THE MOTHER of the Traveller boy at the centre of yesterday’s court case expressed her disappointment at the court’s decision and said she will go to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary to vindicate her son’s right to be educated in his home town.
Mary Stokes said she felt “very let down by the judge and the court and the whole education system” after Judge Tom Teehan set aside a ruling by the Equality Tribunal that her son, John, had been the victim of indirect discrimination by Christian Brothers High School in Clonmel. “I’m devastated, to be honest, but I’m not going to leave it at this – I’m going to appeal it. All I want for my son is what any mother wants, the best education they can get. He’s a bright enthusiastic boy who’s willing to learn and all we seem to meet are obstacle after obstacle.”
With no place in the school, John must catch a bus at 7.30am to travel the 10 miles to Fethard, and doesn’t get home until 5.30pm each day, with the transport costing the family some €30 a week, she said. “It’s not fair and it’s not right – we’re Travellers and proud to be Travellers but we want to be treated as equals with everyone else,” said Ms Stokes, a mother of seven who, along with her husband, has been living in Clonmel for 16 years.
The solicitor for the Irish Traveller Movement Independent Law Centre, Siobhán Cummiskey, said she was disappointed by the ruling. She paid tribute to Ms Stokes for bringing the action on behalf of her son.
“I think the judge did take time to look at this matter in some detail and he did make a finding that these kinds of policies are indirectly discriminatory, and I think that is helpful – now, in this circumstance, it was justifiable, according to the court.
“But I think the fact my client has brought this matter to the attention of the public and the Minister for Education has been very helpful and so in that way I do think we have something of a positive outcome in that regard – it certainly moves the debate on.”
Christian Brothers High School board of management chairman Michael O’Brien said the board would not be making any comment on the judgment until it had an opportunity to convene a meeting and discuss its contents in detail.
