Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

If you tell me that there's nothing wrong with Cs Enosis cause I can definetely tell you that there was noıthing wrong with Taksim or annexing Cyprus as a whole to Turkey.

Sure, you can tell me this, and whatever else you feel like. It is your right to say and believe whatever, but this doesn't change the facts I said in my previous post.

How much Cyprus belongs to GCs, it also belongs to TCs. If you say GCs had/have the right to annex her to their motherland; TCs also should have the same right to annex it to their motherland.

Cypriots as a whole had the right to integrate Cyprus with another country. The majority of Cypriots as a whole wanted union with Greece, while the majority didn't want neither partition, nor union with Turkey.

This is how it always happens. A recent example is when the 10 new members joined the EU. In some of those countries big percentages voted against joining the EU, but those countries still joined because the majority wanted to.
Is it really so hard for you to understand the most basic democratic principle that is applied in all democratic countries? Have you ever lived outside of the occupied areas and Turkey to learn what democracy means?

[erolz]

Is it really so hard for you to understand the most basic democratic principle that is applied in all democratic countries? Have you ever lived outside of the occupied areas and Turkey to learn what democracy means?

Is it so hard for you to understand the concept of

for issue that relate to indivduals one person one vote
for issues that deal with communites one community one vote
for issues that do with states one state one vote.

This is totaly compatible with democratic principals, as well as natural fairness. You insist the principal applies and is valid and fair in situation one and situation three but deny that it can have any validity or basis of rightness in situation 2. Purelt coincednetly in situation 1 and three this concept 'benefits' GC and situation 2 it does not benefit them - so 1 and 3 are valid and 2 is not.

[Piratis]

for issue that relate to indivduals one person one vote

And what are the issues that are unlrelated to individulas?

for issues that deal with communites one community one vote

Can you give me some real world examples where this happens? Also, what are the particular issues is also important. I already said in another post that if there are some issues that affect one community without affecting the other one then each community can decide by itself. If this is what you mean by "issues that deal with communities" then I agree.

for issues that do with states one state one vote.

Again, this depends on which issues. These issues are agreed beforehand in the constitution, and are not whatever each state wants.

[erolz]

And what are the issues that are unlrelated to individulas?

OK if you prefer read that as issue that relate solely to indivduals - that is one that have no 'communites of people' aspect. The list of examples of this is too long to list.

Can you give me some real world examples where this happens?

Switzerland. In The UK. In many many government bodies it is required that there is a represntative of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - equally with the same number of representatives for each 'community' reagrdless of community numbers.

Also, what are the particular issues is also important. I already said in another post that if there are some issues that affect one community without affecting the other one then each community can decide by itself. If this is what you mean by "issues that deal with communities" then I agree.

No I mean exactly the opposite of this. I mean when one communites interetest are in direct opposition to the other communites interests. In such issues the concept of 'one community one vote' is democratic and fair. To state one community has more rights (as a community) that the other in such issues is undemocratic. Thats how democracy of 'groups' work. Its how it works in democracy of states (in UN or EU). To insit it applies in democracy of states but not in democracy of communites is undemocratic and in your case totaly inconsistant - inconsistant in way that just 'happens' to befit you (GC) in all cases.

Again, this depends on which issues. These issues are agreed beforehand in the constitution, and are not whatever each state wants.

Within the general assmebly of the united nations every nation has one vote equal to every other nation - regardless of the nations size. This is democratic because of the democratic _principal_ of one state one vote. In this case the 'groups' are states but the _principal_ is the same whether the groups are communites, regions or any other (except of course where denying this benfits GC!)

[Piratis]

Switzerland. In The UK. In many many government bodies it is required that there is a represntative of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - equally with the same number of representatives for each 'community' reagrdless of community numbers.

Nop, those are not communities. In the case of Switzerland they are states, and in the case of UK they are defined as countries. Do you have any examples of communities? Like for example the muslim community in the UK. You don't like this example, right?
Anyways, although I disagree those case are similar to Cyprus (no region was ethnically cleansed there) I could accept to have something similar to the UK. Would you accept to have what the Wales have within UK?


Don't confuse democracy of states and democracy within one country. But I agree that one community can not go in "direct opposition to the other communites interests". We already agreed that those interests will be secured within constitution, and that the constitution can not change without the agreement of both communities.
Where I disagree is the "one community one vote" for about everything. This should only be applied for the change of constitution and some other specific things.

[erolz]

Nop, those are not communities. In the case of Switzerland they are states, and in the case of UK they are defined as countries. Do you have any examples of communities? Like for example the muslim community in the UK. You don't like this example, right?

The same example of the _principal_ (which you have denied elsewhere) also applies to regions within the uk - in issue that relate to regions there is a concept of one region one vote. It does not apply to muslims because they are a 'minority' (as defined by the UN charter on human rights) - which iw what you INSIST is the status of TC in Cyprus - not a people - not a community but in law simply a minority.

Anyways, although I disagree those case are similar to Cyprus (no region was ethnically cleansed there)

You first demand examples in a country other than Cyprus then you dismiss any other example in other countires because their history is not exactly the same os Cyprus'. Well its kinda hard to 'satisfy' you when you requirments are such

I could accept to have something similar to the UK. Would you accept to have what the Wales have within UK?

You asked for an example in another country where the concept and principal of the democratic fairness of one community one vote is seen. I gave the example of UK and you now what to know if I will accept a Cyrpus solution based on a 'Welsh' model???

Don't confuse democracy of states and democracy within one country.

The principal is the same weather the groups are 'states', 'communites', 'regions'. The only time the prinicpal does not apply would seem to be when one groups is GC and numericaly larger and the other is TC and numercially smaller!

But I agree that one community can not go in "direct opposition to the other communites interests". We already agreed that those interests will be secured within constitution, and that the constitution can not change without the agreement of both communities.

And I am sorry but for me this 'protections' of being in the consitituion and not being changable without agreement of both communites is not sufficent. Given the history of what happened with the last set of 'unalterable' without mutual consent provision and given your absloute insistance that TC are not recognisiable as a people to any degree or in any way, your insistance that leagly we are a minority (which explcitly means we have no such rights as you offer) and your insitance that their can be no limits or compromise or concessions on those rights and categories you do recognise - namely a single people (dominated by GC) with an absoloute right to self determiantion (whatever the effect might be of such on a TC minority). What I would require would be a legal definition of our status and rights as two communites that was outside just the Cypriot consitituion. That HAS to be more than the rights of a minority and for you it has to be less than the rights of a people. For me accepting the rights of a people but with also an acceptance of the need for limits and compromises on these rights was a compromise. For you not an acceptable one. So what is needed then is an international definition of a 'community' in this regard with rights greaster than a minority and less than a people. Such does not currently exits.

To insis that we do not leaglly have ANY rights as a people and insist that legally we are a minority but then to say 'but hey you can have some extra privaledges guaranteed by a cypriot consitution that failed to protect thoese privaledges before' is simplty not good enough for me.

Where I disagree is the "one community one vote" for about everything. This should only be applied for the change of constitution and some other specific things.

and I have never claimed that it should be for everything. For me going into this detail when you insist on a basis as above is pretty pointless but here is one example for you.

On an issue like the age of 'franchise' (at what age you can vote) this should be a matter of one person one vote. I do not (but others might) see this as an issue that applies to or relates to the two communites in Cyprus. On an issue like Greek should be the sole offical language of Cyprus this should be a matter of one community one vote as it relates not just solely to indivduals but also two the two communites as communites. On an issue such as this the TC community should have a right to 'equality' with the GC community. This right MUST be defined and recognised, one way or another, in some form of international 'law' outside of just the Cypriot consitituion.

[Piratis]

I believe I was clear. You give examples of countries, states and regions, but these do not apply to TCs since there is no "TC country", "TC state" or "TC region". The only thing that you have is the illegal control of the occupied areas, and this can not classify neither for a country, neither for a state, neither for a region. Its simply an occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus and apart from Turkey this is what the whole world officially recognizes.

The correct example would be one of a community within a country without a specific region. And yes, this is what is called minority, and there is nothing bad or strange about it.

The principal is the same weather the groups are 'states', 'communites', 'regions'. The only time the prinicpal does not apply would seem to be when one groups is GC and numericaly larger and the other is TC and numercially smaller!

Nop, the principles apply everywhere. Just notice that they are different in the case that this group legally has a speciffic region, or it is spread all over the country. You are the ones who want to apply something in Cyprus that is not applied anywhere else. I accept any system of any other EU country.

On an issue like the age of 'franchise' (at what age you can vote) this should be a matter of one person one vote. I do not (but others might) see this as an issue that applies to or relates to the two communities in Cyprus. On an issue like Greek should be the sole official language of Cyprus this should be a matter of one community one vote as it relates not just solely to indivduals but also two the two communites as communites. On an issue such as this the TC community should have a right to 'equality' with the GC community.

I accept the specific example you gave and I have no objections on this.

This right MUST be defined and recognised, one way or another, in some form of international 'law' outside of just the Cypriot consitituion

The Cypriot constitution will be part of the EU aquis. Isn't that enough?
I mean what other kind of international 'law' do you want? Make a research and if such thing exist tell us. If this is something within the UN or EU, I have no problem to have it.

[erolz]

The Cypriot constitution will be part of the EU aquis. Isn't that enough?

I have already stated that protections just within a Cypriot consitiution is not enough for me and my reasons why. I suggest you try looking back.

I mean what other kind of international 'law' do you want? Make a research and if such thing exist tell us. If this is something within the UN or EU, I have no problem to have it.

What other kind do I want? How about the kind that you constanly 'lecture' me about here, the kind that you state must be and can only be the valid basis of a settlement. The kind that exists somewhere as a 'generality' and not just an excpetion for Cyprus - such that if and when a GC majority that signed a consitiuion that forbids alteration of the _excpetional_ protections of TC in the Cyrpiot statecome to me and says the state cannot function without the removal of these protections and that such protections are not consistent with international law or what happens anywhere else and that they were agreed under 'duress of Turkisk occupation' and that any blocking of them is a violation of the total absolute and unrestrictable right to self determination of the 'Cypriot' people (meaning the GC majority) - I can respond with "Here is the international law that recognises out status and rights". I need this because of history and because already now before any agreement you insist that legally and in international law we are only a minority and can not claim any other status (despite the RoC consitituion that already says otherwise and was agreed 40+ years ago). If the RoC concitution alone did not potect those rights before how can I beleive they will protect them in the future? If you insist that a settlement has to be based on international law and international norms and refuse any recognition of TC as anything more than a minority then such a status must exist in international law and norms (given your insitance on these and YOUR interpretation of them).

I have already stated that such a definition of less than a people and more than a minority does not exist (currently) to the best of my knowledge. I have suggested that the closest that exists currently is accpetance of TC rights as a people along with an acceptance that this rights is by necessity limited and subject to compromise. This is unacceptable to you. Well accepting an offical status as minority with a few 'exceptional' protections in the Cyprus consitution with no explict expression of this status and rights in the very laws YOU insist must be and can only be a valid basis of a solution is unacceptable to me.

I see two ways forward. Either you accept we are a people conditional on an acceptance of some limits to the total and absoloute rights of a people or a new category is created in 'laws' outside the Cyprus consitituion that define the status and rights of such a 'grouping' as more than a minority and less than a people. It is clear that you will never accept the first so that only leaves the second as far as I can see. Not easy but when it is the only option left it is the only option left.

[insan]

Cypriots as a whole had the right to integrate Cyprus with another country. The majority of Cypriots as a whole wanted union with Greece, while the majority didn't want neither partition, nor union with Turkey.

This is how it always happens. A recent example is when the 10 new members joined the EU. In some of those countries big percentages voted against joining the EU, but those countries still joined because the majority wanted to.
Is it really so hard for you to understand the most basic democratic principle that is applied in all democratic countries? Have you ever lived outside of the occupied areas and Turkey to learn what democracy means?

The will of vast majority of one community isn't adequate to determine what to do. I think you never heard of the Kavanin Assembly where two communities of Cyprus participating democraticaly.

Unless vast majority of TCs support the will of GC communities vast majority, you can't consider it as the common will of vast majority of Cypriots.

I know what democrasy means very well. It seems you don't know what it means....


In Cyprus there are two communities and some minorities. The population of GC community is outnumbered than the population of TC community. GC community is not a majority in respect to TC community. Both communities have the same position by all means. The executive power should be shared proportionaly and the legislative power should be shared equally by two communities. And the minority rights should be granted to the manorities.

[Piratis]

I can respond with "Here is the international law that recognises out status and rights"

The way to do this is simple: Respect international laws International laws are made to protect people. In the past both communities did not respect them and as a result we all suffered.
A correct constitution will enhance these international laws and adjust them to serve the uniqueness of our island but should not be contradictory to any international law. This way our laws and our constitution will be an additional protection for all Cypriots. And since they will be compatible will EU and international laws nobody will be able to remove the 100% legal protections you will have.

There are international laws about minorities, about individual rights, about democracy, about freedoms of religion, speech, movement etc. I really can't see how you can be harmed by being a citizen of an EU country that respects the 100% of all these.

Now somebody can think: "hey, I am bored of all these idiots around me. I just want to grab a chunk of land, declare it independent and be the king". Maybe this sounds better than the international laws, but is well ... illegal.

So make your dreams about your future and the future of your community within a legal framework, because the laws will not change to serve any illegal dreams you might have.