Looking at The BBC's FAQ on the Human Rights Act as applied to travellers:

Q: So what role does the Human Rights Act play? Do travellers have more rights that others?

The act says everybody has the same rights which should not be unduly infringed by government or other public bodies. It does not confer more rights to one group over another. Its key feature is that officials should treat everyone equally by properly assessing their case.

Q: And how do these rights apply to travellers' settlements?

Travellers argue their right to a family life becomes an issue if councils don't fairly and equally assess their case for housing, taking into account the unique situation of their way of life.

Put at its simplest, if a council bans Gypsy caravans from a field because it's in an agricultural area, but it then allows a developer to put homes on the land, that would prompt a discrimination challenge.

But if a council proves that it has treated travellers equally and fairly, and given them adequate options or support to find a solution, then there would be no grounds for a challenge.

it's instructive to compare the Tories' plan of reviewing (with intent to repeal/neutralise) the Human Rights Act and providing the legal backup to compulsorily buy land owned by Gypsies. with the handy Definition of Fascism:

The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population