Rabbi Janet Burden, 27th July 2011

As is so often the case in disputes, the main conflict at Dale Farm is not between right and wrong, but between two different ‘rights’ – in both senses of that word. Some would say that the fault is all on the side of the Travellers who have built small homes and / or situated caravans on the site without planning permission. “They’re breaking the law; it’s as simple as that,” one person remarked to me. The Jewish principle would be dinad’malchutadina (‘the law of the land is the law’). We are obliged to follow the laws of the country in which we live. But what if there is another law that conflicts, as is so often the case in legal disputes in the Talmud? How do we decide which law to follow?

One of the things we should do is to consider the principles behind the conflicting laws. First of all, what is the law that the Travellers have broken?  It is planning law, designed to protect the Green Belt.  As an environmental activist, I support the goals of this law. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the Travellers have not ‘played by the rules.’ However, there are other facts that are conveniently being ignored by those pursuing this eviction.

First of all, the Travellers are being evicted off THEIR OWN LAND, purchased many years ago on government advice. Government officials knew that the situation of the Gypsy and Traveller communities was only going to get worse. All over the country, sites that were once used for the moveable caravans were being closed down, developed and made off-limits. As those who have been desperately seeking alternatives to Dale Farm will tell you – there simply aren’tother places for them to go and to live as they wish. Maryann, a woman in her 70’s, spoke warmly of the days when her people were able to travel to different places and to live in their preferred way of spending a few months in one place, then moving to another. “Our traditional way of life is almost gone,” she said.  “Our young people have accepted that, though it still makes me sad. What we are trying to do here is to save something of it, keeping families and the community together.”

Another woman I spoke to was almost hysterical: “I’ve seen where the Council want me to go. It’s on a housing estate where there is a lot of anti-Traveller feeling. They think we are all criminals. And the place has lots of glass; even the doors are glass and it doesn’t feel safe. Apart from being separated from many of my neighbours, I wouldn’t be able to sleep a wink in such a place.” Her assessment of the potential danger seemed more than reasonable to me. The Travellers are vilified just as Jews were in this country in the early part of the twentieth century. And the language used clearly echoes the rhetoric of anti-Semitism. If you don’t believe this, have a look at the website www.jewify.org for examples of newspaper articles which substitute the word ‘Jew’ for ‘Gypsy’ or ‘Traveller’. The results are quite chilling.

People may not be aware that the Travellers, along with the Gypsies and a limited number of other groups with similar lifestyle patterns, are officially recognised as ethnic minorities, just like our own Jewish community. As such, they deserve protection under European human rights law. Though undeniably different from the mainstream, their way of life is no less valid than our own – albeit that current planning law was not designed to accommodate it. The Travellers’ way is to live very closely together, in caravans or small semi-permanent dwellings. Their dwellings might seem too close for conventional English tastes, but who is to say that this is NOT a good way to live, if appropriate services can be arranged? Maryann pointed out that all of her children and grandchildren live on Dale Farm, where they can all help and support each other. How many of us can say that our families are that close? I believe that the obligation to protect this ethnic minority’s way of life is a human rights issue that, in this particular and unusual case, may need to ‘trump’ the planning law designed to protect the ‘Green Belt’.

Moreover, I would point out that applying the term ‘Green Belt’ to Dale Farm is flawed. This site was hardly virgin countryside. One of the locals, I would guess in her late 60’s, described to me how they used to burn tires in this place when she was small. Land just to the east of the site was used from 1978 until 2001, with Council knowledge and approval, as a scrap metal yard. If the ‘Green Belt’ can give way for that, why not in this case for homes for families with nowhere else to go? I worry especially for the elderly in the Travelling community and for their school-age kids, who have had access to services such as health care and education becausethey have been allowed to stay at Dale Farm. What will happen to them when they are evicted?

In making decisions between two ‘rights’, we need to ascertain as best we can all the facts, then consider the human implications. We expect this of the wider society concerning issues that affect our Jewish community. For example, we support shechitah as a method of slaughter, even though the majority of the wider British society supports stunning animals on humanitarian grounds. We argue that to abolish kosher slaughter would be a threat to traditionally observant Jewish life and thus to us as an ethnic group. Shechitah thus continues to be allowed because of the principles of tolerance and of protecting a minority group.

I would suggest that the same reasoning should be applied to desire of the residents at Dale Farm to live in their time honoured way. As we used to say back in the 70’s – “Support the fringe – the edge is closer than you think.”