Cyprus-Forum.com

[DT.]

"We are not so preposterous as to believe that football can solve everything, make peace or destroy racism but there are thousands of examples where football has played a part, such as with the acceptance of Arab and Palestinian players in the Israeli national team.

"Our overall aim is to promote football everywhere in the world and right now the Turkish Cypriot players are suffering from not being able to play outside their home, although they do have a strong domestic league."

http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/

hey halil, you left this little highlight

"Article 10 of our statutes says that any football association may become a member of FIFA provided that it represents a country which is an independent state recognised by the international community," Champagne said.

good luck

ps. your link doesn't work. here is the proper link

http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-6933555,00.html

topic was about racism . some how u are always mixing APPLES with APRİCOTS.
We are not so preposterous as [size=18]to believe that football can solve everything, make peace or destroy racism

give them a few years to catch up with the standard at the CFA and pretty soon we will have scouts over there to pick up any good players you have Halil. That way if they're good enough TC players will be playing in EUro competitions.

[boomerang]

DT the agenda was already discussed and set, they have to join the CFA. to which the refuse. why the hell waste peoples time with bullshit?

[CopperLine]

Piratis,

Do YOU accept one undivided Cyprus, with just equal Cypriot citizens, no official references to any "Turkish Cypriots" or "Greek Cypriots", but just 100% equal Cypriots without "majorities" and "minorities", and one person one v

It is not that I would accept this, it is that I wouldn't propose anything else.

You, on the other hand, constantly refer to collective rights, especially some fanciful notion of proportional property rights. So you may say that you're all for equality and undifferentiated citizenship but what you actually insist upon time and time again is group rights. Invariably you blame your need to call on group rights upon TCs (not only blaming TCs and Turks for the original problem but also conveniently blaming them for the position you yourself have chosen to adopt !)

Let's get back to your self-serving association with Luther King and Mandela (!!!) These guys 'could' have tried to organise and struggle for equality and democracy by first asserting group rights, including land and property, as did a number of their contemporaries. But they didn't do that; they absolutely rejected that strategy. Why ? Because once group rights are established and the principle is adopted it always overwhelms individual equality and equality of citizenship. What you have repeatedly demanded amongst these threads is that land should be distributed according to some proprotion to 'ethnic' or 'group' rights - more or less the argument and policies of the apartheid governments in South Africa from 1948. So what you have been very clearly able to demonstrate is that you are infinitely closer to apartheid than you are to Luther King or Mandela.

If you were serious about equality and citizenship - as opposed to using it as a politically acceptable fig leaf for your nationalist/ethnicist prejudices - then you would not repeatedly demand group rights around property and land.

[boomerang]

copperline its obvious you are some kind of a lawyer, can you please tell me how Rwanda seemed to overcome her genoside past and unite the people. thats if you know anything about it...

1...new constitution?
2...power sharing?
3...enclaves?
4...autonomous regions?

please share some light. as you said we need to see the problem from a different angle.

maybe we could learn from them


PS. one thing for sure a million died in fighting each other but they managed to put it together.

[DT.]

Piratis,

Do YOU accept one undivided Cyprus, with just equal Cypriot citizens, no official references to any "Turkish Cypriots" or "Greek Cypriots", but just 100% equal Cypriots without "majorities" and "minorities", and one person one v

It is not that I would accept this, it is that I wouldn't propose anything else.

You, on the other hand, constantly refer to collective rights, especially some fanciful notion of proportional property rights. So you may say that you're all for equality and undifferentiated citizenship but what you actually insist upon time and time again is group rights. Invariably you blame your need to call on group rights upon TCs (not only blaming TCs and Turks for the original problem but also conveniently blaming them for the position you yourself have chosen to adopt !)

Let's get back to your self-serving association with Luther King and Mandela (!!!) These guys 'could' have tried to organise and struggle for equality and democracy by first asserting group rights, including land and property, as did a number of their contemporaries. But they didn't do that; they absolutely rejected that strategy. Why ? Because once group rights are established and the principle is adopted it always overwhelms individual equality and equality of citizenship. What you have repeatedly demanded amongst these threads is that land should be distributed according to some proprotion to 'ethnic' or 'group' rights - more or less the argument and policies of the apartheid governments in South Africa from 1948. So what you have been very clearly able to demonstrate is that you are infinitely closer to apartheid than you are to Luther King or Mandela.

If you were serious about equality and citizenship - as opposed to using it as a politically acceptable fig leaf for your nationalist/ethnicist prejudices - then you would not repeatedly demand group rights around property and land.

WIthout wanting to be anyone's advocate, I believe you've misunderstood. Groupe rights are only mentioned in the context of a BBF. Since it is a structure created around 2 groups then its natural you would negotiate for the fairest rights for your own group.

If we are talking about an all out democracy, with one person one vote and everyone being equal and no one belonging to a group I don't think you'll find one GC who will disagree with the structure.

I can name you 4 TC's on this forum however who would go against what Martin Luther King and Mandela have been saying.

[CopperLine]

Boomerang,
It's ironic that you should mention Rwanda beacuse probably the major cause of the extended episode of violence which culminated in the 1994 genocide (and is still characterised by repeated violence) was the introduction of differentiated ethnic (group) rights by the French colonial adminsitration and which was reinforced in subsequent independence constitutions.

While much progress seems to have been made in Rwanda it still suffers massively from the imposed ethnic divisions and differentiation. I wouldn't like to say what the particular developments have been in Rwanda over the last decade or so since that is not my field, but my impression is that they've tried to move away from group rights etc including enclaves, autonomous regions (which would not have worked in Rwanda anyway because of the 'ethnic' composition of the population) etc. It is noteable of course that the Arusha Tribunal dealing with alleged war crimes deals with the accused as indviduals before the law and not as members of this group or that group.

I actually think that South Africa might be a good example to look at for reasons of its use of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I've floated this idea in previous threads.

It seems to me that there is a basic question or option which we all have to ask and answer, and that is :

EITHER (1) we allow open negotiations with no preconditions to proceed without determining blame and responsibility for past harms

OR (2) we only allow negotiations to proceed after determining blame and responsibility for past harms


My own view is that option 2 is both a dead-end and a fruitless task. It is also the one most frequently demanded in this forum. My own view is that option 1 is the only one which offer some possibility - not a guarantee, just a strong possibility - of some kind of just settlement. Variants of option 1 were those that were used in South Africa, to an extent in Chile and Argentina, and also to an extent in northern Ireland.

[boomerang]

thanks for that copperline. the reason I asked you about Rwanda is because after the horrible genoside where 1 million people were slaughtered like sheep, today they seemed to put it behind them. no prefect system, but no more massacres.

and here we have tcs with intercommunal fighting calling it a genoside and more than willing to hold onto their gains and saying they do not trust...Now I ask you is this the way forward?

as far as your options, i am not quite certain as to which one I would opt for.

your option 1 for me means this will festter for ever and history distorted.

your option 2 puts closure on the whole thing.

maybe option 3 where we have a truth commission, blame is given, but no punishment. this way people will own up to their misdoings without the fear of procecution...atleast this way history will be agreed.

[humanist]

I think Piratis' post was misunderstood by some people. I personally agree with an undivided democratic Cyprus one Cypriot people one person = one vote prety much like US but USC. WE have one more letter than the americans yayeeyayyeyeyeyeeeeeee.

[Kikapu]

Halil,

Is this the same bridge that was removed few months ago.??

If so, does that mean "peace" is gone.??

it is the same bridge.

subject was racism ,
wall is removed but racism is still exciting

Halil,

I was only saying has the "peace" is gone, because on the wall, it is written " bridge of peace", and if the bridge is gone, does that mean also, that the "peace " is gone.???

As for Racism....there's plenty to go around.!!

What do you think.??