Cyprus-Forum.com

Piratis wrote:This is exactly why I propose such measures. The TCs that want benefits, support and representation from RoC should be the ones that do not support the occupation and the illegal "TRNC". These or similar measures will give to the TCs the chance to show with actions whether they are law obeying RoC citizens under foreign occupation, or if they belong to the group of people that collaborate with the enemy in order to harm RoC and violate the human rights of 1000s of their compatriots.

Piratis, no citizen of any country needs to display that he/she is a law abiding citizen to exercise his/her citizenship rights. Even criminals cannot be prevented from excercizing their voting rights. You are either a citizen of a country or not. Since the TCs are the citizens of the RoC, a fact that the GC side heavily relies on and adververtizes in legalistic arguments, then TCs should be able to use these rights that have been granted to them by the constitution.

I personally believe that it will be very helpful in achieving a solution if the TCs get back their parliamentary representation. This will give TCs a
voice of their own, independent from Turkey, and have an encouraging effect both on Turkey and the GCs. Of course, those TC parliamentaries should abstain from intefering with the internal business of the GCs in the parliament. Their main aim should be to use this as a platform to achieve a permanent solution.

Piratis, no citizen of any country needs to display that he/she is a law abiding citizen to exercise his/her citizenship rights. Even criminals cannot be prevented from exercising their voting rights.

I believe you are wrong about this. Criminals have several of their freedoms restricted, including in many cases their voting rights.

Also every citizen has to display that he/she is law obeying. For example in some days I will have to be at a specific place at a specific time for a 2 day army exercise. If I am not there without a valid excuse I will be braking the law.

Piratis wrote:I believe you are wrong about this. Criminals have several of their freedoms restricted, including in many cases their voting rights.

Also every citizen has to display that he/she is law obeying. For example in some days I will have to be at a specific place at a specific time for a 2 day army exercise. If I am not there without a valid excuse I will be braking the law.

Voting rights and other fundamental human rights in a democratic country should not be restriced in general, or at least such actions should be taken only in very extreme situations. It may be justifiable to restrict them if the person has a seperatist agenda, or if the person uses violance against the state, but in most cases it is the citzens most fundamental democratic right to actively participate in the running of his own country and to chose his own government and any unilateral restrictions by the RoC against its own citizens will be probably quite easily overturned by the ECHRs.

What we have in Cyprus today is an extreme situation. Many (most?) TCs have separatists agendas and not only. The ones that don't, and are simply victims of the Turkish invasion, we already agreed that should have the support of RoC. However what is needed is a way to distinguish between the two categories, and this is why I proposed these measures.

Piratis wrote:What we have in Cyprus today is an extreme situation. Many (most?) TCs have separatists agendas and not only. The ones that don't, and are simply victims of the Turkish invasion, we already agreed that should have the support of RoC. However what is needed is a way to distinguish between the two categories, and this is why I proposed these measures.

Most T.Cs do not have seperatist agendas. They are already living in a seperate country.

garbitsch wrote:Most T.Cs do not have seperatist agendas. They are already living in a seperate country.

There is no separate country. There is one country partly occupied. Those that support the existence of a separate country are exactly the separatists we are talking about.

Those separatists that believe they belong to another country can obviously not ask for anything from RoC since they do not accept they are RoCs citizens and they support the illegal regime in the occupied areas instead.

Piratis wrote:What we have in Cyprus today is an extreme situation. Many (most?) TCs have separatists agendas and not only. The ones that don't, and are simply victims of the Turkish invasion, we already agreed that should have the support of RoC. However what is needed is a way to distinguish between the two categories, and this is why I proposed these measures.

Seperatists do not vote for a plan that would unify them with the country from which they wish to secede.

Besides, usually by a seperatists what is meant is a person who uses violance to undermine the state and achieve his objectives. How many TCs fit this criterion?

bg-turk, Piratis sees Turkish Cypriots as seperatist terrorists who had raised against Republic of Cyprus and established their own country. This to some extend is true, but there are many reasons why Turkish Cypriots had to abandon their own republic and went for seperation. This republic was aimed at taking the rights of T.Cs which were given by international agreements, which were legitimate by the international law, and these people had no alternative but rule themselves. The federal solution was on the table in 1977, and even G.C politicians saw it necessity to abandon a uniter republic and switch to a federal one, which the Turkish Cypriots will be majority in their own state (see tubegallery's proposal and following posts). However, until Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots agree on a settlement based on the philosophy of BBF, the Turkish Cypriot will keep living in and working for TRNC.

Seperatists do not vote for a plan that would unify them with the country from which they wish to secede.

Exactly. Separatists vote only for partition plans. e.g. Annan plan.

Besides, usually by a seperatists what is meant is a person who uses violance to undermine the state and achieve his objectives. How many TCs fit this criterion?

And those that support the use of violence to undermine the state are not? Where did you get your definition from?
The majority of TCs are separatists since the support the illegal division.

This republic was aimed at taking the rights of T.Cs which were given by international agreements, which were legitimate by the international law, and these people had no alternative but rule themselves.

Nobody took away their rights. What was made were perfectly legitimate proposals for some changes. All these are the excuses those thieves used in order to grab twice as much land as they left behind.