greater depth why such hatred continues to occur. In the last decades of the twentieth century and the early twenty-first century in the UK, there have been governmental and social agency commitments to principles of multiculturalism, equality and inclusivity. The language of human rights, as informed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in the UK in 1948, imbues public policy and civil society with notions of rights and freedoms that purportedly originate in the growth of democracy (Brown 2015). Gypsies and Travellers have become increasingly aware of their rights within this environment (for a full discussion of the application of law in this area, see Willers and Johnson 2020), but they have not been met, nor have those of other excluded peoples (Duggan 2003; Kóczé and Rovid 2012; Themelis 2015; Howard and Vajda 2017; Hindmoor 2018; Yildiz and De Genova 2018). Seventy years on from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and despite extensive policy initiatives and investments by international and transnational organisations (European Commission 2019; UN 2016), Gypsies, Travellers and Roma throughout Europe remain the largest and most excluded minority communities (Council of Europe 2011). The problem here partly lies in equating equality and civil liberties with democracy which fails to appreciate its meaning or potential to deliver the ‘rule of the people’ through various mechanisms. Principles of equality and fairness defining human rights in the context of individual freedoms in contemporary liberal democracy are ‘saturated with capitalist powers and values’ (Brown 2015: 205). This human rights agenda has limited capacity due to its intrinsic incorporation of

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

71

capitalist neoliberal norms (Kóczé 2018) that aim to deliver equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome for all (Howard and Vajda 2017). Further, the framing of Gypsies and Travellers as having a right not to suffer ill-treatment (akin to other excluded peoples) does not acknowledge or embrace the human right to flourish, but instead places them in the context of negative rights (Badiou 2001; Raymen 2019). In order to fully appreciate the harms Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experience it is therefore necessary to circumvent notions of rights that constitute a zero-sum game. In this chapter, I will endeavour to explain why Gypsies and Travellers continue to be hated in late modernity and what that can tell us about the impact of hate on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ identities. In doing so the discussion will initially set out and then utilise a critical hate studies perspective that acknowledges the role of political economy in affecting experiences of hate. I will then go on to discuss the impact of that hateful environment on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ social and personal identities (Moran 2015). My intent here is to utilise, as much as I can, a cultural nomad’s way of thinking. That is to say, I am cautious about seeing Gypsies’ and Travellers’ daily lives in a linear fashion that does not represent their lived experiences and that can simply create false positive relationships for the purpose of my argument (Walklate 2011). Akin to Phillips and Bowling (2008) my aim has always been to provide an opportunity for the reality of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lived experiences to be fully realised.

Critical Hate Studies The critical hate studies perspective (James and McBride 2018) suggests that a real appreciation of hate harms requires consideration of the contemporary neoliberal capitalist context within which they arise and that has shaped the subjective lived experience of hate victims and perpetrators. In doing this, the perspective has been used to explain hate against Trans people (McBride 2019), and hate against Gypsies and Travellers (James 2020a). By approaching hate studies through a lens that acknowledges the harms of hate, it is possible to examine and explain how and why Gypsies and Travellers have been subject to such a breadth of hate in the contemporary era. Traditionally hate studies have focused their attention on subjective hate harms by defining hate crimes and incidents in law and

72

Z. JAMES

policy, and/or arguing for their inclusion within nation states (for international perspectives, see Schweppe and Walters 2016). Such work has been valuable, as it has recognised that bias-motivated offending has serious negative consequences for victims and their communities (Bowling 1999; Iganski 2008; Bernier 2017). Notwithstanding critiques of the whiteness of social policy (Delgado and Stefancic 2017), the incorporation of policies on hate into legal systems and practice has been largely emblematic by providing a message to citizens of governmental alignment with principles of anti-prejudice and associated human rights (Mason 2015). However, by focusing on subjective harms such legislation and/or policy becomes meaningless or lost as its implementation fails to recognise that hate harms are also systemic and symbolic. Recent international anti-racism protests following the death of George Floyd in the USA have focused on the systemic nature of racism in contemporary society, but few commentators have unpacked what that means and how the symbolic articulation of hate that manifests in hate harms have occurred within neoliberal capitalism. I would suggest, akin to Andrews (2018), that in order to address hate harms in real terms it is necessary to consider how the neoliberal capitalist political economy functions to create the conditions within which such systemic, and their associated symbolic and subjective, harms arise. To do this it requires a critically distanced, careful and nuanced consideration of our subjective experiences in contemporary daily life that recognises how bias-motivated attitudes, behaviours and systems manifest. The critical hate studies perspective responded to a call put out by Perry (2006) for scholars in hate studies to think more critically about bias-motivated behaviours. Perry’s (2001, 2003, 2009; Perry and Scrivens 2017) work in hate studies has been ubiquitous and propelled discussion forward in this area. Her theory of ‘doing difference’ has been the defining perspective for critical research in hate studies and has served to highlight the structurally embedded nature of hate harms in society. Her theoretical framework argues that hate behaviours act to reinforce the hegemonic order in society that is structured by power relations commonly based on race, class and gender. She identifies ‘labor, power, sexuality and culture’ as the context within which human action is determined and ‘hierarchies of difference’ are maintained (2001: 49). In her work, Perry utilises a structured-action (Messerschmidt 1997) approach to explain the construction of individual subjectivity as an interactive process wherein human identities are formed on the basis of their alignment with, or difference from, hegemonic norms. Having established

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

73

this, Perry argues that victimisation can therefore occur within multiple contexts, including within and between more or less powerful groups as they act to remind individuals and communities of their place in society and in doing so reproduce hierarchies of oppression. Some hate scholars have challenged the capacity of Perry’s theory to explain all aspects of hate in contemporary society, particularly the minor incivilities of everyday life (Iganski 2008) and the banality of offender motivations (Chakraborti and Garland 2012). While critics accept Perry’s approach as an explanation for extreme hate violence, they argue that everyday microaggressions cannot be explained as a consequence of an offender’s conscious prejudice or the victim’s position within hierarchical power structures. They therefore turn to other explanations for everyday hate, including but not limited to, rational choice theory (Iganski 2008), social control and strain theories (Walters 2011), and the concept of vulnerability (Chakraborti and Garland 2012). While these approaches are interesting in attempting to move beyond the strictures of Perry’s (2001) framework, the critical hate studies perspective allows for a cohesive approach that maintains a critical explanation for both extreme and everyday hate behaviours. Critical hate studies draws on ultra-realist criminology (Hall and Winlow 2015) to explain hate in late modernity. Critiques of ultrarealism have suggested that it reduces social life to expressions of political economy (Wood et al. 2020), that it fails to acknowledge the intersectional nature of culture and experience (Ilan 2019), and that it minimises important discussions of race and racism (Phillips et al. 2019). However, I would suggest that these critiques fail to fully engage with ultra-realism or to acknowledge its intent to progress innovative criminological thinking that challenges reductionist approaches (Raymen and Kudlova, forthcoming) and has the capacity to bring a harm-based approach to studies of victimisation (Davies 2018) and thus shine a light on processes and practices that exclude and demonise, including importantly racism. Ultrarealism compels criminologists to consider the contemporary context of neoliberal capitalism in order to appreciate how we experience our daily lives. Traditional notions of structured power have been distorted in this context as power is diffused by liberalism that provides the conditions within which capital can burgeon. As such, the structures of race, class and gender that facilitated the rampant growth of industrial capitalism, in significant part via imperialist colonialism (see for example, Phillips and Bowling 2012), continue to order our perceptions of everyday experience, even though they do not necessarily represent our contemporary

74

Z. JAMES

identities (Appiah 2010). Those structures of power are used to retain and perpetuate elite positions and are rallied against by progressive liberal thinkers. However, by focusing on those structures of power instead of acknowledging how neoliberal capitalism has framed and channelled that power according to the needs of the market, neoliberal capitalism has been nullified as a point of real concern, and alternately been considered only as an aspect of that power dynamic (Meyer 2014). This serves the interests of neoliberal capitalism well as processes of pacification have been inherent in its success; diverting attention from the generative mechanisms of problems in society means that the flow of capital has not been interrupted (Fisher 2009; Hall and Winlow 2015). Hate studies then, would benefit from engaging with the social context of late modern life that is lived within a neoliberal capitalist framework and within which hate behaviours have worsened (Mason-Bish and Trickett 2019) and people have failed to flourish (Yar 2012). It is within this context that our social identities are assigned and/or aligned to and our personal identities are shaped (Moran 2015). Following ultra-realism, critical hate studies uses a Lacanian approach to psychosocial development that is embedded in a transcendental materialist approach (Žižek 2006, developed by Johnston 2008) which says that human subjectivity is formed via interaction with the social world and is reliant on it for its formation. However, this approach takes a different turn to that used by Perry (2001), as it states that the central feature of human subjectivity is a lack or void that is experienced as a perpetual anxiety, a need for wholeness. The human self is infinitely malleable and as such is in search of an ordering mechanism that can direct and provide capacity for its complex range of emotions and instincts that manifest in the neurological system. Within a neoliberal environment that order is lacking as liberalism relies on a flexible human condition, and capitalism co-opts this flexibility and sense of unease (Wright Mills 1959) to provide maximum opportunity to attain profit. As such the human subject is left responsible for the satiation of its own anxiety that is objectless; a sense of fear and trepidation ‘with no rational and consensually recognised object’ (Hall and Winlow 2015: 112) due to the lack of any effective symbolic order in life, rather than due to imposed orders as Perry’s analysis would suggest. The purpose of a critical hate studies perspective is to allow an explanation of hate behaviours in society that range from extreme violence to day-to-day prejudice and discrimination, without abandoning a critical view. As soon as one acknowledges the nature by which the individual

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

75

subject is shaped within neoliberal capitalism, one is able to explain both the everyday microaggressions against multiple and varied groups and extreme incidences of hate against more defined identities. The former is explained as human subjects’ sense of objectless anxiety results in bias-motivated behaviour that occurs on multiple levels via hate speech, discrimination and physical violence meted out at all levels of the social, within and between social groups, hierarchies and communities. The competitive individualism and the meritocratic ‘common sense’ through which neoliberal capitalism operates in everyday life, and an absence of an effective order in our daily lives, pitches people against each other which creates multiple divisions and differences and thus microaggressions (Sue 2010). The latter is explained as individuals actively search out an effective symbolic order to make sense of their lives and their feelings of objectless anxiety, wherein they alight on a form of dogma that identifies an object, albeit a misplaced one, upon which they can focus their ire. Subsequently they commit heinous crimes against that object (be that a person, place or idea). In order to appreciate why hate harms against Gypsies and Travellers occur in contemporary society, application of a critical hate studies approach helps. It does so because it allows us to look beyond the traditional tropes of, and between, racialisation and nomadisation, while not dismissing their relevance in determining how Gypsies and Travellers got to the negative social position they are now in and how they are kept there. Indeed, for a full consideration of the histories of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ persecution there are excellent sources and studies to be read (for example, Burke 2009; Taylor 2014). This book does not intend to dismiss or negate the racialised experiences of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma throughout Europe. As I have said previously, race matters (James 2020a). In order to really appreciate the complexity of racism and sedentarism however it is necessary to scrutinise in depth their manifestation and drivers in late modernity (Kóczé 2018). Racialisation and sedentarisation have been bound up in and utilised by capitalism to assure its effective dominance in modernity, and contemporary neoliberal capitalism has effectively positioned political economies, both in established and emerging democracies, as the only option for economic sustainability and thus not worthy of comprehensive critical analysis (Raymen 2019). This behoves a discussion of hate harms in contemporary society to push back the obfuscating curtain of neoliberal capitalist norms. To reduce Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of hate harms to racism and sedentarism would

76

Z. JAMES

be to fail to respect or acknowledge the diversity of Gypsy and Traveller communities and to even potentially exacerbate their experiences of hate harms, as I will now go on to discuss.

The Impact of Hate on Gypsies and Travellers In order to draw out and apply the critical hate studies perspective to consider the impact of hate harms on Gypsies and Travellers, I have drawn on Moran’s (2015) work on identity within capitalism. Studies of identity have been extensive and are on-going and in the social sciences they have proliferated, as Bauman (2004: 16–17) noted, becoming the ‘burning issue on everyone’s mind and tongue’ as they focus on one’s sense of self in what he referred to as liquid modernity wherein ideas of fixed or stable identity are disrupted. Moran (2015) notes the debates in identity research that have vacillated around the origins of interest in identity per se and thus she argues that it is necessary to distinguish between social and personal identities. Our social identity refers to our alignment with, or assignment to, a particular social group. Gypsies and Travellers may assign themselves to, or be assigned to, an overarching group as part of the breadth of communities that are represented by the term ‘Gypsies and Travellers’, or their alignment may be with an ethnic group of particular traditional Gypsies and Travellers for example. That is not to say that their social identity is not more complex and inevitably intersectional than this simple example suggests (Howard and Vajda 2017). Gypsies and Travellers may identify with other social groups, such as women, workers, parents, etc. They may also be assigned to social groups that do not represent their own alignment, including those previously set out, but also as criminals and outsiders. That which makes the self, our individual subjectivity, is our personal identity. As such, our personal identities are less fluid than our social identities, which may shift and change over time and depend on our space and place. In relation to a transcendental materialist approach to subjectivity, I would suggest that our personal identities are built via our interaction with the social world as we grow and develop searching for a symbolic order upon which to make sense of the world. Thus, aspects of our personal and social identities may overlap: for example, to be an Irish Traveller is both part of what makes up one’s personal

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

77

identity via culture and norms, ways of expressing oneself and communicating, while also being a social identity which one would identify within a social context and which may be assigned by others. Within critical hate studies, it is possible to identify how our personal identities are built, but also lack certainty or security within contemporary neoliberal capitalism due to its failure to provide an effective symbolic order. Thus, the apparent stability of our personal identities purported in literature on identity (Moran 2015) is disrupted by neoliberal capitalism as I will elaborate on in due course. Firstly in this section I want to draw out the impacts of hate harms on Gypsies and Travellers through processes that have created and sustained negative social identities. Žižek (2008: 159) notes that ‘Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do’. Gypsies and Travellers attest to this. Their absence from discussion, policy and practice at local, national and international levels over time has been palpable (Alliance Against Anti-Gypysim 2016). Within the relatively recent history of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, an excruciating and sustained negation has been in relation to the Nazi Holocaust, that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma refer to as the Porrajmos which means the ‘devouring’ in Romani language. It is estimated that between 250,000 and 1,500,000 Gypsies, Travellers and Roma were killed, though records are extremely poor (Hancock 2004). As part of the Nazi regime’s policy of ethnic cleansing, Ritter’s research on criminal biology was utilised by Himmler to justify a racialised definition of ‘Gypsies’ despite their apparent Aryan appearance and they were sent to concentration camps, particularly Auschwitz. Tragically, Himmler’s project was highly effective and Hancock (2004) suggests that the genocide was so comprehensive that it left Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities decimated and in disarray. They had lost so many people and their traditions and stories in the concentration camps that they subsequently dealt with those losses by not speaking about their time there (Kenrick 1999). In the post-war period they were not recognised by authorities as having suffered, not even by the Nuremberg Trials in 1947 (Kostadinova 2011). The oral tradition of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, as opposed to the literary tradition of Jews, meant that few records of the Porrajmos were made by Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities. In fact, the development of knowledge and understanding of the experiences of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in the Holocaust were largely written by Jewish scholars (Hancock 2004). It was not until 1982 that the Porrajmos was formally recognised and to some extent atoned by Germany.

78

Z. JAMES

The continuous absence of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma from discussions and representations of the Holocaust has taken an extended period to address and remains problematic, with inclusion in few educational or historical texts and rare inclusion in Holocaust memorials (Bahn 2015). The failure to acknowledge Gypsies, Travellers and Roma as victims of genocide in the mid-twentieth century is one part of the European negation of their right to exist. I have previously discussed how hate has manifested for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in Europe over time (James 2015), but defer to other experts in this area for comprehensive discussion (see for example, Achim 2004; Bancroft 2005; Okely 2014). Needless to say, as part of that European context Gypsies and Travellers in the UK have likewise suffered from continued negation. As detailed in the previous chapter, Gypsies and Travellers have been harmed subjectively through the violence of hateful behaviours that have demonised them as criminals and miscreants and resulted in hate crimes, incidents and speech against them as unworthy and invaluable humans, with no recourse to recognition. Their systemic social and economic exclusion, racialisation and criminalisation has placed them on the margins of society, lacking legitimate spaces to live within, and lacking support and resources to develop as communities and authentic cultures. As such, they have been missed out on welfare provision, education and health care, had their homes and families placed at risk, and thus failed to achieve positive outcomes in life, apart from that which they have fought to attain either through their own resilience, via acceptance of assimilation into the norms of sedentarist society, or by negating their own identities in order to access those norms. The social identities of Gypsies and Travellers have been symbolically framed negatively in light of their abjection; they have been drawn as incompetent, as a homogenous community and as vulnerable. Gypsies and Travellers have been deemed incapable of withstanding the progression offered by neoliberal capitalism due to perceptions of their outmoded ways of living as cultural nomads, lacking sufficient engagement in consumer society. Despite their apparent alignment to liberal ideals of freedom and mobility, Gypsies and Travellers do not conform to the norms of neoliberal capitalism due to their cultures’ celebration of lowimpact and proximal family living, which do not fulfil the requirements of good citizens in late modernity who are required to be ‘good consumers’ (Raymen 2019) who are expected to embrace property ownership as

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

79

a central core of ‘British’ character. The contemporary push for home ownership from the 1980s onwards in the UK was inherently tied to notions of individual responsibility and associated reduction of welfare provision (Nettleton and Burrows 2008). Within this context, those Gypsies and Travellers who were intent on living traditionally, despite the assimilationist pulls to housing, were increasingly encouraged to buy land and settle sites under their own ownership, despite associated difficulties obtaining planning permission from local authorities. Those who were to rely on local authority provision were deemed either to be overly needful and therefore risky due to their ‘choice’ of lifestyle, or less responsible and thus less able to compete effectively in society, which ultimately meant that promised provision was rarely delivered. Those who continued living mobile lifestyles were criminalised as trespassers, and threatened with legal action that would impound their vehicles (homes). They were legally designated as homeless (Watkinson et al. 2020) despite having their homes with them and actually simply lacking places to stop and stay. The accretion of identities of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma has failed to recognise or acknowledge Gypsy, Traveller and Roma diversity and specifically their racialised identities. Webster (2008) notes how white ethnicity is rarely considered in discussions of racism, despite the impact of racialising processes on those marginalised communities. Indeed here it is important to acknowledge the fight that traditional Gypsies and Travellers have had for recognition of their ethnicity in law. However, despite this Gypsies’ and Travellers’ inclusion within public policy and practice has largely been presentational rather than reality (James 2020b, forthcoming). Further, caution should be exerted and racism scrutinised as Cunneen notes (2019: 13), ‘race itself becomes solidified as a category in which people, in many cases, from heterogeneous backgrounds, can be captured and named’ for the purposes of control agencies. As addressed in Chapter 2, the aggregation of Gypsies and Travellers with Roma has failed to comprehensively acknowledge who the communities are or provide them with political power and thus the capacity to designate their own experiences and what their needs and wants may be (Howard and Vajda 2017). It has increased myths regarding who is deemed an authentic Gypsy or Traveller and has subsequently augmented the hierarchy of legitimacy within and between Gypsy and Traveller communities. This is made worse by the hierarchy of deserving victims (Walklate 2011) that the UK hate crime agenda has facilitated. That agenda is oriented around particular legal protections based on identity characteristics that

80

Z. JAMES

are belief, disability, race, sexuality, and transgender identity which has in turn exacerbated the hierarchy of who is an ideal victim. New Travellers and Showpeople, who are not legally recognised racial groups, who experience hate crimes and incidents on the basis of their identity do not have recourse to the law. New Travellers may mould their social identities in order to place themselves in a protected position, as noted in Chapter 3, but to do so is harmful in itself (as is their negation in legal protections) and to be placed in competition with others who experience hateful treatment increases the harms all round. Inherent in these hierarchies is the competitive individualist culture of contemporary society, wherein those with the sharpest elbows are the most successful; even within the precariat the lack of solidarity between communities, whether Gypsies and Travellers or other excluded peoples, evidences what Hall and Winlow (2015: 120) refer to as ‘special liberty’ wherein, ‘one is entitled to do whatever it takes to participate in profitable market activity and achieve economic security and social status, even if it risks the infliction of harm on others and their social and physical environments’. So, Gypsies and Travellers are pitched against each other, as well as the rest of society as discrimination plays out horizontally as well as vertically (Howard and Vajda 2017). Solidarity expressed by Gypsies and Travellers with Roma within the confines of their racialised identities can serve to exclude other Gypsies and Travellers. Even if some Gypsies and Travellers were to attain greater inclusion through acknowledgement of their racialised identity and human rights, late modernity does not require or encourage them to pull other excluded souls up with them. Rather it is in their interests to maintain a position of height in the hierarchy from whence they may still fall, given the insecurity of everyday life for everyone living in a neoliberal capitalist system that is narrated through the discourse of austerity and the existence of a finite set of resources that are only accessible for those who are apparently responsible and work hard to consumerist ends. In recent years, when Gypsies and Travellers have been briefly engaged with by policy and practice they have been placed within a discourse of exclusion and notions of ‘hard to reach’ communities that are vulnerable and thus unable to compete on their own terms in contemporary social life. I would suggest that this narrative is problematic as it fails to provide agency to Gypsies and Travellers (Belton 2013; Howard and Vajda 2017) and it also exacerbates hierarchies of legitimacy as it fails to

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

81

appreciate differences between communities. The aggregation of Roma with Gypsies and Travellers is likely to augment their perception as vulnerable. Again as noted in Chapter 2, in 2009 Cemlyn et al. reported that Gypsies and Travellers were socially excluded on multiple levels and in 2016 the Equality and Human Rights Commission reported that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma remained socially excluded. This was presented as direct comparative evidence of a lack of progression for those communities. However, at no point does the 2016 report acknowledge that the inclusion of Roma in the report may have skewed the results. As economic migrants from Central and Eastern Europe, Roma have suffered extreme and comprehensive hateful ill-treatment in their home countries (Bahn 2015; Themelis 2015) that has tragically persisted in the UK (Brown et al. 2013; Beluschi-Fabeni et al. 2019). Their cultures, way of living and circumstances differ greatly from Gypsies and Travellers. In failing to at least acknowledge the capacity of these circumstances to impact the findings of the 2016 report, the authors have simply retained and exacerbated the notion of Gypsies and Travellers as weak and vulnerable rather than having potentially made any positive gains in the intervening eight years. Likewise in Chapter 3 of this book in an effort to acknowledge the harms of hate experienced by Gypsies and Travellers I have used data gathered that has not distinguished between Gypsies and Travellers, and Roma (Thompson and Woodger 2018; Traveller Movement 2016a, b), which may in itself exacerbate perceptions of vulnerability, though I have tried to be explicit in how the data has been used and with whom it was gathered. The framing of Gypsies and Travellers as vulnerable serves only the purpose of those intent on helping them, and given overarching perceptions of Gypsies and Travellers as placing themselves at risk due to their lifestyles and associated criminal behaviour, Gypsies and Travellers are disenfranchised by this positioning and/or ignored as not worthy of pity (Aradau 2004). Goldberg (2015) refers to the way in which racial stereotypes keep races in their place and this aligns to the social identities ascribed to Gypsies and Travellers, particularly in relation to any wealth they may or may not accrue. Those Gypsies and Travellers who accumulate wealth are commonly defined as Showpeople, who run fairs and who are vilified for cheating fairgoers (Cunningham 2002). Other Gypsies and Travellers who are wealthy are assumed to be offenders (Wigerfelt and Wigerfelt 2015). Those Gypsies and Travellers who are poor are often perceived to be Irish Travellers and their poverty is associated with their fecklessness,

82

Z. JAMES

akin to prejudice against Irish people generally (Howard 2006). Romany Gypsies likewise experience extensive hate harms, as Chapter 3 has set out, but they are held above and apart by their mythical representation, their failure of which to inhabit means that they swiftly fall from being the exotic curio to the villain. New Travellers are able to draw on their largely white sedentarist heritage to attain legitimacy in some senses but their exclusion from discourse with, and support for, Gypsies and Travellers is highly problematic. Research evidences that New Travellers were largely ‘pushed’ into nomadic lifestyles due to difficult personal and economic circumstances (Martin 2002) and therefore their capacity to access any privileged resources, including a settled home, is unlikely. Overall then, Gypsies and Travellers are put in their place as aligned to specific stereotypical accounts of their social identities and are thus perceived as weak and unable to effectively compete within neoliberal capitalist norms. They are deemed in need of help and support, no matter their financial position as wealth largely indicates ill-gotten gains. Gypsies and Travellers are presented as communities that need to be saved in some way. Within the context of their negative social identities, Gypsies and Travellers have provided a perfect scapegoat for wider society to enact its fears and insecurities through (for Roma in Europe see Themelis 2015). Within the competitive individualism of neoliberal capitalism Gypsies and Travellers are considered to have no place from which to stand their own ground and prejudice against them is excused on the basis of their self-exclusion (Rowe and Goodman 2014). Indeed, as I have previously mentioned, Gypsies and Travellers have utilised their cultural nomadism to create social and physical barriers to the world around them as a reasonable response to their historic experiences of vilification (Marcus 2019). However, this has amplified their locus as the ‘traumatic intruder’ who ‘throws the balance of our way of life off the rails’ (Žižek 2008: 59). Within contemporary society individuals are compelled to enjoy their unique liberal freedoms that set them apart from, and preferably above, everyone else (Žižek 2006). As previously established in Chapter 2, Gypsies and Travellers have been dichotomously drawn as either exotic or criminal by settled society and in each of these contexts their perceived freedoms serve as an assault on the rest of society. When they are romanticised in music and art or when they are demonised as offenders who do not pay taxes, do not work or are unclean, Gypsies and Travellers

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

83

are hated for having stolen freedoms that non-Gypsy/Travellers have no access to. Within neoliberal capitalism the ‘cultural injunction to enjoy’ (Raymen and Smith 2019: 126; Žižek 2002) is played out through consumption which is supposed to satiate our desires for liberal freedoms. However, that consumption has shifted from simply buying objects, to buying experiences. An example of this might be the appropriation of Romany Gypsy culture as manifested through the trade in authentic Romany Wagon holidays; at the cost of £500 per week you can, ‘Indulge your childhood fantasies about running away with the gypsies by staying in an original Romany wagon or “Vardo”’ (The Cottage Co. 2020: 1). Comparatively, when actual Gypsies and Travellers arrive in a local area, however briefly they may be there for, they are welcomed with regulation and accusations, as recently noted in my local paper in response to a story about Gypsies and Travellers stopping in a local park (due to a lack of any transit site in the area) (Eve 2020). The media piece made it clear that the police had reviewed the situation of the ‘travellers’, I assume to reassure the reader of their regulation, and one can see the fervour of negativity in the comments section where comments included, ‘scum need to go back where they came from’ and ‘let the local crime wave begin’. This juxtaposition between depictions of Gypsy and Traveller lifestyles as representing freedom (which can only be legitimately accessed via wealth) and the perceived reality of Gypsy lifestyles as vilified criminality (that attempts to subvert our individual wealth) effectively sums up how hate harms ultimately impact on Gypsies and Travellers in everyday life and helps to explain why Gypsies and Travellers conflate their subjective and systemic experiences of hate harms. The hate speech against Gypsies and Travellers in the media article’s comments and the regulation of their daily lives by the police cohere as one experience of hate for Gypsies and Travellers, as evidenced in Chapter 3. These subjective and systemic hate harms are only circumvented when their cultures are appropriated for the benefit of profit and the opportunity provided for non-Gypsy/Travellers to enjoy their apparent freedoms. Thus, Gypsies and Travellers simultaneously experience subjective, systemic and symbolic hate harms. To this point I have identified some of the negative impacts of hate harms on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ social identities in contemporary society. In doing so, I have identified the negation of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences and histories, their assignment as homogenous, vulnerable communities who fail as consumers and are aligned

84

Z. JAMES

to narrowly defined racial identities, as problematic people who corrupt neoliberal capitalist norms of freedom. To develop this analysis further it now behoves me to consider the impact of hate harms on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ personal identities in late modernity. Following a critical hate studies approach, Gypsies’ and Travellers’ personal identities are considered here as built upon their interaction with the contemporary social world within the dominant paradigm of neoliberal capitalism. Within that context, which lacks any effective symbolic order, subjective experience manifests as insecurity and a sense of loss. For Gypsies and Travellers their lived experiences of hate harms directly impact their subjectivity and thus their personal identities. A combination of the breadth of exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers that is at least social, economic and political (Howard and Vajda 2017), their hateful ill-treatment, the regulation of their lives, and their subsequent guarded nature has augmented the harms of hate for them as they have been unable to access support for internal issues and problems that may otherwise have been addressed, resolved or at least recognised as valid. In order to flourish as people we all require recognition of our needs for love, solidarity and respect (Yar 2012; Honneth 1996). Positive interpersonal relationships provide the love we need in our lives as they recognise our unique subjectivity. When those relationships are disrupted by internal familial tensions, such as domestic abuse, or by disavowal of aspects or our unique characteristics, such as our sexual or gender identities, we are not recognised as deserving of love and our capacity to flourish is denied. With limited access to social support mechanisms beyond their own communities’ borders, Gypsies and Travellers have had to challenge such issues largely alone (Kerrigan 2020). Indeed, given the negative social identities ascribed to Gypsies and Travellers it is relatively common for Gypsies and Travellers to negate their own identities when traversing the social world, particularly in order to access education, work and health provision, as noted previously in Chapter 3. While the hiding of one’s own, or one’s children’s identities is intended as a protective mechanism, it may actually serve to harm them as their personal identity is placed in conflict with their social identity. The outcomes of this can be tragic, as noted in Chapter 3 reported suicide rates of Gypsies and Travellers are high (Cemlyn et al. 2009). Existing rates of mental ill-health are also comparatively high for Gypsies and Travellers (Traveller Movement 2019) which is commonly attributed to their accommodation circumstances (Greenfields and Brindley 2016). That, in the context

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

85

of the designation of negative social identities to Gypsies and Travellers, implies their own irresponsibility for living differently to the sedentarist norm. It is therefore clear that Gypsies’ and Travellers’ personal identities are particularly challenged in late modernity. Marcus (2019: 38–39) refers to the young Gypsy and Traveller women in her research having to straddle two cultures, ‘with their personal identity liminally entangled betwixt and between’. She refers to research by Heaslip (2015) which argued that Gypsies and Travellers were vulnerable both within and outside their own communities. Like me, Marcus (2019) questions the capacity of notions of vulnerability to explain this exclusion, but acknowledges that the outcomes of this sense of exclusion are damaging to Gypsies’ and Travellers’ personal identities. The finding that Gypsies and Travellers in Heaslip’s (2015: 3–4; Marcus 2019: 38) research experienced a sense of ‘split in one’s identity’, similar to Marcus’s (2019) finding of entanglement of identity for Gypsies and Travellers evidences the harms caused by negative social identities on their sense of self and thus their personal identities. Likewise Greenfields (2018: 238) refers to, ‘some Romani and Traveller people, attempting to negotiate their way between competing value systems and conflicting cultural norms or expectations, [that] leads to many in those communities paying an excessively high psychosocial price’. Using a transcendental materialist approach to subjectivity allows us to draw out this issue. As Gypsies and Travellers develop their sense of self in the social world they form their identities, as we all do, according to the cultural expectations and norms of daily life that are relatively fixed by their upbringing within a set of traditional ways of living and practices that they are compelled to conform to, as Heaslip’s (2015) research participants stated. However, as the social world opens up to Gypsies and Travellers and they must function in the wider world that frames their social identities negatively so their personal subjective experiences are re-shaped as they have to cognitively manage their subjugated position (Fanon 1967; Howard and Vajda 2017) and are unable to live according to the symbolic order that framed their upbringing. This tension causes them what might be referred to as ‘personal troubles’ that have not been resolved as ‘public troubles’ (Wright Mills 1959: 8) as neoliberal capitalism lacks an effective symbolic order within which to address such conflict. Racism and sedentarism therefore continue to play out in the personal and social experiences of Gypsies and Travellers within neoliberal capitalism as their resolution would not serve the interests of capital, and would likely make visible the

86

Z. JAMES

economic exclusion at its core. Post-war social justice movements, and increasingly new ones (for discussion see, for example, Andrews 2018; Kendi 2017), identified the economic exclusion of capitalism and the need for discussions of political economy to deconstruct racist tropes and norms. However, the pervasive nature of neoliberalism infused identity politics in the late twentieth century that separated different groups of people according to their race, gender, sexuality, gender identity and class, instead of bringing them together in solidarity as victims of economic policy and practice that served the interests of the wealthy elite rather than the majority (Winlow et al. 2017). Despite attempts by some scholars to integrate the intersectionality of identity within understandings of hate (Chakraborti and Garland 2012), few (Meyer 2014) have moved beyond categorising hateful identities, however intersectional, to acknowledge the impact of neoliberal norms on hate victimisation. Likewise the hate crime agenda in the UK has largely followed this approach of separation and division rather than solidarity. Thus the harms of hate have permeated all aspects of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lives, their social and personal identities.

Conclusion In this chapter I have endeavoured to draw out the impact of the harms of hate on the social and personal identities of Gypsies and Travellers. In order to do so I have utilised a critical hate studies approach that acknowledges how neoliberal capitalism functions in contemporary society by embedding competitive individualism into all aspects of our lives. Hall and Winlow (2015: 108) note that although we all have an innate knowledge of our own subjective relationship with the neoliberal capitalist socioeconomic system, and its (and our) associated harms, ‘it is known particularly well, and felt experientially, by those who are pushed into abject positions in capitalism’s social constellation’. Gypsies and Travellers experience hate harms in their everyday lives that are often brutal, physical assaults and may be offensive incidents and language perpetrated by bigots who have aligned themselves to prejudicial discourse that scapegoat’s black and minority communities for society’s ills. In such circumstances Gypsies’ and Travellers’ capacity to identify the explicit subjective harm caused and the position of the perpetrator provides that experience of victimisation with some implicit validity and related evidence to address it. However, the common ill-treatment of Gypsies and Travellers, discrimination against them, marginalisation and subjugation, their criminalisation

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

87

and the daily microaggressions they experience require an objective stance to be properly seen and acknowledged as harmful. In order to perceive these harms effectively it is necessary to appreciate how neoliberal capitalism has embedded its norms in all our lives and placed us all in competition with each other, lacking solidarity and prepared to elbow others out of our way to reach our goals. In these circumstances, it is clear that the harms of hate are ubiquitous, as are those who commit hateful acts and behaviours. In this chapter I have shown how that circumstance has created an environment wherein Gypsies’ and Travellers’ social identities are drawn negatively, through processes of exclusion and inclusion. Further I have shown the harmful subjectivity of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ personal identities. To recognise these circumstances allows the opportunity for recognition of the harms of hate for Gypsies and Travellers throughout their personal and social lives.

References Achim, V. (2004). Roma in Romanian History. Budapest: Central European University Press. Alliance Against Anti-Gypsyism. (2016). Anti-Gypsyism – A Reference Paper. Available at: www.antigysyism.eu. Accessed on: 17/04/17. Andrews, K. (2018). Back to Black: Retelling Black Radicalism for the 21st Century. London: Zed Books. Appiah, K. A. (2010). The Ethics of Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Aradau, C. (2004). The Perverse Politics of Four-Letter Words: Risk and Pity in the Securitisation of Human Trafficking. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33(2), 251–277. Badiou, A. (2001). Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil. London: Verso. Bahn, J. (2015, August 17). Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: Has the European Union’s Human Rights Preservation Initiative(s) Failed the Roma Population? A Look Back on the Last Fifteen Years of Directives, Declarations, and Human Rights Treaties. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2645800. Accessed on: 23/06/20. Bancroft, A. (2005). Roma and Gypsy-Travellers in Europe: Modernity, Race, Space and Exclusion. Aldershot: Ashgate. Bauman, Z. (2004). Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Belton, B. (2013). ‘Weak Power’: Community and Identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(2), 282–297.

88

Z. JAMES

Beluschi-Fabeni, G., Leggio, D. V., & Matras, Y. (2019). A Lost Generation? Racialization and Stalled Social Mobility in a Group of Roma Migrants in the UK. Migration Studies, 7 (2), 180–200. Bernier, K. (2017). The Harms of Hate: Comparing the Neighbouring Practices and Interactions of Hate Crime Victims, Non-Hate Crime Victims and NonVictims. International Review of Victimology, 23(2), 179–201. Bowling, B. (1999). Violent Racism: Victimisation, Policing and Social Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books. Brown, P., Scullion, L., & Martin, P. (2013). Migrant Roma in the United Kingdom: Population Size and Experiences of Local Authorities and Partners: Final Report. Manchester: University of Salford. Burke, M. (2009). ‘Tinkers’ Synge and the Cultural History of the Irish Traveller. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cemlyn, S., Greenfields, M., Burnett, S., Matthews, Z., & Whitwell, C. (2009). Inequalities Experienced by Gypsy and Traveller Communities: A Review. London: EHRC. Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2012). Reconceptualizing Hate Crime Victimization Through the Lens of Vulnerability and ‘Difference’. Theoretical Criminology, 16(4), 499–514. Council of Europe. (2011). The Council of Europe: Protecting the Rights of Roma. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Cunneen, C. (2019). Youth Justice and Racialization: Comparative Reflections. Theoretical Criminology, 24(3), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/136248 0619889039. Cunningham, J. (2002). A Fair Hearing. The Guardian. Available at: https:// www.theguardian.com/society/2002/nov/06/guardiansocietysupplement. Accessed on: 12/12/19. Davies, P. (2018). Feminist Voices, Gender and Victimisation. In S. Walklate (Ed.), Handbook of Victims and Victimology. Abingdon: Routledge. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical Race Theory (3rd ed.). New York: NYU Press. Duggan, L. (2003). The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press. European Commission. (2019). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Report on the Implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies—2019. Accessed at: https://eur-lex.eur opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0406. Accessed on: 09/04/20. Eve, C. (2020). Large Group of Travellers Told to Leave Park in Plymouth. Plymouth Live. Accessed at: https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

89

news/plymouth-news/police-travellers-site-caravan-party-4231922. Accessed on: 16/06/20. Fanon, F. (1967). The Wretched of the Earth. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester: Zero Books. Goldberg, D. T. (2015). Are We All Postracial Yet? Cambridge: Polity Press. Greenfields, M. (2018). Cultural Transmission in a Welcoming State. In D. Allen, M. Greenfields, & D. Smith (Eds.), Transnational Resilience and Change: Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Strategies of Survival and Adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Greenfields, M., & Brindley, M. (2016). Impact of Insecure Accommodation and the Living Environment on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Health. The Traveller Movement. Hall, S., & Winlow, S. (2015). Revitalizing Criminological Theory: Towards a New Ultra-Realism. London: Routledge. Hancock, I. (2004). Romanies and the Holocaust: A Reevaluation and an Overview. In D. Stone (Ed.), The Historiography of the Holocaust. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Heaslip, V. (2015). Experience of Vulnerability from a Gypsy/Travelling Perspective: A Phenomenological Study. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth. Hindmoor, A. (2018). What’s Left Now? The History and Future of Social Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Honneth, A. (1996). The Struggle for Recognition. Cambridge: Polity Press. Howard, K. (2006). Constructing the Irish of Britain: Ethnic Recognition and the 2001 UK Censuses. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(1), 104–123. Howard, J., & Vajda, V. (2017). Navigating Power and Intersectionality to Address Inequality. IDS Working Paper. 2017:504. ISBN: 978-1-78118-4127. Iganski, P. (2008). Hate Crime and the City. Bristol: Policy Press. Ilan, J. (2019). Cultural Criminology: The Time Is Now. Critical Criminology, 27, 5–20. James, Z. (2015). Hate Crimes Against Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in Europe. In N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi, & J. Grieve (Eds.), The International Handbook of Hate Crime. Abingdon: Routledge. James, Z. (2020a). Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Lived Experience of Harm: A Critical Hate Studies Perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 24(3), 502–520. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1362480620911914. James, Z. (2020b, forthcoming). Roma, Gypsies and Travellers as a Community of Difference, Really? Challenging Inclusivity as an Anti-Racist Approach. Critical Romani Studies.

90

Z. JAMES

James, Z., & McBride, K. (2018, December 4–7). Critical Hate Studies: A Theoretical Perspective. In Australia and New Zealand Criminology Conference. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne. Johnston, A. (2008). Žižek’s Ontology: A Transcendental Materialist Theory of Subjectivity. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Kendi, I. X. (2017). Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America. London: The Bodley Head. Kenrick, D. (1999). The Gypsies During the Second World War: In the Shadow of the Swastika. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Kerrigan, C. (2020). The Shame of Shaming—Time for Honest Conversations. The Traveller Movement Blog. Accessed at: https://travellermovement.org. uk/blog/9-blog/132-the-shame-of-shaming-time-for-honest-conversations. Accessed on: 18/06/20. Kóczé, A. (2018). Race, Migration and Neoliberalism: Distorted Notions of Romani Migration in European Public Discourses. Social Identities, 24(4), 459–473. Kóczé, A., & Rövid, M. (2012). Pro-Roma Global Civil Society: Acting for, with or Instead of Roma? In M. Kaldor & H. L. Moore (Eds.), Global Civil Society 2012: Ten Years of Critical Reflection. Gordonsville: Palgrave Macmillan. Kostadinova, G. (2011). Minority Rights as a Normative Framework for Addressing the Situation of Roma in Europe. Oxford Development Studies, 39(2), 163–183. Marcus, G. (2019). Gypsy and Traveller Girls: Silence, Agency and Power. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Martin, G. (2002). New Age Travellers: Uproarious or Uprooted? Sociology, 36(3), 723–735. Mason, G. (2015). Legislating Against Hate. In N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi, et al. (Eds.), The International Handbook of Hate Crime. Abingdon: Routledge. Mason-Bish, H., & Trickett, L. (2019). Introduction to the Special Issue on the Politics of Hate: Community, Societal and Global Responses. Crime, Law and Social Change, 71, 241–243. McBride, K. (2019). A Critical Analysis of Harms Experienced by Transgender Individuals. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Plymouth. Messerschmidt, J. (1997). Crime as Structured Action: Gender, Race, Class, and Crime in the Making. London: Sage. Meyer, D. (2014). Resisting Hate Crime Discourse: Queer and Intersectional Challenges to Neoliberal Hate Crime Laws. Critical Criminology, 22(1), 113– 125. Moran, M. (2015). Identity and Capitalism. London: Sage.

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

91

Nettleton, S., & Burrows, R. (2008). Mortgage Debt, Insecure Home Ownership and Health: An Exploratory Analysis. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20(5), 731–753. Okely, J. (2014). Recycled (mis)representations: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma Treated as Objects, Rarely Subjects. People, Place and Policy, 8(1), 65–85. Perry, B. (2001). In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes. New York: Routledge. Perry, B. (2003). Hate Crime: A Reader. New York: Routledge. Perry, B. (2006). Missing Pieces: The Paucity of Hate Crime Scholarship. In W. S. DeKeseredy & B. Perry (Eds.), Advancing Critical Criminology. Oxford: Lexington Books. Perry, B. (2009). Hate Crime: Issues and Perspectives. General Editor of 5 Volume set. Westport, CT: Praeger. Perry, B., & Scrivens, R. (2017). The Maturation of Hate Crime Scholarship. In P. Bean (Ed.), Hate Crime: Critical Concepts in Criminology. London: Routledge. Phillips, C., & Bowling, B. (2008). Racism, Ethnicity and Criminology: Developing Minority Perspectives. In B. Spalek (Ed.), Ethnicity and Crime: A Reader. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Phillips, C., & Bowling, B. (2012). Ethnicities, Racism, Crime, and Criminal Justice. In A. Leibling, C. Maruna, & L. McAra (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillips, C., Earle, R., Parmar, A., & Smith, D. (2019). Dear British Criminology: Where Has All the Race and Racism Gone? Theoretical Criminology. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1362480619880345. Raymen, T. (2019). The Enigma of Social Harm and the Barrier of Liberalism: Why Zemiology Needs a Theory of the Good. Justice, Power and Resistance, 3(1), 133–162. Raymen, T., & Kuldova, T. (forthcoming). Clarifying Ultra-Realism: A Response to Wood et al. Continental Thought and Theory. Raymen, T., & Smith, O. (2019). Deviant Leisure: A Critical Criminological Perspective for the Twenty First Century. Critical Criminology, 27 (1), 115– 130. Rowe, L., & Goodman, S. (2014). ‘A Stinking Filthy Race of People Inbred with Criminality’: A Discourse Analysis of Prejudicial Talk About Gypsies and Travellers. Romani Studies, 24(1), 25–42. Schweppe, J., & Walters, M. (Eds.). (2016). The Globalization of Hate: Internationalizing Hate Crime? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Taylor, B. (2014). Another Darkness, Another Dawn: A History of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. London: Reaktion Books.

92

Z. JAMES

The Cottage Co. (2020). Owl Cabin and Romany Caravan. The Cottage Co. Accessed at: https://www.cottage-holiday-wales.co.uk/romany-caravanwales. Accessed on: 24/04/20. Themelis, S. (2015). The Time of the Roma in Times of Crisis: Where Has European Neoliberal Capitalism Failed? Ethnicities, 16(3), 432–451. Thompson, N., & Woodger, D. (2018). ‘I Hope the River Floods’: Everyday Hatred Against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities. GATEHerts Report. Traveller Movement. (2016a). Briefing: Hate Crime, Discrimination and the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma Communities. London: Traveller Movement Report. Traveller Movement. (2016b). Discrimination Experienced by Gypsies, Travellers and Roma: Results from the 2016 Survey. London: Traveller Movement Report. Traveller Movement. (2019). The Traveller Movement—Policy Briefing Addressing Mental Health and Suicide Among Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities in England. London: Traveller Movement Report. UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (2016). Concluding Observations on the Combined Twenty-First to Twenty-Third Periodic Reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United Nations. Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/icerd-_conclu ding_observations.pdf. Accessed on: 02/03/17. van Baar, H. (2011). Europe’s Romaphobia: Problematization, Securitization, Nomadization. Society and Space, 29, 203–212. Walklate, S. (2011). Reframing Criminal Victimisation: Finding a Place for Vulnerability and Resilience. Theoretical Criminology, 15(2), 179–194. Walters, M. A. (2011). A General Theories of Hate Crime? Strain, doing Difference and Self Control. Critical Criminology, 19(4), 313–330. Watkinson, D., McIlvaney, M., & Johnson, C. (2020). Homelessness as It Relates to Gypsies and Travellers. In M. Willers & C. Johnson (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law. London: Legal Action Group. Webster, C. (2008). Marginalized White Ethnicity, Race and Crime. Theoretical Criminology, 12(3), 293–312. Wigerfelt, B., & Wigerfelt, A. S. (2015). Anti-Gypsyism in Sweden: Roma’s and Travellers’ Experiences of Bias Motivated Crime. Internet Journal of Criminology. ISSN: 2045-6743. Willers, M., & Johnson, C. (Eds.). (2020). Gypsy and Traveller Law. London: Legal Action Group. Winlow, S., Hall, S., & Treadwell, J. (2017). The Rise of the Right: English Nationalism and the Transformation of Working-Class Politics. Bristol: Policy Press.

4

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT HATE

93

Wood, M. A., Anderson, B., & Richards, I. (2020). Breaking Down the PseudoPacification Process: Eight Critiques of Ultra-Realist Crime Causation Theory. British Journal of Criminology, 60(3), 642–661. Wright Mills, C. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yar, M. (2012). Critical Criminology, Critical Theory and Social Harm. In S. Hall & S. Winlow (Eds.), New Directions in Criminological Theory. London: Routledge. Yildiz, C., & De Genova, N. (2018). Un/Free Mobility: Roma Migrants in the European Union. Social Identities, 24(4), 425–441. Žižek, S. (2002). For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor. London: Verso. Žižek, S. (2006). The Parallax View. London: MIT Press. Žižek, S. (2008). Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador.

CHAPTER 5

Conclusion

Abstract To conclude the book this chapter provides a summary of its preceding chapters. It therefore brings together the core argument that the book presents which is that a real understanding of hate against Gypsies and Travellers can only be effectively realised by taking a critical view that examines its harms and to do so it is necessary to examine the context within which those harms occur as well as how we subjectively experience them. Keywords Hate harms · Neoliberal capitalism · Critical hate studies

When I started writing this book the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in the locking down of many countries, including in the UK. People were told to stay in their homes and workplaces were closed as people were required to work from home. International travel was largely stopped, travel and tourism paused and industry abated. As I finish writing, those lockdown measures have begun easing. When the lockdowns began there was much talk of the capacity of lockdown to give a different perspective to our lives and an opportunity to think about how we function, live and work. In the UK there was a significant concern for and recognition of the most marginalised within society and capacity was provided for protection of people who were homeless, alone © The Author(s) 2020 Z. James, The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers, Palgrave Hate Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3_5

95

96

Z. JAMES

and unwell. In that environment Gypsies and Travellers were highlighted as communities who would be hard-hit by the virus and some control agencies took heed of these concerns and paused evictions of mobile Gypsies and Travellers as well as ensuring some appropriate resources were provided to them. There was an opportunity perceived in that momentary pause in our daily lives to consider how we acknowledge those people with the least access to services and support, alongside recognition of those who serve the most basic needs of us all, the key workers who provide our food, health and welfare. However, as we now come out of lockdown, those early aspirations for reflection and change have been largely forgotten, despite the concomitant distress expressed regarding racism and racialisation that the death of George Floyd in the USA engendered in the UK. Arguments for easing lockdown in the UK have regularly oriented around the need to protect the economy, to get the UK up-and-running so to speak, with little discussion and debate about how we can challenge the status quo, look to different ways of thinking about how we live, to build on the social benefits of community and solidarity that briefly united people, despite the harrowing circumstances around them and tragic loss of so many lives. I see this as a lost moment already. Despite the efforts made to support them in the moment, Gypsies and Travellers have suffered greatly during the pandemic as a consequence of the social, economic and political marginalisation they have experienced throughout their lives. In this book I have endeavoured to identify how the harms of hate are imbued into that lived experience. As noted in the introduction to the book, I have utilised a critical realist (Bhaskar 1998) approach to research in order to provide an account of the harms of hate. In the first instance I have set out what we already know about Gypsies’ and Travellers’ social positioning in late modernity that has contextualised their experiences of hate. This has allowed me to identify the history of hateful ill-treatment of Gypsies and Travellers that has largely been associated with processes of nomadisation and racialisation, as well as securitisation. Gypsies and Travellers have been perceived as threatening outsiders who have invaded sedentarist spaces. Their nomadism in the UK, both in terms of mobility and culture, has made them both unrestrainable and illusory in wider public perceptions. They have been problematised for not conforming to sedentary society’s understanding of spaces and places as fixed and immobile, while at the same time sedentarists have yearned for the apparent freedom that such mobility provides. One only has to visit the coastlines of the

5

CONCLUSION

97

UK in the summer months to see reams of people escaping to their caravans, campsites or in their mobile homes to stay in locations that require living at close quarters with others and using shared facilities in strikingly similar fashion to Gypsies’ and Travellers’ ways of living. However, when Gypsies and Travellers traverse sedentarist spaces they are considered a nuisance and disruption, a threat to the order of daily life and an uninvited interloper. Alongside the nomadisation of Gypsies and Travellers I have identified how Gypsy and Traveller identities have been framed by their ethnicity through racialising processes. These processes have served to protect traditional Gypsies and Travellers of Romany and Irish heritage, including Welsh and Scottish Travellers, who have gained some protections within equalities legislation. However, racialised discourse has created and augmented a hierarchy within and between communities that is harmful. Showpeople and New Travellers are not protected by equalities legislation and romantic depictions of Romany Gypsies that traditional Gypsies and Travellers rarely live up to result in all Gypsies and Travellers failing to fulfil public perceptions of what a ‘real Gypsy’ is and thus all are considered illegitimate, legislation aside. The tensions created by this between Gypsies and Travellers themselves are destructive of their solidarity and fails to provide them with equal agency. In addition, it augments the sense of distinction between Gypsies and Travellers as a racialised other and the predominantly white sedentarist population. The legislative legacy of the reduction of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ heterogeneous identities to simplistic categorisation based on their mobility and ethnicity is particularly felt in the distinction between equality and planning laws. In planning law the definition of who is, and who is not, a Gypsy or Traveller is based on their mobility, that has been associated with their occupation, and no account is taken of racial identity as per equalities legislation. My tendency here is to write that this is absolutely ridiculous. And it is. The provision of culturally appropriate accommodation to Gypsies and Travellers, be that via social or private means, has oriented around discussions of who should or should not be accommodated depending on their identity. This has occurred in such a way and with so little provision ultimately forthcoming that Gypsies and Travellers have had too little space and place provided for them or with them since their traditional stopping grounds were closed off in the 1960s. The lack of access to accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers that meets their cultural needs and the failure of legislation outlined here has arguably constituted an attempt to assimilate them into sedentarism.

98

Z. JAMES

Having established the recent history of Gypsies and Travellers and their associated identity that provides the empirical context for the book, I have then turned to consider Gypsies’ and Travellers’ actual experiences of hate harms. I have drawn here on my own research and that of others in the area in order to give voice to Gypsies’ and Travellers’ breadth of experiences that they perceive as hateful. A distinguishing feature of my research has been that Gypsies and Travellers conflate their experiences of discrimination with hate crimes and incidents, and therefore I have utilised a theoretical framework to provide sufficient space to truly represent the hateful ill-treatment of Gypsies and Travellers. To do this I have drawn on Žižek’s (2008) concept of violence that has allowed me to consider hate harms that are both subjectively and objectively experienced. The tendency of hate studies has been to focus on subjective hate harms that constitute the hateful crimes, incidences and speech that are readily seen, measured and recorded by researchers. Objective hate harms are those that are less readily visible and require a different stance to see how they function systemically and symbolically. Given that the Gypsies and Travellers whom I spoke to were more troubled by the daily ill-treatment they received from wider society, in the delivery of services, at their work, at the school gate and in health and welfare settings, I felt it essential to shine a light on the systemic hate harms that emerged in these spaces. Further, as my research interrogated the hate harms Gypsies and Travellers had experienced, it became increasingly relevant and important to discuss how symbolic hate harms have been embedded into the norms of contemporary society via neoliberal capitalist discourse to deleterious effect. The subjective hate harms experienced by Gypsies and Travellers are tragic to report. Gypsies and Travellers have suffered significant physical and emotional harms that range from serious physical assault and criminal damage on their homes to extensive online abuse and bullying. Gypsies and Travellers are afraid and feel set apart. They are not just harmed by the open hatred of bigoted perpetrators of hate but also by the fact that they are not supported by those whom they should be able to rely on in a modern Western democratic state. The systemic harms of hate I have set out here evidences the failure of public services to provide appropriate and nuanced services to Gypsies and Travellers. The lack of appropriate accommodation provided to them, the failure of agencies to engage with them to ensure they are protected, educated, kept in good health and provided welfare is appalling. Gypsies and Travellers know

5

CONCLUSION

99

that they are being treated differently but are often fearful of challenging the discrimination they experience and hide their identity or traverse the system as best they can. Ultimately, Gypsies and Travellers suffer social and economic exclusion (as well as spatial exclusion) that has resulted in them having very poor outcomes in relation to welfare, health and education and they are subsequently excluded from knowledge and political engagement. As I have outlined, the systemic hate harms experienced by Gypsies and Travellers are more extensive than the discrimination and social and economic exclusion they suffer. Indeed, the criminalisation of Gypsies and Travellers as a consequence of trespass legislation has reinforced and augmented their marginalisation. With nowhere legitimate to stop and stay due to a lack of accommodation provision and local authorities’ reticence to provide any, Gypsies and Travellers are forced to stop in places that are arguably inappropriate or perceived as such by local sedentary communities. When they do so, the police and local authorities have strong legal powers to evict them and to impound their homes (vehicles) if they fail to move on, despite the fact that they have nowhere to go due to the lack of provision. The systemic hate harm of criminalising Gypsies and Travellers in this way is justified by a neoliberal capitalist rhetoric that places greater value in places than in people, which is itself a symbolic hate harm. In order to draw out the symbolic hate harms Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experience I have identified how the neoliberal capitalist political economy has informed the conditions within which we currently live, and have lived since the 1960s. Neoliberal capitalism has appropriated and reasserted existing structures of power in late modernity to serve the requirements of a free market that needs people to be flexible, adaptable workers and consumers. In this context the costs of welfare and public service provision are minimised and we are responsibilised as autonomous individuals who are supposed to better exist in competition with each other in order to allay the human laziness that would be evoked by state provision. This approach has imbued all aspects of the public services and resulted in the creation of service delivery as a market place wherein public, private and civil society must compete to attain minimal resources. Gypsies and Travellers, while being ideal liberal subjects in one sense by virtue of their culturally nomadic flexibility, do not conform to the needs and requirements of capitalism as they are not inculcated into excessive consumption or adhere to the market principles of home and land ownership. Their marginalisation and subjugation has made their

100

Z. JAMES

lives precarious and insecure and thus placed them in a position where they are subject to the harshest vagaries of managerialism, welfare reform and austerity that neoliberal capitalism has engendered. Gypsies and Travellers are not culturally lazy nor dependent on others, but they have been drawn as such within the discourse of neoliberal capitalism that has augmented their existing marginalisation through racialised discourse. Even those organisations that aim to champion and support Gypsies and Travellers find themselves dragged into a negative dialogue of rights and responsibility that has presented Gypsies and Travellers as vulnerable and weak. They are by no means weak. Their very existence evidences their resilience and sustainable cultures. However, the competitive individualism of neoliberal capitalist norms has created an environment within which Gypsies and Travellers have been placed in opposition to each other, often based on notions of racial authenticity, that simply serves the divide and rule socioeconomics of late modernity and augments biologically determinist notions of identity. Having established the history and identities of Gypsies and Travellers and the harms of hate they have experienced in late modernity, the penultimate chapter of the book provides an explanation for those harms and considers their impacts on the social and personal identities of Gypsies and Travellers. By using a critical hate studies approach that is informed by ultra-realist criminology it has been possible to further draw back the obfuscating veil of neoliberal capitalist norms to appreciate some of the more nuanced ways in which Gypsies and Travellers have been affected by hate. The critical hate studies perspective provides a critical view of hate in late modernity that helps to explain both the subjective and objective harms of hate. It does so in two ways. Firstly it sets out how the neoliberal capitalist context of our daily lives produces hierarchies and hatefulness. Secondly it identifies how our individual subjectivities develop within that context that fails to deliver an effective symbolic order to anchor them. Therefore the perspective is able to offer a critical explanation for the breath of hate harms apparent in Gypsies’ and Travellers’ contemporary lives from microaggressions to serious physical offences. The former occurs as a consequence of the insecurity of everyday life that places us all in competition with each other and which is most felt on the margins of society, particularly in the precariat (Standing 2014). The latter occurs as a consequence of individuals’ subjective search for meaning in their lives, wherein they alight on scapegoats to redress their fears. In each of these scenarios our gaze is focused on those immediately around us, within our

5

CONCLUSION

101

subjective experience. It is necessary for us to take an objective stance to see the failure of neoliberal capitalism to provide any sense of order or ethics in our daily lives and the bearing that has on both our personal and social identities. In using the critical hate studies perspective I have been able to elucidate the impacts of hate harms on the social and personal identities of Gypsies and Travellers. Gypsies’ and Travellers’ social identities, that they align themselves to or are aligned to, have been negatively derived and sustained historically and contemporarily. The negation of their cultures and racialised identities and the associated devolution of their identities to simplistic categories of race and mobility, have failed to acknowledge the racism and prejudice Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experience. Further, the hierarchies of legitimacy between Gypsy and Traveller communities, as well as between Gypsies and Travellers and wider white sedentarist society, have been augmented. Within neoliberal capitalism Gypsies’ and Travellers’ identities are either denigrated as worthless or appropriated for profit. The human rights agenda, despite its apparent promise, has failed to deliver the gains Gypsies’ and Travellers’ need to attain any sort of equity of outcomes in their daily lives. The negative social identities of Gypsies and Travellers have had consequences for their personal identities too. So, Gypsies and Travellers struggle to subjectively console their cultural norms and expectations with the norms and expectations of neoliberal capitalism. Their subjectivity is harmed by the dissonance between their personal and social identities. This has multiple consequences for Gypsy and Traveller individuals and communities who suffer significant mental ill-health and elevated rates of suicide. The harms of hate reach into the personal and social lives of Gypsies and Travellers, to the core of their identity formation and their social engagement. In this book I have provided an initial account of the harms of hate for Gypsies and Travellers. I have attempted to fully represent the conversations, interviews, surveys and emails I have had with Gypsies and Travellers over the last twenty-five years. I have only managed to skirt the surface of discussion here and feel that there is a greater story to be told. Indeed, I have not delved into the losses Gypsies and Travellers have had to face over time as welfare services have rummaged into their lives, placing their families at risk and removing their homes and children. Likewise I have not discussed the exploitation of the spaces they do live within, the corrupt landlords and their over-zealous use of security mechanisms. We need to discuss in the future the impact of punitive

102

Z. JAMES

criminal justice processes on Gypsies and Travellers who are subject to excessive policing as offenders and are disproportionately imprisoned. Likewise the role of academia in problematising Gypsies and Travellers requires scrutiny, especially in light of the competitive nature of research funding and publication. That discussion needs to be held in light of governmental research and private research companies, who create reports and guidance based on multiple assumptions about Gypsies and Travellers and do not acknowledge the complexity of their cultures, experiences or heritage. The reach of neoliberal capitalist norms is comprehensive and complex and future research needs to identify how that reach manifests in order to find any sort of way forward for policy and practice. The failure of neoliberal capitalism to provide a symbolic order in our lives, an ethical framework or approach to allow human flourishing, means that identifying any sort of comprehensive approach to resolving the harms of hate is extremely difficult. The recent moment of solidarity against racism across Western democracies is a positive step forward, but how that metes out is unclear. Historic moments of solidarity have been powerful forces for Roma, Gypsies and Travellers, not least the telling of the Porrajmos by Jewish scholars. However, true solidarity can only be found through recognition of all those people existing in the precariat and their differential experiences through acknowledgement of the racialised and socioeconomic circumstances that have placed them there and now keep them there. Thus we must see how neoliberal capitalism has functioned to sustain social hierarchies and has exacerbated them, while also being flexible to negate them in the pursuit of profit or to maintain its organisational primacy. We have been lulled into acceptance of neoliberal capitalism as the only way in which we can socially organise contemporary society, and as I said at the start of this chapter, even in the midst of a global pandemic its perpetuity is unquestioned. As I have evidenced in this book, the harms of hate that such a system augments, engenders and exacerbates are extensive and reach into the lives of Gypsies and Travellers every day in every way. In order to identify the harms of hate against Gypsies and Travellers I have found the use of new theoretical tools extremely useful. Having worked in academia for a long time and written many times about Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences of policing, accommodation and hate, I have not previously been able to elaborate their experiences as comprehensively as I have now felt able. It would have been easy to fall into the trap of aligning myself to a traditional criminologists’ view of the world

5

CONCLUSION

103

and hold to it, but in my experience good academics make every effort to challenge the status quo, to view the world from a critical distance and question themselves in the process. I hope that in this book I have done Gypsies’ and Travellers’ justice by illuminating the harms of hate they have experienced in contemporary society.

References Bhaskar, R. (1998). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norries (Eds.), Critical Realism: Essential Readings. Abingdon: Routledge. Standing, G. (2014). A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Žižek, S. (2008). Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador.

Bibliography

Abrams, D., Swift, H., & Houston, D. (2018). Developing a National Barometer of Prejudice and Discrimination in Britain. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Achim, V. (2004). Roma in Romanian History. Budapest: Central European University Press. Acton, T. (2010). Theorising Mobility: Migration, Nomadism, and the Social Reconstruction of Ethnicity. In Romani Mobilities in Europe Conference. University of Oxford. Acton, T., Rostas, I., & Ryder, A. (2014). The Roma in Europe: Mechanisms of Power and Social Justice. In A. Ryder, S. Cemlyn, & A. Acton (Eds.), Hearing the voice of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities. Bristol: Policy Press. Allen, D., Greenfields, M., & Smith, D. (Eds.). (2018). Transnational Resilience and Change: Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Strategies of Survival and Adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Alliance Against Anti-Gypsyism. (2016). Anti-Gypsyism – A Reference Paper. Available at: www.antigysyism.eu. Accessed on: 17/04/17. Andrews, K. (2018). Back to Black: Retelling Black Radicalism for the 21st Century. London: Zed Books. Appiah, K. A. (2010). The Ethics of Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Aradau, C. (2004). The Perverse Politics of Four-Letter Words: Risk and Pity in the Securitisation of Human Trafficking. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33(2), 251–277. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 Z. James, The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers, Palgrave Hate Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3

105

106

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Badiou, A. (2001). Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil. London: Verso. Bahn, J. (2015, August 17). Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: Has the European Union’s Human Rights Preservation Initiative(s) Failed the Roma Population? A Look Back on the Last Fifteen Years of Directives, Declarations, and Human Rights Treaties. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2645800. Accessed on: 23/06/20. Balibar, É. (2009). Foreword. In N. Sigona & N. Trehan (Eds.), Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilisation and the Neoliberal Order. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Bancroft, A. (2000). ‘No Interest in Land’: Legal and Spatial Enclosure of GypsyTravellers in Britain. Space and Polity, 4, 41–56. Bancroft, A. (2005). Roma and Gypsy-Travellers in Europe: Modernity, Race, Space and Exclusion. Aldershot: Ashgate. Battaglini, M., Burchardt, T., Obolenskaya, P., & Vizard, P. (2018). Experience of Multiple Disadvantage Among Roma, Gypsy and Traveller Children in England and Wales (CASE Papers/208). Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE. Bauman, Z. (2004). Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Belton, B. (2013). ‘Weak Power’: Community and Identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(2), 282–297. Belton, B. A. (2005). Gypsy and Traveller Ethnicity: The Social Generation of an Ethnic Phenomenon. London: Routledge. Beluschi-Fabeni, G., Leggio, D. V., & Matras, Y. (2019). A Lost Generation? Racialization and Stalled Social Mobility in a Group of Roma Migrants in the UK. Migration Studies, 7 (2), 180–200. Bereford, P. (2017, October 9). House of Commons Hansard Debates. Accessed at: www.hansard.parliament.uk. Accessed on: 22/03/20. Bernier, K. (2017). The Harms of Hate: Comparing the Neighbouring Practices and Interactions of Hate Crime Victims, Non-Hate Crime Victims and NonVictims. International Review of Victimology, 23(2), 179–201. Bhaskar, R. (1998). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norries (Eds.), Critical Realism: Essential Readings. Abingdon: Routledge. Bhopal, K., & Myers, M. (2008). Insiders, Outsiders and Others: Gypsies and Identity. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bowling, B. (1999). Violent Racism: Victimisation, Policing and Social Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brah, A. (1996). Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London: Routledge. Brearley, M. (2001). The Persecution of Gypsies in Europe. American Behavioural Scientist, 45(4), 588–599.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

107

Brown, P., & Niner, P. (2009). Assessing Local Housing Authorities’ Progress in Meeting the Accommodation Needs of Gypsy and Traveller Communities in England. London: EHRC. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books. Burke, M. (2009). ‘Tinkers’ Synge and the Cultural History of the Irish Traveller. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bucke, T., & James, Z. (1998). Trespass and Protest: Policing Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. London: Home Office. Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Cadger, B. (2015). I Witness: The UNCRC in the United Kingdom Young Gypsy/Traveller’s Voices. Angus: Article 12 in Scotland. Casciani, D. (2004). Prejudice Defeated Gypsy Reform. BBC News. Accessed at: www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3704167.stm. Accessed on: 21/10/04. Cemlyn, S., Greenfields, M., Burnett, S., Matthews, Z., & Whitwell, C. (2009). Inequalities Experienced by Gypsy and Traveller Communities: A Review. London: EHRC. Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2012). Reconceptualizing Hate Crime Victimization Through the Lens of Vulnerability and ‘Difference’. Theoretical Criminology, 16(4), 499–514. Christie, N. (1986). The Ideal Victim. In E. A. Fattah (Ed.), From Crime Policy to Victim Policy. London: Macmillan. Clark, C. (1997). “New Age” Travellers: Identity, Sedentarism and Social Security. In T. Acton (Ed.), Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Clark, C. (2001). ‘Invisible Lives’: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. Clark, C. (2006). Who Are the Gypsies and Travellers of Britain? In C. Clark & M. Greenfields (Eds.), Here to Stay: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Clark, C., & Greenfields, M. (Eds.). (2006). Here to Stay: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Cloke, P. (2004). Rurality and Racialised Others: Out of Place in the Countryside? In N. Chakraborti & J. Garland (Eds.), Rural Racism. Collumpton: Willan. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee. Council of Europe. (2011). The Council of Europe: Protecting the Rights of Roma. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of Europe. (2020). 8 April International Roma Day: Step Up Human Rights Protection for Roma and Guarantee Their Access to Vital Services

108

BIBLIOGRAPHY

During COVID-19 Pandemic. Joint Statement by Marija Pejˇcinovi´c Buri´c, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and Helena Dalli, European Commissioner for Equality. Accessed at: https://search.coe.int/directorate_ of_communications/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016809e 1d95#globalcontainer. Accessed on: 09/04/20. Cresswell, T. (2006). On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. London: Routledge. Cressy, D. (2018). Gypsies: An English History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crown Prosecution Service. (2017). Racist and Religious Hate Crime—Prosecution Guidance. Available at: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racistand-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance. Accessed on: 01/02/19. Cullen, S., Hayes, P., & Hughes, L. (2008). Good Practice Guide: Working with Housed Gypsies and Travellers. London: Shelter. Cunneen, C. (2019). Youth Justice and Racialization: Comparative Reflections. Theoretical Criminology, 24(3), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/136248 0619889039. Cunningham, J. (2002). A Fair Hearing. The Guardian. Available at: https:// www.theguardian.com/society/2002/nov/06/guardiansocietysupplement. Accessed on: 12/12/19. Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2017). The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. London: Verso. Davies, P. (2018). Feminist Voices, Gender and Victimisation. In S. Walklate (Ed.), Handbook of Victims and Victimology. Abingdon: Routledge. Davies, W. (2017). The Limits of Neoliberalism. London: Sage. de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. London: University of California Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: The Athlone Press. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical Race Theory (3rd ed.). New York: NYU Press. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2015). Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. London: DCLG. Donzelot, J. (1997). The Policing of Families. London: The John Hopkins Press. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Purity and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Duggan, L. (2003). The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press. EHRC. (2009). Gypsies and Traveller: Simple Solutions for Living Together. London: EHRC. EHRC. (2016). England’s Most Disadvantaged Groups: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. London: EHRC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

109

EHRC. (2019). Is Britain Fairer? The State of Equality and Human Rights 2018. London: EHRC. Ellis, G., & McWhirter, C. (2008). Land-Use and Planning and TravellerGypsies: Towards Non-Prejudicial Practice. Planning, Practice and Research, 23(1), 77–79. Erfani-Ghettani, R. (2012). Localism, Populism and the Fight Against Sites. Available at: http://www.irr.org.uk/news/localism-populism-and-the-fightagainst-sites/. Accessed on: 15/10/15. European Commission. (2019). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Report on the Implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies—2019. Accessed at: https://eur-lex.eur opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0406. Accessed on: 09/04/20. Eve, C. (2020). Large Group of Travellers Told to Leave Park in Plymouth. Plymouth Live. Accessed at: https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/ news/plymouth-news/police-travellers-site-caravan-party-4231922. Accessed on: 16/06/20. Fanon, F. (1967). The Wretched of the Earth. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Firth, R. (2013). Extermination of a People Through Destruction of a Way of Life. Travellers Times. Accessed at: www.travellerstimes.org.uk. Accessed on: 28/03/13. Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester: Zero Books. Foley, A. (2010). Trailers and Tribulations: Crime Deviance and Justice in Gypsy and Traveller Communities. Ph.D. thesis, Cardiff University. Foucault, M. (1975/1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Fraser, A. (1992). The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell. Frazer, H., & Marlier, E. (2011). Promoting the Social Inclusion of Roma. EU: Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Gheorge, N. (1997). The Social Construction of Romani Identity. In T. Acton (Ed.), Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Giddens, A. (1985). A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Goldberg, D. (2005). Racial Americanization. In K. Murji & J. Solomos (Eds.), Racialization: Studies in Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldberg, D. T. (2015). Are We All Postracial Yet? Cambridge: Polity Press. Goodwin, K., & Leslie, C. (2018). ‘We’re Endangered’: The Glasgow Showpeople Battling Eviction. The Guardian. Accessed at: https://www.thegua

110

BIBLIOGRAPHY

rdian.com/cities/2018/jul/09/glasgow-scotland-showpeople-govan-regene ration-photo-essay. Accessed on: 21/06/20. Greenfields, M. (2006). Gypsies, Travellers and Legal Matters. In C. Clark & M. Greenfields (Eds.), Here to Stay: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Greenfields, M. (2010). Settlement and Anti-Gypsyism: ‘If You Know Someone Hates You from the Start, You Puts Up the Barrier’. In Romani Mobilities in Europe Conference. University of Oxford. Greenfields, M. (2018). Cultural Transmission in a Welcoming State. In D. Allen, M. Greenfields, & D. Smith (Eds.), Transnational Resilience and Change: Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Strategies of Survival and Adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Greenfields, M., & Brindley, M. (2016). Impact of Insecure Accommodation and the Living Environment on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Health. The Traveller Movement. Greenfields, M., & Rogers, C. (2020, forthcoming). A Pilot Study Project into the Psychological Effect of Hate Crime on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) Communities. Bucks New University Report. Greenfields, M., & Smith, D. (2009). Housed Gypsy Travellers, Social Segregation and the Reconstruction of Communities. Housing Studies, 25(3), 397–412. Greenhall, O., & Willers, M. (2020). Using Domestic Legislation to Tackle Race Discrimination. In M. Willers & C. Johnson (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law (3rd ed.). London: Legal Action Group. Halfacree, K. (1996). Out of Place in the Country: Travellers and the “Rural Idyll”. Antipode, 28(1), 42–72. Hall, N. (2005). Hate Crime. Collumpton: Willan. Hall, S. (1991). The Local and the Global. In A. D. King (Ed.), Culture, Globalization and the World System. London: Macmillan. Hall, S., & Winlow, S. (2015). Revitalizing Criminological Theory: Towards a New Ultra-Realism. London: Routledge. Hancock, I. (2000). The Emergence of Romani as a Köiné Outside of India. In T. Acton (Ed.), Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle: Commitment in Romani Studies. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Hancock, I. (2004). Romanies and the Holocaust: A Reevaluation and an Overview. In D. Stone (Ed.), The Historiography of the Holocaust. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2011). The Enigma of Capital: And the Crisis of Capitalism. London: Profile.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

111

Heaslip, V. (2015). Experience of Vulnerability from a Gypsy/Travelling Perspective: A Phenomenological Study. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth. Heaslip, V., Hean, S., & Parker, J. (2016). Lived Experience of Vulnerability from a Gypsy Roma Traveller Perspective. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.111/jocn.13223. Hindmoor, A. (2018). What’s Left Now? The History and Future of Social Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holloway, S. L. (2005). Articulating Otherness? White Rural Residents Talk About Gypsy-Travellers. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(3), 351–367. Home Office. (2016). Action Against Hate: The UK Government’s Plan for Tackling Hate Crime. London: Home Office. Home, R. (2012). Forced Eviction and Planning Enforcement: The Dale Farm Gypsies. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 4(3), 178– 188. Home, R., & Greenfields, M. (2006). Cambridge Sub-Region Traveller Needs Assessment. Cambridge: Anglia Ruskin University. Honneth, A. (1996). The Struggle for Recognition. Cambridge: Polity Press. Howard, K. (2006). Constructing the Irish of Britain: Ethnic Recognition and the 2001 UK Censuses. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(1), 104–123. Howard, J., & Vajda, V. (2017). Navigating Power and Intersectionality to Address Inequality. IDS Working Paper. 2017:504. ISBN: 978-1-78118-4127. Hughes, G. (2007). The Politics of Crime and Community. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Iganski, P. (2008). Hate Crime and the City. Bristol: Policy Press. Ilan, J. (2019). Cultural Criminology: The Time Is Now. Critical Criminology, 27, 5–20. Jackson, T. F. (2007). From Civil Rights to Human Rights: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Struggle for Economic Justice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jacobs, J. B., & Potter, K. (1998). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. James, Z. (2004). New Travellers, New Policing? Exploring the Policing of New Traveller Communities Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford. James, Z. (2005). Eliminating Communities? Exploring the Implications of Policing Methods Used to Manage New Travellers. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 33, 159–168. James, Z. (2006). Policing Space: Managing New Travellers in England. British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 470–485.

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

James, Z. (2007). Policing Marginal Spaces: Controlling Gypsies and Travellers. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7 (4), 367–389. James, Z. (2011). Gypsies and Travellers in the Countryside: Managing a Risky Population. In R. Yarwood & R. I. Mawby (Eds.), Constable Countryside? Policing, Governance and Rurality. Aldershot: Ashgate. James, Z. (2014a). Policing Hate Against Gypsies and Travellers: Dealing with the Dark Side. In N. Chakraborti (Ed.), Responding to Hate Crime: The Case for Connecting Policy and Research. Bristol: Policy Press. James, Z. (2014b). Offenders or Victims? An Exploration of Gypsies and Travellers as a Policing Paradox. In C. Phillips & C. Webster (Eds.), New Directions in Race, Ethnicity and Crime. London and New York: Routledge. James, Z. (2015). Hate Crimes Against Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in Europe. In N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi, & J. Grieve (Eds.), The International Handbook of Hate Crime. Abingdon: Routledge. James, Z. (2020a). Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Lived Experience of Harm: A Critical Hate Studies Perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 24(3), 502–520. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1362480620911914. James, Z. (2020b, forthcoming). Roma, Gypsies and Travellers as a Community of Difference, Really? Challenging Inclusivity as an Anti-Racist Approach. Critical Romani Studies. James, Z., & McBride, K. (2018, December 4–7). Critical Hate Studies: A Theoretical Perspective. In Australia and New Zealand Criminology Conference. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne. James, Z., Phillips, C., & Taylor, B. (2019, December). Gypsy and Traveller Experiences of Crime and Justice: A Neglected Minority in Criminology. British Society of Criminology Newsletter, 84, 14–21. James, Z., & Richardson, J. (2006). Controlling Accommodation: Policing Gypsies and Travellers. In A. Dearling, T. Newburn, & P. Somerville (Eds.), Housing and Crime. Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing. James, Z., & Smith, D. (2017). Roma Inclusion Post Brexit: A Challenge to Existing Rhetoric? Safer Communities: A Journal of Practice, Opinion and Research, 16(4), 186–195. James, Z., & Southern, R. (2019). Accommodating Nomadism and Mobility: Challenging the Application of a Sedentarist Binary Approach to Provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 39(3/4), 324–336. Jensen, T., & Ringrose, J. (2014). Sluts that Choose vs. Doormat Gypsies. Feminist Media Studies, 14(3), 369–387. Johnston, A. (2008). Žižek’s Ontology: A Transcendental Materialist Theory of Subjectivity. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

113

Kabachnik, P. (2009). To Choose, Fix or Ignore Culture? The Cultural Politics of Gypsy and Traveller Mobility in England. Social and Cultural Geography, 10(4), 461–479. Kabachnik, P. (2010). Place Invaders: Constructing the Nomadic Threat in England. The Geographical Review, 100(1), 90–108. Kemp, T. (1978). Historical Patterns of Industrialization. Harlow: Longman. Kendi, I. X. (2017). Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America. London: The Bodley Head. Kenrick, D. (1999). The Gypsies During the Second World War: In the Shadow of the Swastika. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Kenrick, D., & Bakewell, S. (1990). On the Verge: The Gypsies of England. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Kenrick, D., & Clark, C. (1999). Moving On: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Kenrick, D., & Puxon, G. (1972). The Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies. London: Chatto-Heinemann. Kerrigan, C. (2020). The Shame of Shaming—Time for Honest Conversations. The Traveller Movement Blog. Accessed at: https://travellermovement.org. uk/blog/9-blog/132-the-shame-of-shaming-time-for-honest-conversations. Accessed on: 18/06/20. Kóczé, A. (2018). Race, Migration and Neoliberalism: Distorted Notions of Romani Migration in European Public Discourses. Social Identities, 24(4), 459–473. Kóczé, A., & Rövid, M. (2012). Pro-Roma Global Civil Society: Acting for, with or Instead of Roma? In M. Kaldor & H. L. Moore (Eds.), Global Civil Society 2012: Ten Years of Critical Reflection. Gordonsville: Palgrave Macmillan. Kostadinova, G. (2011). Minority Rights as a Normative Framework for Addressing the Situation of Roma in Europe. Oxford Development Studies, 39(2), 163–183. Legassick, S. (2012). Objective Violence and the State of Nature. Unpublished. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/2109483/Objective_Violence_and_ the_State_of_Nature. Accessed on: 23/04/19. Levinson, M. P., & Sparkes, A. C. (2004). Gypsy Identity and Orientation to Space. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36(6), 704–734. Liegeois, J.-P. (1994). Roma, Gypsies, Travellers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Loader, I. (2000). Plural Policing and Democratic Governance. Social and Legal Studies, 9(3), 323–345. Mackay, A. (2002, January 15). House of Commons Hansard Debates. Part 5. Accessed at: www.publications.parliament.uk. Accessed on: 16/06/03. Marcus, G. (2019). Gypsy and Traveller Girls: Silence, Agency and Power. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

114

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin, G. (2002). New Age Travellers: Uproarious or Uprooted? Sociology, 36(3), 723–735. Marsh, A., & Strand, E. (Eds.). (2006). Gypsies and the Problems of Identities: Contextual, Constructed and Contested. Istanbul and London: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul and I.B.Tauris. Mason, G. (2015). Legislating Against Hate. In N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi, et al. (Eds.), The International Handbook of Hate Crime. Abingdon: Routledge. Mason-Bish, H., & Trickett, L. (2019). Introduction to the Special Issue on the Politics of Hate: Community, Societal and Global Responses. Crime, Law and Social Change, 71, 241–243. Mathieson, T. (1997). The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault’s ‘Panopticon’ Revisited. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 215–234. Matras, Y. (2004). The Role of Language in Mystifying and Demystifying Gypsy Identity. In N. Saul & S. Tebbutt (Eds.), The Role of the Romanies: Images and Counter-Images of Gypsies/Romanies in European Cultures. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Mawby, R. C., & Gisby, W. (2009). Crime, Media and Moral Panic in an Expanding European Union. The Howard Journal, 48(1), 37–51. McBride, K. (2019). A Critical Analysis of Harms Experienced by Transgender Individuals. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Plymouth. McGarry, A. (2017). Romaphobia: The Last Acceptable Form of Racism. London: Zed Books. McVeigh, R. (1997). Theorising Sedentarism: The Roots of Anti-Nomadism. In T. Acton (Ed.), Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Messerschmidt, J. (1997). Crime as Structured Action: Gender, Race, Class, and Crime in the Making. London: Sage. Meyer, D. (2014). Resisting Hate Crime Discourse: Queer and Intersectional Challenges to Neoliberal Hate Crime Laws. Critical Criminology, 22(1), 113– 125. Moore, D. (2011). The Benevolent Watch: Therapeutic Surveillance in Drug Treatment Court. Theoretical Criminology, 15(3), 255–268. Moran, M. (2015). Identity and Capitalism. London: Sage. Morris, R., & Clements, L. (2002). At What Cost? The Economics of Gypsy and Traveller Encampments. Bristol: The Policy Press. Murdoch, A. (2002, September). Gypsies and Planning Appeals: The Right to a Fair and Impartial Hearing. Journal of Planning and Environmental Law, 1056–1060. Murdoch, A., & Johnson, C. (2004). Introduction. In C. Johnson & M. Willers (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law. London: Legal Action Group.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

115

Murdoch, A., & Johnson, C. (2020). Introduction. In M. Willers & C. Johnson (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law (3rd ed.). London: Legal Action Group. Murji, K. (2017). Racism, Policy and Politics. Bristol: Policy Press. Nettleton, S., & Burrows, R. (2008). Mortgage Debt, Insecure Home Ownership and Health: An Exploratory Analysis. Sociology of Health and Illness, 20(5), 731–753. Niner, P. (2004). Counting Gypsies and Travellers: A Review of the Gypsy Caravan Count System. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. ODPM. (2006). Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments: Draft Practice Guidance. ODPM: Gypsy and Traveller Unit. Okely, J. (1983). The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Okely, J. (2014). Recycled (mis)representations: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma Treated as Objects, Rarely Subjects. People, Place and Policy, 8(1), 65–85. OSCE. (2010). Police and Roma and Sinti: Good Practices in Building Trust and Understanding. Vienna: OSCE. Perry, B. (2001). In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes. New York: Routledge. Perry, B. (2003). Hate Crime: A Reader. New York: Routledge. Perry, B. (2006). Missing Pieces: The Paucity of Hate Crime Scholarship. In W. S. DeKeseredy & B. Perry (Eds.), Advancing Critical Criminology. Oxford: Lexington Books. Perry, B. (2009). Hate Crime: Issues and Perspectives. General Editor of 5 Volume set. Westport, CT: Praeger. Perry, B., & Scrivens, R. (2017). The Maturation of Hate Crime Scholarship. In P. Bean (Ed.), Hate Crime: Critical Concepts in Criminology. London: Routledge. Pew Research Center. (2014). A Fragile Rebound for EU Image on Eve of European Parliament Elections. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Phillips, C. (2016). From ‘Rogue Traders’ to Organized Crime Groups: Doorstep Fraud of Older Adults. British Journal of Criminology, 57 (1), 608–626. Phillips, C., & Bowling, B. (2008). Racism, Ethnicity and Criminology: Developing Minority Perspectives. In B. Spalek (Ed.), Ethnicity and Crime: A Reader. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Phillips, C., & Bowling, B. (2012). Ethnicities, Racism, Crime, and Criminal Justice. In A. Leibling, C. Maruna, & L. McAra (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillips, C., Earle, R., Parmar, A., & Smith, D. (2019). Dear British Criminology: Where Has All the Race and Racism Gone? Theoretical Criminology. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1362480619880345. Powell, R. (2008). Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies: Power and the Dialectics of (Dis)Identification. Housing, Theory and Society, 25(2), 87–109.

116

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Power, C. (2004). Room to Roam: England’s Irish Travellers. London: Action Group for Irish Youth. Presdee, M. (2000). Cultural Criminology and the Carnival of Crime. London: Routledge. Public Prosecution Service. (2010). Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland: Hate Crime Policy. Belfast: Public Prosecution Service. Rattansi, A. (2005). The Time/Spaces of Racialization. In K. Murji & J. Solomos (Eds.), Racialization: Studies in Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raymen, T. (2019). The Enigma of Social Harm and the Barrier of Liberalism: Why Zemiology Needs a Theory of the Good. Justice, Power and Resistance, 3(1), 133–162. Raymen, T., & Kuldova, T. (forthcoming). Clarifying Ultra-Realism: A Response to Wood et al. Continental Thought and Theory. Raymen, T., & Smith, O. (2019). Deviant Leisure: A Critical Criminological Perspective for the Twenty First Century. Critical Criminology, 27 (1), 115– 130. Reeves, F. (1983). British Racial Discourse: A Study of British Political Discourse about Race and Race-Related Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reiner, R. (2010). The Politics of the Police. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richardson, J. (2006). The Gypsy Debate: Can Discourse Control? Exeter: Imprint Academic. Richardson, J. (2014). Roma in the News: An Examination of Media and Political Discourse and What Needs to Change. People, Place and Policy, 8(1), 51–64. Richardson, J. (2017). Precarious Living in Liminal Spaces: Neglect of the GypsyTraveller Site. Global Discourse, 7 (4), 496–515. Rorke, B. (2020). Inequality, Anti-Roma Racism, and the Coronavirus. EUObserver. Accessed at: https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/147759. Accessed on: 01/04/20. Rowe, L., & Goodman, S. (2014). ‘A Stinking Filthy Race of People Inbred with Criminality’: A Discourse Analysis of Prejudicial Talk About Gypsies and Travellers. Romani Studies, 24(1), 25–42. Ruston, R. (2013). The Impact of Discourses of Authenticity on the Development and Application of Statutory Definitions of Gypsies and Travellers: A Study of Their Legal Access to Accommodation in England and Wales Since 1959. Ph.D. thesis, University of the West of England. Ryder, A. (2011). Big Bang Localism and Gypsies and Travellers. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 2(2), 27–45.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

117

Ryder, A., & Cemlyn, S. (2014). The Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition. In A. Ryder, S. Cemlyn, & T. Acton (Eds.), Hearing the Voice of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities. Bristol: Policy Press. Schweppe, J., & Walters, M. (Eds.). (2016). The Globalization of Hate: Internationalizing Hate Crime? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sheehan, S. (2012). Žižek: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum. Shubber, K. (2014). Who Is the Number One Target of Hate Speech on Twitter? Accessed at: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/hatebrain-stats-uk. Accessed on: 24/05/20. Shubin, S. (2010). Where Can a Gypsy Stop? Rethinking Mobility in Scotland. Antipode, 43(2), 494–524. Shubin, S., & Swanson, K. (2010). “I’m an Imaginary Figure”: Unravelling the Mobility and Marginalisation of Scottish Gypsy Travellers. Geoforum, 41, 919–929. Sibley, D. (1981). Outsiders in Urban Societies. Oxford: Blackwell. Sibley, D. (1988). Purification of Space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 6(4), 409–421. Simmonds, L. (2019). The Impact of Local Commissioning on Victim Services in England and Wales: An Empirical Study. International Review of Victimology, 25(2), 181–199. Southern, R., & James, Z. (2006). Devon-Wide Gypsy and Traveller Housing Needs Assessment. Social Research and Regeneration Unit, University of Plymouth. Standing, G. (2014). A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Taylor, B. (2014). Another Darkness, Another Dawn: A History of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. London: Reaktion Books. The Cottage Co. (2020). Owl Cabin and Romany Caravan. The Cottage Co. Accessed at: https://www.cottage-holiday-wales.co.uk/romany-caravanwales. Accessed on: 24/04/20. Themelis, S. (2015). The Time of the Roma in Times of Crisis: Where Has European Neoliberal Capitalism Failed? Ethnicities, 16(3), 432–451. The Scottish Government. (2019). Improving the Lives of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers 2019–20. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Thompson, N., & Woodger, D. (2018). ‘I Hope the River Floods’: Everyday Hatred Against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities. GATEHerts Report. Traveller Movement. (2016a). Briefing: Hate Crime, Discrimination and the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma Communities. London: Traveller Movement Report.

118

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Traveller Movement. (2016b). Discrimination Experienced by Gypsies, Travellers and Roma: Results from the 2016 Survey. London: Traveller Movement Report. Traveller Movement. (2019). The Traveller Movement—Policy Briefing Addressing Mental Health and Suicide Among Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities in England. London: Traveller Movement Report. Tremlett, A., Messing, V., & Kóczé, A. (2017). Romaphobia and the Media: Mechanisms of Power and the Politics of Representations. Identities, 24(6), 641–629. Turner, R. (2002). Gypsies and British Parliamentary Language. Romani Studies, 12(1), 26. United Nations. (2015). Report of the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, Rita Izsák. United Nations. UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (2016). Concluding Observations on the Combined Twenty-First to Twenty-Third Periodic Reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United Nations. Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/icerd-_conclu ding_observations.pdf. Accessed on: 02/03/17. van Baar, H. (2011). Europe’s Romaphobia: Problematization, Securitization, Nomadization. Society and Space, 29, 203–212. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press. Walklate, S. (2011). Reframing Criminal Victimisation: Finding a Place for Vulnerability and Resilience. Theoretical Criminology, 15(2), 179–194. Walters, M. A. (2011). A General Theories of Hate Crime? Strain, doing Difference and Self Control. Critical Criminology, 19(4), 313–330. Watkinson, D., McIlvaney, M., & Johnson, C. (2020). Homelessness as It Relates to Gypsies and Travellers. In M. Willers & C. Johnson (Eds.), Gypsy and Traveller Law. London: Legal Action Group. Webster, C. (2008). Marginalized White Ethnicity, Race and Crime. Theoretical Criminology, 12(3), 293–312. Webster, L., & Millar, J. (2001). Making a Living: Social Security, Social Exclusion and New Travellers. Bristol: Policy Press. Wigerfelt, B., & Wigerfelt, A. S. (2015). Anti-Gypsyism in Sweden: Roma’s and Travellers’ Experiences of Bias Motivated Crime. Internet Journal of Criminology. ISSN: 2045-6743. Wilkin, A., Derrington, C., White, R., Martin, K., Foster, B., Kinder, K., et al. (2010). Improving the Outcomes for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Pupils: Final Report. Research Report DFE-RR043. Department for Education. Willers, M., & Johnson, C. (Eds.). (2020). Gypsy and Traveller Law. London: Legal Action Group.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

119

Williams, M. L., & Tregidga, J. (2014). Hate Crime Victimization in Wales: Psychological and Physical Impacts Across Seven Hate Crime Victim Types. British Journal of Criminology, 54(5), 946–967. Winlow, S., Hall, S., & Treadwell, J. (2017). The Rise of the Right: English Nationalism and the Transformation of Working-Class Politics. Bristol: Policy Press. Wood, M. A., Anderson, B., & Richards, I. (2020). Breaking Down the PseudoPacification Process: Eight Critiques of Ultra-Realist Crime Causation Theory. British Journal of Criminology, 60(3), 642–661. Wright Mills, C. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yar, M. (2012). Critical Criminology, Critical Theory and Social Harm. In S. Hall & S. Winlow (Eds.), New Directions in Criminological Theory. London: Routledge. Yildiz, C., & De Genova, N. (2018). Un/Free Mobility: Roma Migrants in the European Union. Social Identities, 24(4), 425–441. Žižek, S. (1993). Tarrying with the Negative. Durham: Duke University Press. Žižek, S. (2002). For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor. London: Verso. Žižek, S. (2006). The Parallax View. London: MIT Press. Žižek, S. (2008). Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador.

Index

A accommodation, 2, 8, 10, 11, 16, 19–21, 25, 26, 31, 45, 49–52, 55, 59, 84, 97, 98, 102 accommodation assessments, 25, 26, 30, 41, 49 Acton, T., 18, 22, 29 agencies, 2–7, 10, 22, 26, 40, 42, 48, 53–56, 59, 60, 79, 80, 96–98 Andrews, K., 72, 86 anti-racism protests, 72 Appleby Horse Fair, 28 Article 12 report, 46 Atchin Tans, 16 Auschwitz, 77 austerity, 80, 100

B bailiffs, 3, 54 Bancroft, A., 7, 54, 78 Bauman, Z., 76 Bedouin, 6

Belton, B., 51, 80 benders (tents), 6, 31 Beresford, Paul, 45 bias-motivated acts, 41 Bowling, B., 10, 24, 39, 42, 71–73 bullying, 43, 44, 98

C capitalism, 74–76, 86, 99 caravan counts, 25, 26 caravans, 25, 31, 44, 97 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, 7 Cemlyn, S., 16, 19, 20, 24, 32, 55, 56, 61, 81, 84 Chakraborti, N., 60, 73, 86 Channel 4, 29, 44–46 children, 4, 8, 44, 51, 84, 101 civil society, 6, 48, 56, 58–61, 70, 99 Clark, C., 16, 21, 26–28, 30, 31, 56, 61 cleanliness, 27, 29

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 Z. James, The Harms of Hate for Gypsies and Travellers, Palgrave Hate Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-51829-3

121

122

INDEX

Commission for Racial Equality, 44 common land, 7, 20 competitive individualism, 59, 70, 75, 82, 86, 100 concentration camps, 77 consumerism, 6 control, 1, 3, 8, 10, 22, 54, 79, 96 coronavirus/COVID-19, 1, 95 crime, 2, 6, 23, 29, 40, 42, 56, 79, 83, 86 criminalisation, 4, 11, 40, 47, 55, 56, 58, 62, 70, 78, 86, 99 criminal justice, 2, 4, 41, 42, 102 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, 9, 53–55, 61 criminology, 11 critical hate studies, 8, 12, 71–77, 84, 86, 100, 101 Crown Prosecution Service, 42, 44 cultural nomadism, 7, 22, 52, 55, 58, 60, 82 culture, 6–8, 17, 22, 24, 26–32, 47, 51, 60, 69, 72, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 96, 100–102

D Dale Farm site eviction, 3, 4, 54 Delaney, Johnny, 42, 62 discourses, 6, 11, 24, 29, 32, 45, 54, 57, 59, 62, 80, 82, 86, 98, 100 discrimination, 2, 6, 9–11, 23, 24, 40, 41, 46–48, 50–52, 56, 58, 60, 62, 70, 74, 75, 86, 98, 99 domestic abuse, 56, 84 Donzelot, J., 4, 54 Douglas, M., 17

E Economic and Social Research Council, 10

education, 4, 8, 27, 32, 48, 50, 51, 54, 78, 84, 99 employment, 19, 27, 50, 51 encampments, 20, 43, 45, 49, 54, 56 Enclosure Acts, 7, 20 equality, 70, 71, 97 Equality Act 2010, 27 Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), 19, 24, 44, 81 ethnic cleansing, 77 ethnicity, 26, 59, 61, 79, 97 European Roma, 5 European Union (EU), 4, 22, 51, 58 evictions, 2, 3, 21, 54–56 exclusion, 6, 11, 16, 23–25, 29, 30, 32, 51, 80, 82, 85–87

F fairgrounds/fairs, 19, 31, 61, 81 family, 1, 2, 10, 19, 27, 44, 51, 54, 56, 78, 101 festivals, 19 Firle Bonfire case, 44 Floyd, George, 72, 96 Foucault, M., 57 freedoms, 17, 22, 70, 78, 82–84, 96 free market, 70, 99 Friends, Families and Travellers, 45

G Garland, J., 60, 73, 86 GATEHerts Report Racism, 43, 44 gay communities, 56 gender identity, 56, 84, 86 genocide, 77, 78 Giddens, A., 7 Global Attitudes Survey, 44 Goldberg, D.T., 47, 81 Goodman, S., 23, 29, 82

INDEX

123

Greenfields, M., 8, 16, 23, 26, 30, 32, 41–44, 46, 55, 84, 85 Gypsies aggregation/conflation, 18, 24, 28, 79, 81 critical hate studies, 12, 71, 75, 76, 84, 86, 100, 101 definitions, 25, 52, 77, 97 hate harms against, 47, 75 history, 11, 17, 75, 77, 83, 96, 98, 100 identity, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 22, 26, 28, 29, 43, 46, 48–52, 56, 57, 59–61, 69, 71, 78, 79, 85, 86, 97, 99–101 impact of hate, 62, 71, 76, 84 population statistics, 26 race, culture and exclusion, 23 ‘real/fake’ Gypsies, 4, 26, 28, 31, 61, 97 Gypsy and Traveller Coalition, 61

hate studies, 2, 41, 60, 62, 71, 72, 74, 98 health, 1, 2, 4, 24, 32, 48, 51, 54, 96, 98, 99, 101 health care, 8, 50, 78 Heaslip, V., 9, 85 hierarchy of legitimacy, 30, 49, 79 Himmler, Heinrich, 77 holidays, 83 Holloway, S.L., 21, 28 Holocaust (Porrajmos), 77 homelessness, 55, 79, 95 Home Office, 42 home ownership, 79 homophobia, 56 horsedrawn vehicles (vardos), 31 housing, 17, 19–21, 25–27, 43, 45, 47, 51, 54, 55, 79 Housing Act 2004, 25 human rights, 45, 58, 70–72, 80, 101

H Hall, S., 8, 51, 73, 74, 80, 86 Hancock, I., 26, 77 harassment, 43, 54, 56 Hatebase, 44 hate crimes, 9, 10, 40–43, 47, 56, 62, 70, 71, 78, 80, 98 hate harms critical hate studies, 71, 76, 101 impact of hate, 76, 84 race, culture and exclusion, 23 subjective hate harms, 11, 41, 47, 62, 70, 71, 98 symbolic hate harms, 6, 8, 9, 11, 25, 57, 58, 62, 70, 83, 98, 99 systemic hate harms, 6, 9, 11, 46, 50, 55, 57, 62, 70, 83, 98, 99 hate incidents, 40–43 hate speech, 11, 41, 43, 44, 46, 75, 83

I identity critical hate studies, 8, 12, 71, 76, 77, 84, 86, 100, 101 gender identity, 56, 84, 86 impact of hate, 62, 71, 76, 84 personal identity, 12, 16, 60, 71, 74, 76, 77, 84–87, 100, 101 racial identity, 30, 52, 84 social identity, 16, 32, 74, 76–78, 80–85, 87, 101 inclusion, 4, 16, 19, 25, 26, 30, 32, 51, 59, 61, 72, 78–81, 87 India, 26 individualism, 2, 6, 8, 58 industrial capitalism, 7, 73 Irish Travellers, 26, 27, 29, 42, 43, 49, 50, 56, 76, 81

124

INDEX

J James, Z., 8, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29–31, 40–44, 47, 49–58, 71, 75, 78, 79 Jewish scholars, 77, 102 Johnson, C., 19, 21, 25, 27, 31, 52, 55, 70

K Kabachnik, P., 7, 19, 22, 23 Kale (Welsh Roma), 27 Kenrick, D., 21, 25, 48, 77 Kerrigan, C., 56, 84

L land ownership, 7, 99 language, 6, 27, 28, 45, 57–59, 62, 70, 77, 86 legal system, 7, 72 Legassick, S., 40, 57 legislation, 16, 20, 25, 28, 30, 40, 42, 52, 53, 55, 56, 72, 97, 99 local authorities, 3, 10, 19–21, 25, 28, 51–56, 79, 99 Localism Act 2011, 19, 54

M Mackay, Andrew, 45 managerialism, 58, 100 Marcus, G., 9, 23, 82, 85 marginalisation, 32, 96, 99, 100 media representations, 23, 28 mental ill-health, 84 microaggressions, 44, 73, 75, 87, 100 migrants, 24, 81 mobility, 5, 7, 10, 18, 19, 22, 25, 29, 52, 58, 61, 78, 96, 97, 101 mochadi (hygiene code), 27 Moore, D., 8, 54 Moran, M., 16, 71, 74, 76, 77 multiculturalism, 5, 16, 70

Murdoch, A., 19, 21, 25, 27, 31, 52 music, 17, 82 ‘My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding’ (TV show), 29, 45

N nation state, 1, 7, 72 Nazism, 77 needs assessments, 49, 50 neoliberal capitalism, 6, 8, 9, 11, 57, 58, 62, 70, 72–75, 77, 78, 82–87, 99–102 Newbury, 3 newspapers, 45 New Travellers, 6, 10, 30, 31, 47, 49–51, 53, 54, 61, 80, 82, 97 nomadism, 5, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20–22, 29, 52, 96 Northern Ireland, 27 Nuremberg Trials, 77

O objective hate harms, 98 objective violence, 40 occupational Travellers, 31, 47, 61 online hate, 44 oral tradition, 77 order, 7, 11, 17, 18, 21, 40, 46, 51, 55, 59, 72–76, 78, 86, 97, 99, 101, 102 Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), 4 othering, 28, 32

P pandemic, 1, 2, 95, 96, 102 Pavee Travellers, 27 Perry, B., 39, 72–74

INDEX

personal identity, 12, 16, 60, 71, 74, 76, 77, 84–87, 100, 101 Phillips, C., 10, 24, 47, 71, 73 physical violence, 43, 75 planning law, 25, 30, 31, 49, 52, 55, 97 planning permission, 3, 8, 20, 52, 53, 79 plural policing, 54, 55 policing, 4, 9, 42, 54, 55, 102 political economy, 57, 71–73, 75, 86, 99 population statistics, 26 poverty, 2, 17, 29, 30, 54, 81 Powell, R., 28 power, 8, 24, 39, 53, 58, 70, 72–74, 99 precariat, 58, 80, 100, 102 prejudice, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16, 20, 23, 42, 47, 53, 57, 60, 72–74, 82, 101 property damage, 43 property ownership, 78 protests, 3, 19 public order, 3, 9, 53 public perceptions, 6, 23, 29, 48, 96, 97 public service delivery, 59 R race, 24, 25, 28, 47, 48, 57, 58, 61, 72, 73, 80, 81, 86, 101 Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Act 1997, 27 racial identity, 30, 52, 84 racialisation, 11, 15, 24, 29, 69, 75, 78, 96 racism, 6, 23, 29, 47, 48, 51, 58, 59, 61, 72, 73, 75, 79, 96, 101, 102 relationships, 8, 22, 45, 60, 71, 84, 86 resilience, 60, 78, 100

125

Richardson, J., 16, 21, 23, 44–46, 54, 57, 58 rights, 48, 49, 52, 59, 70, 71 rights of access, 7 Ritter, Robert, 77 Roma, 1–6, 9, 18, 21, 22, 24, 28, 41, 43, 50, 51, 59, 70, 75, 77–79, 81, 82 romanticisation, 17, 21, 31, 82 Romany Gypsies, 26–29, 31, 45, 48–50, 57, 61, 82, 83, 97 Romany Wagon holidays, 83 Romaphobia, 4 Rowe, L., 23, 29, 82 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 54 Ryder, A., 16, 61

S Scottish Travellers, 27, 45, 97 sedentarism, 17, 21, 75, 85, 97 self, 2, 74, 76, 85 sentence enhancement, 42 service delivery, 99 settled communities, 2, 6, 9, 11, 19–21, 54, 55 sexuality, 9, 56, 58, 72, 80, 86 Shelter, 21 Showmen’s Guild, 31 Showpeople, 31, 32, 47, 51, 61, 80, 81, 97 Sibley, D., 17, 19, 21, 23 site evictions, 3 sites, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 43, 53–55, 79 Smith, Barry, 62 Smith, D., 55, 58 social exclusion, 23, 30, 57 social identity, 16, 32, 74, 76–78, 80–85, 87, 101 social media, 46

126

INDEX

Southern, R., 16, 21, 25, 30, 49, 52, 55 space, 2, 6, 7, 9, 19–22, 31, 50, 55, 56, 58, 78, 96–98, 101 Standing, G., 58, 100 stereotyping, 45 stigmatisation, 18, 22, 29, 57 stopping places, 16, 20 subjective hate harms, 11, 47, 62, 70, 71, 98 subjective violence, 40, 46, 54 subjectivity, 9, 11, 16, 72, 74, 76, 84, 85, 87, 100, 101 suicide, 56, 84, 101 symbolic hate harms, 8, 9, 11, 25, 57, 58, 62, 70, 83, 98, 99 symbolic order, 74–77, 84, 85, 100, 102 symbolic violence, 40, 57, 58 systemic hate harms, 6, 8, 9, 11, 25, 46, 50, 55, 57, 62, 70, 83, 98, 99

T television, 29, 44 ‘The Truth about Traveller Crime’ (TV show), 29, 44, 46 Thompson, N., 43, 44, 46, 54, 81 transcendental materialist approach, 74, 76, 85 transgender identity, 80 Traveller Movement, 41, 43, 44, 50, 55, 56, 62, 81, 84 Travellers aggregation/conflation, 24, 28, 79, 81 critical hate studies, 8, 71, 73, 75, 84, 86, 100, 101 definitions, 25, 52, 97

hate harms against, 47, 75 history, 11, 17, 27, 75, 77, 96, 98, 100 identity, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 25, 26, 28, 29, 43, 46, 48–52, 56, 59, 61, 69, 71, 79, 80, 85, 86, 97, 98, 100, 101 impact of hate, 62, 71, 76, 84 population statistics, 26 race, culture and exclusion, 23 trespass laws, 9, 30, 53 Twitter, 44 Twyford Down, 3 U ultra-realist criminology, 12, 73, 100 United Nations, 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 70 V Van Baar, H., 16, 21, 60, 69 victimisation, 4, 42, 60, 73, 86 violence, 6, 11, 40, 46, 57, 70, 78, 98 vulnerability, 49, 59, 60, 73, 81, 85 W Wacquant, I., 58 Walklate, S., 60, 71, 79 weak power, 51 wealth, 7, 8, 81–83 welfare, 2, 4, 24, 32, 48, 51, 54, 55, 58, 78, 79, 96, 98–101 Welsh Kale, 27 Winlow, S., 8, 73, 74, 80, 86 Woodger, D., 41, 43, 44, 46, 54, 81 work, 7, 9, 18, 19, 27, 42, 43, 49–55, 58, 72, 76, 80, 82, 84, 95, 98

INDEX

Y yards, 31, 61 Yar, M., 42, 50, 56, 74, 84

127

Z Žižek, S., 6, 11, 17, 40, 46, 57, 70, 74, 77, 82, 83, 98