The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Removing the disturbing names from Streets of Cyprus

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby insan » Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:57 pm

antonis wrote:
They say that if Greek Cypriots assume the citizenship of the Turkish Cypriot constituent state, then they, too, may represent the Turkish Cypriot state. They say that ethnic discrimination is unacceptable. This means that we will gradually disappear under a majority rule.


Oh that's where the "majority rules" interpretation comes from... from Denktash.

No further comment.


Do you deny that GC leadership insists on full political rights, exactly the same with the TCs of TCCS to be granted for the GCs who would returrn to TCCS? If you deny, you are either misinformed or unaware of the goings on.

Moreover they are against the permenant restrictions on right to settlement in TCCS. What does it mean for you? It means to me that besides all refugees, all GCs should be free to settle down in TCCS with full political rights, exactly same with the rights TCs of TCCS would have been granted. Otherwise they assert that it would be a ethnic discrimination in an EU member state and it is totally unacceptable. This the truth my friend. You may persoanlly ^not support their idea but it seems to me that Tassos and majority of GCs are agree on this.

If it is not an effort to create two GC majorities in each CS, then what is this?
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby antonis » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:28 pm

In an interview on state television Saturday, President Tassos Papadopoulos said he regretted that the election would not reflect the true views of Turkish Cypriots since the majority of voters would be illegal Turkish mainland settlers introduced to the north in the wake of the invasion.

http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/con ... tions.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Feb19.html
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationwor ... -headlines

This proves that what you claimed that Tassos stated:
Tassos just recently stated that the settlers shouldn't participate in the last elections took place in North.

is wrong. It also shows that what I alledged he may have said:
What Tassos may have said was that the voting may not show the true will of the "original" TCs, because a high percentage of the voters come from mainland Turkey.

is right. More conclusions to the readers' discretion.
Do you deny that GC leadership insists on full political rights, exactly the same with the TCs of TCCS to be granted for the GCs who would returrn to TCCS? If you deny, you are either misinformed or unaware of the goings on.

This is totally wrong. The GC side insists that the permanent residents in the TCCS be given political rights.
It means to me that besides all refugees, all GCs should be free to settle down in TCCS with full political rights, exactly same with the rights TCs of TCCS would have been granted.

This is propaganda. You may be able to convince certain circles or people in this forum, not me.
antonis
Member
Member
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:06 am

Postby MicAtCyp » Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:20 pm

Antonis wrote: The issue of refugees, properties and territorial adjustment are the most complex. The principle that underlies the negotiating position of the GC side is that the most refugees (from both sides) that can return to their houses the best. Even if all refugees return to their houses in the northern part, bizonality is still ensured. The way the issue was solved with the Annan plan was partly acceptable.


What do you mean partly acceptable? By the 24% who voted yes? I tell you that was the main reason for the remaining 76% to say no.

Insan wrote: Does it show how misinformed us or how you are unaware of what Tassos and his supporters ask. Tassos just recently stated that the settlers shouldn't participate in the last elections took place in North.


Should they in your opinion?

Antonis wrote: Oh that's where the "majority rules" interpretation comes from... from Denktash.


Hey Antonis, never you heard that all those irrationalities about equal partners,political equality of the 18% with the 82%, domination by the GCs, two equal states etc etc originate from Denktash? However Denktash was clear enough to say he wanted 2 separate states.Lets hope the TCs will one day understand where these irrationalities lead them.

Insan wrote: Moreover they are against the permenant restrictions on right to settlement in TCCS. What does it mean for you? It means to me that besides all refugees, all GCs should be free to settle down in TCCS with full political rights, exactly same with the rights TCs of TCCS would have been granted. Otherwise they assert that it would be a ethnic discrimination in an EU member state and it is totally unacceptable.


Correct. Then tell us what your problem is with that.That there will be no bi-zonality? I said a million times in this forum that bi-zonality is an unstable system that will degrade sooner or later to a unitary state. Because you cannot deprive the most basic human rights of people for ever like the right to own and enjoy their property, their right to move freely, their political rights, etc etc just to have bizonality or appartheit. I leave aside the fact that now we are in Europe and nobodt can deprive those rights not even for 1 second.
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby insan » Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:17 pm

Hey Antonis, never you heard that all those irrationalities about equal partners,political equality of the 18% with the 82%, domination by the GCs, two equal states etc etc originate from Denktash? However Denktash was clear enough to say he wanted 2 separate states.Lets hope the TCs will one day understand where these irrationalities lead them.



Hahahaha!

At the time "political equality" dispute had initiated Denktash was a litlle kid, yet!
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby antonis » Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:31 pm

What do you mean partly acceptable? By the 24% who voted yes? I tell you that was the main reason for the remaining 76% to say no.

Partly acceptable in the sense that the right of property is safeguarded. What is not safeguarded is the right to return to the property.

The NO was given to the Annan plan as a whole. The 76% who said NO did so for various reasons. Everyone interpretes the NO any way he wants, and draws his own conclusions. Whoever tries to make a list of reasons and put a hierarchy in it says his own opinion. Polls (like the one Alex performed) are the only tool in our hands.
antonis
Member
Member
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:06 am

Postby MicAtCyp » Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:54 pm

Insan wrote: At the time "political equality" dispute had initiated Denktash was a litlle kid, yet!


Initiated by a small circle of power holders and elitists of course. Not from the masses! Get you facts straight Insan. After 1878 it was the most natural thing for the previous elitists to want at least equal treatment under the new Occupator (British). This never spread to the masses though. Denktash was the offspring of that elite and the first one (actually the second one- Kucuk was the first one) to spread it to the masses. It paramounted after you got the pseudo, and thats what we have today.Does this mean it's right?

Antonis wrote: Partly acceptable in the sense that the right of property is safeguarded.


Well, on the surface that is true. However if you look at what it means in practice, it would mean the GCs would compensate themselves, for the properties they get back and at the very same moment automatically lose it for ever.

Polls (like the one Alex performed) are the only tool in our hands.


I agree. I did study the first one done he did, but again due to the many objections of the GCs it is rather difficult to draw any safe conclusions what would happen if No1, or No2, or No3 concern is excluded.
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby insan » Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:05 pm

Initiated by a small circle of power holders and elitists of course. Not from the masses!


Naturally, in early 1900s there wasn't an Island wide mass media.

Get you facts straight Insan. After 1878 it was the most natural thing for the previous elitists to want at least equal treatment under the new Occupator (British)..


You get your facts staright. More than the British factor, the Greek inspired(Magali Idea) Enosis and majority rule insistence of GC elitists played a big role on TC elitists to initiate the "political equality" idea. When Greeks and their local Cyprus collaborators had begun to inject the Greekness, "megali idea" and Enosis into the brains of Greek Cypriots the date was 1830. At that time TC were still muslims of Cyprus. No turkishness had been injected into their brains yet. When TC elite discovered their national identity, the date was 1920s. Enosis and "megali idea" had already been spreaded and injected into the brains and hearts of majority of Greek Cypriots.

This never spread to the masses though.


It was well spreaded to the masses, of course. The first elections for Kavanin Legislative Assembly, where TCs had "political equality" was held in 1930.

Denktash was the offspring of that elite and the first one (actually the second one- Kucuk was the first one) to spread it to the masses. It paramounted after you got the pseudo, and thats what we have today.


They are the youngsters of the 40s and 50s. They initiated the second resitence movement against Enosists.


Does this mean it's right?


It was and still is absolutely right! Being exceeded in numbers at the population level neither gives you the right for Enosis nor it gives you the right to impose your own will upon TC community.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby MicAtCyp » Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:40 pm

Insan,

So if I understood well, you expect me to beleive that this Kavanin legislative assembly was a massive movement, and not an elitist movement. At a time when the vast majority of Cypriots could not even write their names they were to issue laws. Yeah, right.....
By the way do you know how many GCs ever heard of this Kavanin assembly?Nobody. Even myself I read it a couple of years ago in your posts. Now you tell me how many TCs ever heard of this event?

quote="Insan"] It was and still is absolutely right! Being exceeded in numbers at the population level neither gives you the right for Enosis nor it gives you the right to impose your own will upon TC community. [/quote]

Well you know my view on this matter.We discussed it with Erol many times and I think we agreed as to what rights a numerically less group should have to consider itself "equally safe".

However just for information I tell you that for many GCs-even today- this is not so.They could perhaps tell you (like they tell me when I raise the issue and then go on calling me "Turko-philo"=supporter of the Turks) that

Where else in the world the minority can tell the majority what to do?Everywhere where the minority tried to tell the majority what to do, it got silenced. The TCs got silenced too.If it weren’t for Turkey, they would even be extincted for causing problems.


So as you can see there is also the other side of the coin.

PS. I thought you would never reply my posts again....
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest