Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexandros Lordos]

Even though I do not hold the same views as Piratis, I must acknowledge that violation of human rights is an issue that can not be lightly ignored, in the name of our "social engineering" plans or Annan Plans or whatever.

Ofcourse, human rights is a complex matter: My "freedom of movement" does not give me the right to run you over with my car, just because you are in the way of my movement - if you get the drift of my metaphor.

Let's take the issue of property as an example: At the one end we have those who say that every single piece of property should be returned to its original owner, in the name of human rights, irrespective of how much this upsets or even dismantles the Turkish Cypriot community. At the other end we have those who say that "no more than 1/3 of each refugee's property should revert to original owners" in the name of an abstract ideal called "bizonality with the majority of property in the north being owned by Turkish Cypriots" - and this, with no regard to the extent at which individual human rights will be violated.

I think both perspectives miss the mark. Human rights are inviolable, except in the case where by exercising my human rights I limit the exercise of your human rights.

In the example of property, I think it is wrong for my fellow GCs to insist that every single piece of land should revert to original owners, irrespective of how much hurt this will cause to current occupants and to the TC community as a whole. Similarly, I believe it is wrong when our TC friends so blithely insist that "there should be a quota in how much of their (own) property GCs may have in the north". So what if Greek Cypriots own the majority of property in the north? Arabs own the majority of property in London but I do not hear anybody complaining ... If Turkish Cypriot current occupants are protected to the extent that is deemed appropriate and fair, then they have absolutely no right to insist on yet more involuntary land tranfers to their favor. This is basically how I see the human rights issue.

By the way, involuntary land transfers in lieu of compensation are not in themselves illegal or a violation of human rights: States do it all the time, when it is deemed in the public interest to do so, for instance when building a school or a hospital or a road. Similarly, in the special case of Cyprus, it is in the public interest to protect TC current occupants in the north, otherwise we will not have social integration and harmony. So, seen from this light, involuntary taking over of property is not a violation of human rights - with the proviso that it is indeed absolutely necessary in order to preserve social harmony, and that original owners are compensated for in an appropriate manner.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[insan]

Similarly, I believe it is wrong when our TC friends so blithely insist that "there should be a quota in how much of their (own) property GCs may have in the north".

Dear Alexandros 1/3 of the TC administered area will be returned to its legal owners. If another 1/3 of TC administered area has been returned to its leagal owners under the terms of leasing this means only the 1/3(%10 of the Cyprus) of the TC administered are will have legally belonged to TCs. And if TCs sell half of this %10 to some GCs, Europeans and foreigners; this means in the end only the %5 of the Cyprus land will belong to TCs. Is there any nation, community, state or constituent state under any form of state structure that only owns %5 of the total land and still called "politically equal" state partner?

On one hand I agree with you that with a flat view point; not allowing the legal owners to get all their properties back is a violation of human rights. On the other hand, all other alternatives will lead TCs to lose everything they own.

[erolz]

Even though I do not hold the same views as Piratis,

phew - that's a relief !

I must acknowledge that violation of human rights is an issue that can not be lightly ignored, in the name of our "social engineering" plans or Annan Plans or whatever.

Is anyone saying that human rights are an issue that can be lightly ignored?

Similarly, I believe it is wrong when our TC friends so blithely insist that "there should be a quota in how much of their (own) property GCs may have in the north". So what if Greek Cypriots own the majority of property in the north?

Well I have always tried to make clear that for me personaly as a TC bizonality is not as important or necessary as protecting the TC community / people from political control and domination by GC community / people. If you give me a framework where I end up living totaly surrounded by GC but where the TC people are not under total effective control of the GC community in Cyprus I am happy.

Arabs own the majority of property in London but I do not hear anybody complaining ...

Actualy they do not own the majority of property in London. If they were to come close to owning the majority of land/ property in the UK then I think you would see much complaining and much nationalism and the enacting of laws to rectify this - but this is not the issue at hand.

If Turkish Cypriot current occupants are protected to the extent that is deemed appropriate and fair, then they have absolutely no right to insist on yet more involuntary land tranfers to their favor. This is basically how I see the human rights issue.

As long as I beleive that the TC poeple will not be able to be dominated and controled by the GC people in their own homeland and that a GC numercial majority can not force measures on TC in Cyprus that are against the will of the TC people then I am happy. I make no isinstance beyond that.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Piratis]

India

The idea of a Muslim nation, distinct from Hindu India, was introduced in 1930 by the poet Muhammad Iqbal and was ardently supported by a group of Indian Muslim students in England, who were the first to use the name Pakistan [land of the pure, from the Urdu pak, =pure and stan, =land]. It gained wide support in 1940 when the Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah , demanded the establishment of a Muslim state in the areas of India where Muslims were in the majority. The League won most of the Muslim constituencies in the 1946 elections, and Britain and the Congress party reluctantly agreed to the formation of Pakistan as a separate dominion under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, which went into effect on Aug. 15, 1947.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/sectio ... istory.asp

Turcyp, you decided again by yourselves that TCs are a separate nation, however this is just your claim and not a fact. What we have are two communities, there is no reference anywhere to separate GC or TC nations.

In any case I agree with what Alex said:

Human rights are inviolable, except in the case where by exercising my human rights I limit the exercise of your human rights.

I have no problem to compromise. I am more than willing to do it!
However such compromise should be made between our true rights and your true rights.
Until now what we do is to try to compromise our true rights VS your true rights PLUS your imaginary rights, plus your "sorry but this is reality" demands. In the end of such "compromise" we loose hugely from our true rights, you loose nothing from your true rights and you simply sacrifice some of your outrageous demands and you call this a compromise.

So, if we assume for the sake of argument that self determination is your right in the way Turkcyp put it:

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Then we can find a balance between this and our human rights.
However when you add to that demands such as controlling the 29% of the ground, allowing only a limited number of refugees to return etc, then you demand things that are not your rights, but we are expected to compromise even more of our rights in order to accommodate such demands. In the end we get screwed, and this is why such things would be unacceptable for us.

[Alexandros Lordos]

[quote="insan"] Is there any nation, community, state or constituent state under any form of state structure that only owns %5 of the total land and still called "politically equal" state partner?
[quote]

My friend, property ownership and political rights are two very different things ... GCs can own piles and piles of property in the north, but so long as it is you TCs who have the majority of constituent state citizenships, it is you who will actually be making the decisions ...

(by the way, Erol, I was joking about Arabs and London ... )

[Alexandros Lordos]

I have no problem to compromise. I am more than willing to do it!
However such compromise should be made between our true rights and your true rights.
Until now what we do is to try to compromise our true rights VS your true rights PLUS your imaginary rights, plus your "sorry but this is reality" demands. In the end of such "compromise" we lose hugely from our true rights, you lose nothing from your true rights and you simply sacrifice some of your outrageous demands and you call this a compromise.

So, if we assume for the sake of argument that self determination is your right in the way Turkcyp put it:

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Then we can find a balance between this and our human rights.
However when you add to that demands such as controlling the 29% of the ground, allowing only a limited number of refugees to return etc, then you demand things that are not your rights, but we are expected to compromise even more of our rights in order to accommodate such demands.

I find nothing that I disagree with here...

And I really do encourage our TC friends to think carefully what their real needs are ... because if their "real needs" are what Denktash negotiated to get to the Annan Plan, then it just won't work for us.

[insan]

My friend, property ownership and political rights are two very different things ... GCs can own piles and piles of property in the north, but so long as it is you TCs who have the majority of constituent state citizenships, it is you who will actually be making the decisions ...

Yes, you are rigt Alexandros. In the hands of bigger capital owners TCs will actually be making the decisions.

%5 vs %24

TCs win! No doubt.


Master and servant relations.

[Alexandros Lordos]

By the way, involuntary land transfers in lieu of compensation are not in themselves illegal or a violation of human rights: States do it all the time, when it is deemed in the public interest to do so, for instance when building a school or a hospital or a road. Similarly, in the special case of Cyprus, it is in the public interest to protect TC current occupants in the north, otherwise we will not have social integration and harmony. So, seen from this light, involuntary taking over of property is not a violation of human rights - with the proviso that it is indeed absolutely necessary in order to preserve social harmony, and that original owners are compensated for in an appropriate manner.

Thank you very much....

If I had written this down, I would have been called thief, murderer, rapist, eetc. etc. by some members of this forum.....

He he ...

actually, I got the above analysis from the GC lawyer who succesfully defended the Titina Loizidou case ... so there you have it!