A Co Mayo Fine Gael councillor and member of the Western Health Board who compared Travellers to "pedigree dogs" because, he claimed, they preferred to lie in the sun rather than take FAS training courses, was acquitted of inciting hatred towards them at Galway District Court yesterday.
Following the hearing, Mr John Flannery (60), from Lavey, Charlestown, declined to apologise to the Travelling community for comments he made at a Western Health Board meeting on May 11th. When asked if it might be helpful at this stage to apologise, he said he had gone into court an innocent man and was coming out the same way.
He said the court saw no justification for the charges and he was satisfied with the judicial system which saw fit to acquit him.
Mr Flannery was charged for saying during the meeting that "Travellers expect to have everything done for them and do nothing themselves. They are able-bodied men who should be made go out and do FAS courses like everybody else but instead are lying out in the sun like pedigree dogs."
The State claimed such words were abusive, insulting and likely to stir up hatred contrary to Section 2 of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989.
Mr Garry O'Halloran, who is a member of Waterford County Council and PRO of the Southern Travellers' Justice Group, said he made a formal complaint to the Garda after reading reports in the national press where Mr Flannery had referred to Travellers as pedigree dogs who needed to be tagged so the authorities could keep track of them.
He claimed there had been an escalation of attacks on Travellers as a result of these comments and one Traveller woman had come to him in hysterics after she thought she and her children would have microchips implanted in them. If the comments had been withdrawn at the time, it would have alleviated some of the distress suffered by Travellers but this was not done.
Mr O'Halloran said the words used by Mr Flannery were repeated to him in a taunting fashion by members of the settled community, by State officials and by fellow public representatives. They definitely stirred up hatred.
He accused local authorities of operating a policy of apartheid against Travellers who looked for houses. He said there was a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide housing.
Supt Martin Lee said the State accepted Mr Flannery did not intend to stir up hatred but the publicity his choice of words had attracted was likely to do so.
Mr Flannery disagreed but admitted he had made a "throwaway" comment which he now regretted. "For the life of me I don't know how I came out with it. It was never my intention to use words like that in any context. I would not use those words again if given the chance.
"Nonetheless, I said that instead of going out to work they [the Traveller men] lie around in the sun. I didn't refer to them as dogs."
He said he had not intended to be derogatory towards Travellers and he was a member of a Travellers' housing committee.
A number of fellow councillors and health board officials gave evidence. They all said they were not incited to hatred by the "unfortunate" choice of words used by Mr Flannery. They agreed that the national media had taken them out of context. Displaying some of the headlines which appeared in the national press days later, Mr Padraic McCormack TD said the editors of these newspapers should be before the court and not Mr Flannery.
Judge Thomas Fitzpatrick said he was satisfied Mr Flannery had helped members of the Travelling community in the past and that he had blurted out these words before he knew what he was saying.
"The problem is that there were three media reporters there and they obviously reported the matter very fairly and accurately in the local press. However, it was the national press which caused the problem by carrying inaccurate reports, which used the words like `tagging' which the defendant never used," said the judge before dismissing the case.
Following the hearing, Mr O'Halloran said the media were in breach of the provisions of Section 3 of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act and he would be pursuing the matter.