Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Not very good sources there GR. Australian prisons and detention centres are probably some of the best in the world.

You went from denying their existence to giving them a star rating like hotels...

I TOTALLY give up!

[Paphitis]

Not very good sources there GR. Australian prisons and detention centres are probably some of the best in the world.

You went from denying their existence to giving them a star rating like hotels...

I TOTALLY give up!

No I do not deny their existance. They are just normal prisons where only illegal immigrants are detained until their trial. The average time in detention is about 1 year only if they keep appealing the decisions. Once they exhaust all appeal avenues they are quickly deported in a humane way. Any children are normally fostered by Australian families and attend school in the mean time.

We do not have Qantanamo Bay style prisons in Australia. The illegal immigrants are also economic refugees from mainly Indonesia and are not real refugees. Much like the Syrian refugees going to Cyprus lately.

In the last 2 years Australia has had 0 illegal immigrants due to it's advance border security petrolling methods. Any boats are usually intercepted in International Waters and escorted back to Indonesian waters before they enter territorial waters.

[Paphitis]

GR, I did not really expect you to be so Anti Australian. What happened, did Australia detain you in 1 of these detention centres, then torture you before deporting you to Cyprus.

[Paphitis]

Not very good sources there GR. Australian prisons and detention centres are probably some of the best in the world.

You went from denying their existence to giving them a star rating like hotels...

I TOTALLY give up!

Compared to the Nicosia Prison, they are 5 stars. They get pay tv, swimming pools, games rooms, snooker rooms and what not.

They are basically like hotels. They live better than our under privilleged.

[Oracle]

So how long did it take you to adapt to being a True Cypriot then GR! ....

Weird question... it assumes that I had to adopt to an undisclosed Cypriot standard....

Sorry, can't possibly answer this.

Can't or Won't?

... now if you look at the rest of the trash you wrote that the comment was attached to, you may gain some insight ....

[alexISS]

Problem is, I don't think many TCs will adopt this new Cypriot national identity when you exclude them right from the start. If you don't, you're saying nothing more than what AKEL's been saying for ages

You keep insisting that I "exclude" Turkish Cypriots so I'm starting to take this very personal... please expand on this.

Oh no GR is pissed. And this time it's personal

Let's ask the TCs in this forum... Does anyone feel that GR considers the Turkish Cypriots native to the island, the same way that the former-Greek-now-Chirokitian-Cypriots are?

[Get Real!]

Problem is, I don't think many TCs will adopt this new Cypriot national identity when you exclude them right from the start. If you don't, you're saying nothing more than what AKEL's been saying for ages

You keep insisting that I "exclude" Turkish Cypriots so I'm starting to take this very personal... please expand on this.

Oh no GR is pissed. And this time it's personal

Let's ask the TCs in this forum... Does anyone feel that GR considers the Turkish Cypriots native to the island, the same way that the former-Greek-now-Chirokitian-Cypriots are?

Shouldn’t you be asking if I make them feel "unwelcome" instead of "native"?

[alexISS]

Problem is, I don't think many TCs will adopt this new Cypriot national identity when you exclude them right from the start. If you don't, you're saying nothing more than what AKEL's been saying for ages

You keep insisting that I "exclude" Turkish Cypriots so I'm starting to take this very personal... please expand on this.

Oh no GR is pissed. And this time it's personal

Let's ask the TCs in this forum... Does anyone feel that GR considers the Turkish Cypriots native to the island, the same way that the former-Greek-now-Chirokitian-Cypriots are?

Shouldn’t you be asking if I make them feel "unwelcome" instead of "native"?

You can ask your own questions, I'll ask mine thank you.
You have excluded the TCs from your brand new neo-Cypriot clique many times, that cute thread of yours about Cypriot natives where you pretty much labeled them as foreigners has surely made them feel pretty "unwelcome" in your little world

[michalis5354]

Spoken like a true mainlander! I f there was a Turk on the forum would say exactly the same thing . You are in a Cyprus Forum Alexis wake up

[Murataga]

Piratis how could I have references for something that never happened. All I am doing is making an assumption, which I think is correct!

Your assumption is wrong. In fact the constidution of Cyprus was never changed.

Firstly, this is completely irrelevant because the RoC constitution is not the governing rule of law, neither in practice, theory or perception, in what is recognized as the “RoC” today. The governing rule of law is a manipulated version tailored to serve GC interests and ambitions under a doctrine of “necessity”. This doctrine accommodates within what you refer as the “RoC” a series of severe contraventions to that of the original provisions of the constitution. These alterations are numerous and range from the establishment of a substantial military force comprised of GCs to the accommodation of upholding ridiculous resolutions that declare ENOSIS as the overall objective of the RoC.

Secondly, umit07 is right to point out that it is because of the GC insistence to refuse to uphold the original provisions of the constitution that the TCs were unable to return to their posts. For example, the negotiations on the possible re-employment of TC civil servants in Nicosia and their subsequent financial compensation ended in deadlock, because it was considered by GC officials ‘to be a highly political matter linked closely with the final settlement of the Cyprus question’ (see UN Doc. S/5950 Para.106) Furthermore, GC officials rejected the demands of TC MP’s to return to the House of Representatives. The TC members asked from the UNFICYP to enable them to receive information and arrange the necessary facilities to attend meetings of the House in safety. It was also emphasized by the TC members that in case of an official invitation and notification on matters to be considered at the House, they would be ready to attend the sessions. The special representative of the UN brought this demand to the President of the House at that time, namely to Clerides. The GC reply was a conditional acceptance for the demand of the TC members to attend the sessions. According to Clerides, for the attendance of the TC members, agreements were needed in advance on certain points. There were two crucial conditions. First of all, it was demanded that TC members accept the laws enacted by the House and their application to Turkish areas by the ‘Government’ (essentially GC officials). Nevertheless, most of these laws were enacted in the absence of the TC members and contrary to the provisions of the 1960 Constitution. Secondly, Clerides claimed, ‘unless agreement was reached the provision in Article 78 of the Constitution concerning separate majorities had been abolished and every member of the House would have one vote for all decisions’. Consequently Clerides declared that it would be meaningless to provide copies of the pending bills to the TC members, if they reject the conditions set by him. On 22 July 1965, the TC members visited Clerides, but he upheld his position and declared that unless agreement was reached on these matters, he would not permit the TC members to attend the House and they had no legal standing any more in the House. Furthermore, he claimed that the constitutional provisions on the promulgation of laws by the President and Vice-President were no longer applicable. These events are well-documented UN Doc. S/6569, Paras. 7, 8/b-d and 9. It is also dramatically important to underline that not only the TCs refused to accept these unconstitutional bills passed in their absence but in fact they could NOT accept them, as neither could their GC partners, because Article 182 provides that the basic articles of this Constitution, which were incorporated from the Zurich Agreement ‘cannot, in any way, be amended, whether by way of variation, addition or repeal’.