Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[magikthrill]

I never said that GCs understand basic human rihgts. What I did say is that most TCs dont understand what basic human rights are. However, I wish to retract this statement and change it to "Turkcyp has no understanding of basic human rights" since you like to refer to human rights as "crap"

And don't worry about the partition, it is very unlikely this will happen. Most GCs are ready to give up their basic human rights to unite their island. When I talk to my grandparents and my aunts, they tell me about compensation since they know they will never get to live on their land again.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[magikthrill]

For any solution to last two things must be satisfied.
1) superiority of law
2) and basic human rights.

Turkcyp how can you say this when you support the KKTC which is violating these two things to the core!?

And how am I hiding behind human rights when I believe that all refugees should have the right to return?

[Piratis]

Turkcyp likes to refer to a document that is null and void when he refers to the "whole world", and he totally forgets about the numerous UN resolutions that declare the "TRNC" illegal, clearly say that the only state in Cyprus is RoC and call for all states to respect the sovereignty of Republic of Cyprus.

So what does represent the whole world? A null and void document, or the numerous UN resolutions?

Also Turcyp, politicians are not the ones who make decisions about what is a human right and what is not. This is the job of the courts. Politicians, in US, EU and everywhere make politics. The support of some politicians of EU to the Annan plan doesn't make the Annan plan compatible with human rights.

the Annan plan not only was incompatible with human rights, it was even incompatible with EU law. Thats why you asked for permanent derogations, remember? And EU politicians supported the plan even if it was against the law, because as we said already politicians do not decide what is legal and and what is not, or when human rights are violated. This is the job of the courts.
So saying that because some EU politicians supported the Annan plan it means that it was not against human rights is just bull crap.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Piratis]

All I am saying is that I disagree with your interpretation of human rights

No, what you were saying is that my interpretation was wrong because some foreign politicians agreed with the Annan plan. Which as you said now has nothing to do with human rights.

Anyways, you are allowed to have your own interpretation, nobody prohibited this to you. After that we can all read the human rights declaration, read the Annan plan and then form our own opinion about Annan plan and human rights. Personally I believe it is clear that the Annan plan violates several of the human rights of GCs. You disagree (or almost disagree), and thats your right.

With the Titina Laoizidou case I believe the courts have already gave a sample of what they think regarding our rights.

Also, since you asked for permanent derogations, I don't think you can claim that whether the A plan was against the EU laws or not is a matter of interpretation as well.

Annan Plan was a solution offered by the same body (UN) that passed all those resolutions, and it have the full backing of UN security council, and it is offered to solve the Cyprus problem. So by refusing the Annan Plan, can we also say that you have acted against the recommendations of UN security council.

The Annan plan was a proposal for a solution. The UN didn't say "This is how it should be". This is what some people said, but not the UN (which I have to remind you includes all countries, and in the security council it includes Russia and China).
This is why the Annan plan is now null and void.
On the other hand, you have UN resolutions. In this case the UN as a whole (and not individuals) say that "TRNC" is illegal, that RoC is the only state in Cyprus and its sovereignty should be respected.

[Piratis]

So I believe overall Annan Plan was acceptable even though it has possible human right violations in it which can be justified for the greater public good.

Oh ok, so we violate the human rights of the 82% for the greater public good? I wonder what this "greater public" is in this case. The Turks and the British?

If the Annan plan was for our good as well, we would have voted "yes" to it. But it was not, this is why the 76% of people rejected it.