Piratis wrote:
So why don't you give us an example of a community that does not own a specific area in the country (like the Scottish in the UK for example), and that have what you are asking from us. Just give me one example.
There is no point in giving you examples because you have shown in the past that you will dismiss any examples as 'not the same as Cyprus' - an unltimate reason if you want one because no where is the same as Cyprus.
My point that I am trying to make is in the CONCEPT of a numericaly smaller group having equality with a numericaly larger one. This concpet appears throughout human orgainsations, be they within states, be they between states and just about any other entities that have representations of disperate groups. I myself am in the process of trying to broker some form of co operative body for wireless internet service providers here in North Cyprus as just one example. On some issues the smaller players require and will have an 'equal say' as the larger entities. This is fundamental in such co opertative ventures. If we were to try and create such a mutaly benefical association on the basis that the largest player would dominate the association on all issues then there will be no association at all. There is nothing fundamentaly unfair or undemocratic about making a 'group' the 'unit of democracy' even when the numbers that make up that group are different between groups. Yes there needs to be decisions and agreement on what consistutes a valid group in terms of being a 'unit of democracy' in a given organisational structure - but you constantly argue that this very CONCEPT is invalid (it's just a matter of maths) - even though this CONCEPT is the same one that gives the RoC equality with states like Germany and the UK within the EU in some areas!
You want to eat your cake and still have a cake left having eaten it on this issue. You simply refuse to recognise that such a concept of equality of groups - independent of their numbers, is a fair and democratic and common occurance through organisational structures throughout the world. If you could accept that this is a valid concept and then argued that TC do not 'qualify' - that would be one thing. However you argue that the very CONCEPT is invalid and that makes you 'extreme' in my view and there is little point in discussions with such 'extreme' views in my experience. You present an argument that a numerical minority must always be a political minority - as though it is a fundamental law of nature. You argue that accpeting political equality between TC and GC at any level is akin to trying to get two positivley charged atoms to attract and about as possible. The more you insist in such a position (and ignore it when its convient to your own interests to do so) the less I see any chance of reasonable dialogue with you. Argue that TC should not be deemed a group that should have such a status - fine. We can discuss this and agree to disagree if necessasary. Argue that the CONCEPT is invalid, undemocratic and unfair (as you do) and then there is little to be discussed, is there? Except maybe how we 'solidify' seperation fo the two communites into sperate states with some land exchanges.
