Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Kifeas,
As far as the EU is concerned a language does not belong to a state, rather it is spoken by people. Since the right to speak one's own language is a fundamental human right and the EU claims to uphold human rights - and I think that in the field of language it has a pretty good record - then it follows that if a sizeable number of its population speak a given language, in this case Turkish, then the onus is on the EU to recognise and uphold this right.

As far as I can tell the case for recognition of Turkish as an EU language need not refer to, let alone depend on arguments about the RoC and TRNC. Brian Semmens' argument is one argument, to be sure, but I think it unnecessarily complicated. It is sufficient in my view simply to argue, for example, that many more people in the EU speak Turkish than say Welsh, Gaelic, Basque, or Maltese all of which are recognised languages. Why isn't Turkish so recognised ? (The answer CANNOT be because Turkey is not an EU member, because languages as I said do not belong to states).

CooperLine, I can tell you for sure that you have got it all wrong! First of all, yes, the right to ones language is a human right; however it applies only to the case in which it is denied to an individual to make use of his language by himself, when communicating with other people that speak the same language (i.e. the case of the Kurdish people of Turkey!) It is not a violation of human rights, when a nation-state or a supra-national state (like the EU) doesn’t treat it as an official one!

The EU is not a nation-state itself, nor does it replace or substitute its member nation-states! The EU is what one would call a confederation, and it had not yet gone to a stage of being regarded as a one federal nation-state!

The EU doesn’t admit languages as official ones, based on the fact that there might be people within the EU territory of member states that do speak them; but based on whether they are official ones of the member states themselves! Learn better the facts of the EU aqui on this issue! If this was the case, the EU wouldn’t have had only 23 official languages, but 223 ones instead! Taking Cyprus in consideration, it should have also included Armenian, Maronite and perhaps Russian and Arabic –besides Turkish, as official EU languages, because they are all regarded as native languages of people with EU citizenship and who are living within the EU itself (one of its member states!)

And no, Welsh, Gaelic, Basque are not official EU languages!

[duckerdiver]

Dear Kifeas

I will answer your questions as fully as I can, under each one to aid clarity:

"am I right to assume that you also recognise the RoC as the only legal and sovereign government of the whole of the island, representing all of its people -GCs and TCs alike, as its also another of the facts of the existing 1960 constitution?"

Due to the 13 amendments to the 1960 constitution initiated by President Makarios in November 1963 which led to the walk out of the Vice President, the Turkish speaking Ministers and the Turkish speaking Deputies, it is my position that the R of C has not had a properly constituted government as per the 1960 constitution. So I do not agree with your assumption that I recognise the present government (or all the governments since 1963) "as the only legal and sovereign government of the whole of the island, representing all of its people -GCs and TCs alike"

The logical assumption would be that yes, you indeed recognise the RoC on the above basis! If this is true, then, can I also assume that you do not recognise the so called "TRNC," and that you in fact consider the north part of Cyprus as a territory belonging to the RoC, (as per also the treaty of accession that that the EU has co-signed with the RoC,) but which (area) is under an essentially illegal Turkish occupation?

Sadly I do not follw your logic (as reasoned above.) As regards the Northern third of Cyprus; I accept that Turkey under its obligations under the treaty of guarantee had the right to deploy troops tp prevent possible bloodshed and the deaths of Turkish speaking Cypriots following the failed coup in July 1974. I also accept that everything that followed was and remains to this day, a result of that failed coup. I also accept that the presence of the Turkish troops whilst not desirable is the only reason that since July 1974 no Turkish speaking Cypriot has lost his or her life merely because of their ethnicity. As regards the TRNC, I accept that the TRNC is the administration of the Turkish speaking Cypriot area and just like the Greek speaking Cypriots, the Turkish speaking Cypriots voted for the people they thought would run their area for them. Its legality is the same as the government of the R of C, it does not conform to the principles or obligations of the 1960 constitution. A better title for both governments would be that they represent their ethnic constituents but neither represents both ethnic groups equally.

If this is also true, are you then ready to initiate petitions towards all relevant directions for the end of north Cyprus' illegal occupation, and the reinstitution of all the Cypriot people's violated human rights, an issue far more important than the one concerning the making of Turkish and EU official language?

As your assumption was not correct/true, I am not minded to initiate any petition other than the one I have submitted and most certainly not one as you have described, but of course you (or any other citizen of the EU) are (is) free to do so (link to submitting a petition: https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/p ... anguage=EN)

I am asking you all these questions, because all the information I have about your good self is that in fact you do not recognise the RoC as the government sovereignly representing the whole island, as it is also marked in the 1960 constitution; you do recognise the "TRNC" as a legitimate authority or government -contrary to the provisions of the 1960 constitution, and you do not regard the north as an area illegally occupied by Turkey!

As you can see "all the information" you have about me is wrong and I am confident that my answers (given above) should clarify what I believe and what I do not believe


Brian Semmens

[Kifeas]

Dear Kifeas

I will answer your questions as fully as I can, under each one to aid clarity:

"am I right to assume that you also recognise the RoC as the only legal and sovereign government of the whole of the island, representing all of its people -GCs and TCs alike, as its also another of the facts of the existing 1960 constitution?"

Due to the 13 amendments to the 1960 constitution initiated by President Makarios in November 1963 which led to the walk out of the Vice President, the Turkish speaking Ministers and the Turkish speaking Deputies, it is my position that the R of C has not had a properly constituted government as per the 1960 constitution. So I do not agree with your assumption that I recognise the present government (or all the governments since 1963) "as the only legal and sovereign government of the whole of the island, representing all of its people -GCs and TCs alike"

The logical assumption would be that yes, you indeed recognise the RoC on the above basis! If this is true, then, can I also assume that you do not recognise the so called "TRNC," and that you in fact consider the north part of Cyprus as a territory belonging to the RoC, (as per also the treaty of accession that that the EU has co-signed with the RoC,) but which (area) is under an essentially illegal Turkish occupation?

Sadly I do not follw your logic (as reasoned above.) As regards the Northern third of Cyprus; I accept that Turkey under its obligations under the treaty of guarantee had the right to deploy troops tp prevent possible bloodshed and the deaths of Turkish speaking Cypriots following the failed coup in July 1974. I also accept that everything that followed was and remains to this day, a result of that failed coup. I also accept that the presence of the Turkish troops whilst not desirable is the only reason that since July 1974 no Turkish speaking Cypriot has lost his or her life merely because of their ethnicity. As regards the TRNC, I accept that the TRNC is the administration of the Turkish speaking Cypriot area and just like the Greek speaking Cypriots, the Turkish speaking Cypriots voted for the people they thought would run their area for them. Its legality is the same as the government of the R of C, it does not conform to the principles or obligations of the 1960 constitution. A better title for both governments would be that they represent their ethnic constituents but neither represents both ethnic groups equally.

If this is also true, are you then ready to initiate petitions towards all relevant directions for the end of north Cyprus' illegal occupation, and the reinstitution of all the Cypriot people's violated human rights, an issue far more important than the one concerning the making of Turkish and EU official language?

As your assumption was not correct/true, I am not minded to initiate any petition other than the one I have submitted and most certainly not one as you have described, but of course you (or any other citizen of the EU) are (is) free to do so (link to submitting a petition: https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/p ... anguage=EN)

I am asking you all these questions, because all the information I have about your good self is that in fact you do not recognise the RoC as the government sovereignly representing the whole island, as it is also marked in the 1960 constitution; you do recognise the "TRNC" as a legitimate authority or government -contrary to the provisions of the 1960 constitution, and you do not regard the north as an area illegally occupied by Turkey!

As you can see "all the information" you have about me is wrong and I am confident that my answers (given above) should clarify what I believe and what I do not believe


Brian Semmens

[Kifeas]

Then Brian Siemens, since you do not recognise the RoC as the entity representing the whole of Cyprus and its entire people -GCs and TCs alike; you also do not recognise that the TCs are citizens of the (currently) existing RoC -the one that has acceded the EU as a member sate! Then, for what reason (since for you the TCs are neither citizens of an EU member state, the RoC, and therefore nor citizens of the EU,) do you want to get the EU (with a petition) to make Turkish as an official language? On what legal basis do you want Turkish to become an official EU language, if the 1960 RoC and its constitution do not exist any longer? Is the "TRNC" a member state of the EU, for Turkish to become an official language?

Brian Siemens, I have seen fools and bigger fools, and then I have seen you! Your thesis is just a bunch of crap and rubbish!

[CopperLine]

Kifeas,

CooperLine, I can tell you for sure that you have got it all wrong!

Methinks not, see below ...

First of all, yes, the right to ones language is a human right; however it applies only to the case in which it is denied to an individual to make use of his language by himself, when communicating with other people that speak the same language (i.e. the case of the Kurdish people of Turkey!)

No, a human right does not apply differentially between one case and another. The right to speak one's own language is a fundamental human right. Full stop. It does not require permission or special dispensation - it is a right. That is what a right is.

It is not a violation of human rights, when a nation-state or a supra-national state (like the EU) doesn’t treat it as an official one!

I didn't suggest it was. In fact I made effort to point out the distinction between recognition of a language one the one hand and an official language on the other hand.

The EU is not a nation-state itself, nor does it replace or substitute its member nation-states! The EU is what one would call a confederation, and it had not yet gone to a stage of being regarded as a one federal nation-state!

I don't recognise this portrayal of the EU but in any case it is irrelevant to the question of languages.

The EU doesn’t admit languages as official ones, based on the fact that there might be people within the EU territory of member states that do speak them; but based on whether they are official ones of the member states themselves!

If this was the case, the EU wouldn’t have had only 22 official languages, but 222 ones instead!

I don't know why you chose not to acknowledge the distinction I made between official languages and recognised languages, perhaps so you could set up a straw figure in order to knock it down ?

Rather than rely on the dodgy interpretations you offer, why don't we just go to the horse's mouth so to speak :

The European Union is founded on the principle of ‘unity in diversity’: diversity of cultures, customs and beliefs - and of languages.

Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, adopted by EU leaders in 2000, says that the Union shall respect linguistic diversity, and Article 21 prohibits discrimination based on a number of grounds, including language. Together with respect for the individual, openness towards other cultures, tolerance and acceptance of others, respect for linguistic diversity is a core value of the European Union.

This principle applies not only to the 23 official languages of the Union but also to the many regional and minority languages spoken by segments of its population.

It is this diversity that makes the European Union what it is: not a ‘melting pot’ in which differences are rendered down, but a place where diversity can be celebrated as a source of wealth.

This extract is taken from http://europa.eu/languages/en/chapter/5

The fact remains that the official (working) languages of the EU are not exact correspondences with EU membership; they are not required to be corresponding with official member languages; and that there are many more so-called 'minority' languages which are used even within the institutions and workings of the EU.

More to the point, none of this has got anything to do with recognition or otherwise of TRNC !

[miltiades]

Brian Semmens wrote:
"""" As regards the Northern third of Cyprus; I accept that Turkey under its obligations under the treaty of guarantee had the right to deploy troops tp prevent possible bloodshed and the deaths of Turkish speaking Cypriots following the failed coup in July 1974. I also accept that everything that followed was and remains to this day, a result of that failed coup. I also accept that the presence of the Turkish troops whilst not desirable is the only reason that since July 1974 no Turkish speaking Cypriot has lost his or her life merely because of their ethnicity. As regards the TRNC, I accept that the TRNC is the administration of the Turkish speaking Cypriot area and just like the Greek speaking Cypriots, the Turkish speaking Cypriots voted for the people they thought would run their area for them. Its legality is the same as the government of the R of C, it does not conform to the principles or obligations of the 1960 constitution. A better title for both governments would be that they represent their ethnic constituents but neither represents both ethnic groups equally. """

And would you also say that this is how the International community views the current situation , because according to the UN the EU and all nations worldwide the Northern part of Cyprus is part of Cyprus under Turkish occupation , not Turkish Cypriot but Turkish. We can not simply dismiss International legalities and persist in presenting a de facto situation as legal. You of all people must surely know that .
The world does not refer to Cyprus as Greek Cyprus or Turkish Cyprus , if that was the case then how about the 2% of the Armenian Cypriots , do we call part of Cyprus Armenian. No No Sir, there is one Cyprus where all its people are equal under the law of the land , laws that are now enshrined and intertwined with European directives.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas,

CooperLine, I can tell you for sure that you have got it all wrong!

Methinks not, see below ...

First of all, yes, the right to ones language is a human right; however it applies only to the case in which it is denied to an individual to make use of his language by himself, when communicating with other people that speak the same language (i.e. the case of the Kurdish people of Turkey!)

No, a human right does not apply differentially between one case and another. The right to speak one's own language is a fundamental human right. Full stop. It does not require permission or special dispensation - it is a right. That is what a right is.

It is not a violation of human rights, when a nation-state or a supra-national state (like the EU) doesn’t treat it as an official one!

I didn't suggest it was. In fact I made effort to point out the distinction between recognition of a language one the one hand and an official language on the other hand.

The EU is not a nation-state itself, nor does it replace or substitute its member nation-states! The EU is what one would call a confederation, and it had not yet gone to a stage of being regarded as a one federal nation-state!

I don't recognise this portrayal of the EU but in any case it is irrelevant to the question of languages.

The EU doesn’t admit languages as official ones, based on the fact that there might be people within the EU territory of member states that do speak them; but based on whether they are official ones of the member states themselves!

If this was the case, the EU wouldn’t have had only 22 official languages, but 222 ones instead!

I don't know why you chose not to acknowledge the distinction I made between official languages and recognised languages, perhaps so you could set up a straw figure in order to knock it down ?

Rather than rely on the dodgy interpretations you offer, why don't we just go to the horse's mouth so to speak :

The European Union is founded on the principle of ‘unity in diversity’: diversity of cultures, customs and beliefs - and of languages.

Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, adopted by EU leaders in 2000, says that the Union shall respect linguistic diversity, and Article 21 prohibits discrimination based on a number of grounds, including language. Together with respect for the individual, openness towards other cultures, tolerance and acceptance of others, respect for linguistic diversity is a core value of the European Union.

This principle applies not only to the 23 official languages of the Union but also to the many regional and minority languages spoken by segments of its population.

It is this diversity that makes the European Union what it is: not a ‘melting pot’ in which differences are rendered down, but a place where diversity can be celebrated as a source of wealth.

This extract is taken from http://europa.eu/languages/en/chapter/5

The fact remains that the official (working) languages of the EU are not exact correspondences with EU membership; they are not required to be corresponding with official member languages; and that there are many more so-called 'minority' languages which are used even within the institutions and workings of the EU.

More to the point, none of this has got anything to do with recognition or otherwise of TRNC !

CopperLine, live the cleverish nonsense aside, please! We are talking about OFFICIAL EU LANGUAGES here, and not the cultural rights of EU citizens, such as the right to speaking their language among themselves! Do no waste our time here with unrelated and irrelevant issues for the purpose and essence of the discussion in this particular thread!

If you do not know which the EU official languages are, here is the list of them!

http://www.europa.eu/
Do you see this being based on your theories, or is it based which are the official languages of EU member states?

If you want to prove your sincerity and integrity as a poster (you have not yet, as far as I am concerned) Brian Siemen's last post offers sufficient material for you! Voila!

[zan]

Does anyone have a copy of the constitution of the `"RoC" and how different is it to the original legal one?????

The point here is whether the "RoC' is abiding by that constitution or not and not as special conditions as to how the TRNC/KKTC is behaving. You cannot suspend law in a supposed legal state.

[phoenix]

Brian Semmens wrote:
"""" As regards the Northern third of Cyprus; I accept that Turkey under its obligations under the treaty of guarantee had the right to deploy troops tp prevent possible bloodshed and the deaths of Turkish speaking Cypriots following the failed coup in July 1974. I also accept that everything that followed was and remains to this day, a result of that failed coup. I also accept that the presence of the Turkish troops whilst not desirable is the only reason that since July 1974 no Turkish speaking Cypriot has lost his or her life merely because of their ethnicity. As regards the TRNC, I accept that the TRNC is the administration of the Turkish speaking Cypriot area and just like the Greek speaking Cypriots, the Turkish speaking Cypriots voted for the people they thought would run their area for them. Its legality is the same as the government of the R of C, it does not conform to the principles or obligations of the 1960 constitution. A better title for both governments would be that they represent their ethnic constituents but neither represents both ethnic groups equally. """

And would you also say that this is how the International community views the current situation , because according to the UN the EU and all nations worldwide the Northern part of Cyprus is part of Cyprus under Turkish occupation , not Turkish Cypriot but Turkish. We can not simply dismiss International legalities and persist in presenting a de facto situation as legal. You of all people must surely know that .
The world does not refer to Cyprus as Greek Cyprus or Turkish Cyprus , if that was the case then how about the 2% of the Armenian Cypriots , do we call part of Cyprus Armenian. No No Sir, there is one Cyprus where all its people are equal under the law of the land , laws that are now enshrined and intertwined with European directives.

This doesn't happen very often so I don't want to miss this opportunity to say I agree with you Miltiades . . . for all it's worth.

[CopperLine]

Kifeas,
I really can't be bothered going through this. Here was a poster who was saying something about language rights and EU languages. I responded saying I thought that his was unnecessarily complicated and that it didn't have to rely on official language and state membership. You disagree. Fair enough. But don't give me that crap about it being irrelevant to the thread or that we were only talking about official EU languages. Even the briefest of glimpses across the posts on this thread show that not to be the case.

"If you want to prove your sincerity and integrity as a poster ..." What on earth are you talking about ? Why on earth do you think I might give a hoot 'as a poster' ?

Good night.