all I ask is for our rights, and in return to give you your rights. Do you have a problem with that?
Yes, there is a problem with that. As I mentioned in a recent posts rights are not things that can be traded, and we don't 'lose' rights to somebody else, nor do we have rights restored to us at the whim of another. Human rights obtain because we are human beings - they're not given to us as if a gift. Nor can they be taken away as if they are a momentary privilege. They are ours because we are human beings.
Similarly political and civil rights obtain because we are citizens of a particular country or polity (such as the EU). By virtue of being a citizen those rights belong to us and cannot be taken away or compromised.
In both cases of human and political and civil rights their breach or the failure to uphold them or the failure to maintain them may be attributable to named individuals, but in many cases we can't name the individual.
So, it is fundamentally wrong - that is to say, misleading - to suggest that rights are given and taken, still less that they're something that can be returned. That's especially the case if, as you've implied several times over, you see rights as something that have been taken by an opposing or conflictual side. If, as you imagine, those rights had indeed been taken i,e that you had lost your rights to someone else (they'd run off with them) then on what basis could you continue to claim that you should be treated fairly, decently, and so on ? You couldn't - you'd lost your rights, and therefore you wouldn't have your rights upon which to call !
You may say that this is a convoluted and technical point, splitting hairs may be. But it is fundamental to understand rights properly otherwise there's a danger that you're either pushing at an open door or, more likely, it'll be a case of ships passing in the night - we'll talk passed each other without recognising the other.
In English law theft is, in part, defined as 'the intention to permanently deprive'. Theft is a criminal offence. That someone stole something from me, permanently depriving me of my property is not the same as me losing my rights to property. Indeed the fact that there is a criminal justice system through which the thief can be caught and prosecuted is evidence that my right to property has not been lost, in fact my rights to property have been upheld (even if I don't get my property back or the thief escapes justice).
I think that there are two different but interconnected problems we're trying to deal with and they keep getting confused and conflated. This description also applies to the political process of negotiation between the south and north. One set of problems is that of correcting wrongs, analagous to the criminal offence of theft just mentioned, and it might be that most people are just wanting those kinds of wrongs to be corrected. (That may be difficult enough to remedy !) Another set of problems is that of claiming that fundamental rights have been lost or taken. Personally I'm not convinced that the correct way of expressing many of these problem is in terms of rights. (There are clearly examples where rights is the proper way to express this, for example, the ECHR's judgement against Turkey for failing to properly investigate the disappearance and or deaths of GCs - not, it has to be noted, the common misconception that alleges that the ECHR found that Turkey had carryied out those deaths and disappearance. It didn't).
You as a Cypriot have, broadly speaking two sets of rights. First human rights which belong to all human beings, that are to be enjoyed irrespective of sex, race, creed, belief, nationality etc etc. Second you have the political rights of a Cypriot and which have been expanded upon and deepened by virtue of EU membership. Following the recent debate in this and other threads - and the ECHR application which prompted this thread - the foundation of today's Cypriot political rights is the RoC 1960 constitution.
Most political rights of the RoC are in fact fulfilled for 'GCs', not so for 'TCs' (you might not agree with this, but then you'd have to ask and honestly answer the question "if the GC state/RoC was so clearly guaranteeing of TC rights then why do TCs clearly feel the need to declare and retain a separate state' ?) But some political as well as some human rights are not realised for 'GCs', and this is where the technical question of rights is crucial. Is the issue to restore or remedy a personal loss or is the issue one of restoring and recovering fundamental rights ?
For example, if I lost property in the north what is the standing of my complaint ? Am I simply saying that person X stole it, in which case I know who my thief is and I can take action against him/her ? Or am I saying that there is a much bigger loss than this ? If the latter, then how do I specify the nature of the loss - is it a loss of rights - and again to whom did I 'lose' these rights ?
(Mean to continue, but must go now ...)
