the courts have decided that they too are a race for the purposes of the RRA.
So the courts have decided that someone who wants to have a traveller lifestyle now counts as a separate ethnic grouping? Really? You're wrong. Someone who just goes and adopts a traveller lifestyle is not covered by the RRA, only those of Roma, Irish Traveller or similar ethnicity. If that was the case, why is there a Gypsy and Traveller Reform Coalition seeking to get all travellers covered by the RRA act?
I would have thought any persecuted minority were fairly deserving of protection under the law. What's the problem with that?
None. No problem with people who are of a separate ethnicity being protected from persecution. The issue comes when its used a little bit widely. It doesn't help when people start getting the law wrong though. You're born with ethnicity - you don't adopt it. Its why the only two religious groups where ethnicity and religious practise are combined in the RRA are the Sikhs and the Jews.
A Pikey was and is a term used for Irish Travellers. Irish Travellers are recognised as a racial group. The fact that it is more widely used as an insult probably won't save you in court.
If its used against someone of Irish Traveller or Roma origin, then you're right. But it has synonymous use with words like "chav" and "scally" and simply using the word is not offensive in itself.
