Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

A resent ruling of the ECHR has obliged the RoC to accommodate the political rights of the TC residing in the south, under the law of necessity. As you know, according to the RoC constitution, which still holds, TCs are supposed to vote on separate elections both for the parliament house and for the vice president.

After the case of Ibrahim Aziz vs Cyprus, the RoC is ordered, despite the provisions of it’s constitution, to allow voting rights to the TCs that choose to live in the south, treating them as being part of the GC community (??)

During the last European parliament elections TC in the south, as well as TC from the north were permitted to vote and run as candidates. In fact, one TC residing in the north, run as an independent candidate. Of course the case of the E.U. parliament elections is a bit different than that of President and MPs. Anyhow as from the next Parliament al elections, TCs in the south will be able to elect and be elected if they so wish.

Dear Kifeas,

We are not after being a part of GC community and therefore vote with GC community. IF RoC is going to start giving the rights from 1960 constitution where TCs choose their own MPs, their VP, etc. etc. then fine.

Under the law of necessity!!! What kind of necessity is this. It is necessary for RoC to restrict TC using their own rights from 1960 constitution? Is this what you are saying to me?

Please do not start right now about the occupation and Turkish army etc. We did not have Turkish army in Cyprus until 1974. What kind of necessity existed during the 10 preceding 1974 years for TCs to be excluded from using their own 1960 constitutional rights.

Actually forget about the previous paragraph, just answer me this question:
If for some reason Turkish army decides to leave Cyprus tomorrow, and reduce its troops to a number of 650 as agreed on 1960 constitutional order, 'What kind of guarantees does RoC give us that they will uphold the 1960 constitution?'.

Trust me if by some magic way RoC can make us believe that 1960 constitutional order will be upheld, then TCs will ask Turkish Army to leave. But until that day that you convince us that “you are not again cheat us from our rights, they are here to save our asses, and it is called "peace operation" for us”.

So the way I see it is RoC government duty to make us believe that we are going to be fairly treated according to laws of 1960 constitution. For example, if RoC can come up with a proposal as follows (or something in similar lines):
- The next election will be hold according to 1960 agreements, and all the eligible TCs will use their 1960 constitutional rights.
- And immediately with the election Turkish troops will start to withdraw to be completed in lets say 2 years.
- And any halfway fair proposal to solve the property problem to go with above points.

My opinion is that majority of TCs would have vote “Yes” to that kind of solution. As I have said it before in the context of “bbf” it is not that “bizonal” but it is the “bicommunal” part that is important for us.

[Kifeas]

Ok I was not aware of this and was under the impression that the situation was still as it was before this EU ruling (namely TC could not vote in RoC presidential elections). Thanks for the update. Whilst it does not bode well for the GC administration that they had to be forced to do this by the EU it does bode well for the argument that being in the EU protects TC and their rights as indivduals (if not as a community) in a way that is materialy different from when the RoC was not an EU memeber and I aknowledge this.

Actually, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is not an E.U. institution. It functions under the authority of the Council of Europe which iis a separate and totally independed body from the E.U. Turkey is also a member of this council as well as some 40 other European countries.

Technically speaking this case against the RoC could have been taken to the ECHR even before Cyprus became member of the E.U., even in 1974.

Is good to read the case in order to understand the rational of the RoC for not facilitating TCs political rights in the south. I am not sure if at the end of the day this decision serves the interests of the TC community. Actually the stance of the RoC up until this decision was more favourable for the rights of the TC community than after the decision requires it to do.
If you know what I mean. (??)

[MicAtCyp]

What a load of wankers they are in the ROC, this is the goodwill that you show by scare mongering or threatening people not to come to the north even for sports, i spit on the ROC and you can take the free health care and shove it up your arses.

What’s the matter Brother? Started losing your temper?

There is no goodwill on the ROC side of things and people like me who are moderate tc that want unity end up being very pissed off

Just name me one thing your side did to show it's goodwill towards us. Just one. One, just one little bit. NOTHING!!! Absolutely Nothing. All they do is provoke us all the time, they built on our own properties they sell our properties to the foreigners they import more settlers they give more citizenships they go against us in the EU forming alliances with the British and asking direct trade to solve ALL their problems. WE WANT OUR LAND BACK MAN.
The only way I will be convinced of your sides good will is when they return us the empty town of Famagusta as a first step. This will be the start, and then you will see our goodwill returned 100 times more!

*******************************************************************************

Oh, there are no embargoes on TCs though!!! Right MicAtCyp??

Is than an embargo? On what imports or exports? On which products?

Trying to cheat on our own FIFA membereship is not an embargo man, is restricting you using our own rights from that membership.
By the way I understand the match would take place at a stolen GC stadium in Kyrenia, right?

And then you come here and claim that "we just provided the information" and you want us to believe in that? You provided the information for what?

The information that we will sue them at FIFA dude. Do you mind?

**************************************************

The freedom to vote? Currently TC living in the RoC do not have the same freedoms as GC in the RoC.

To vote for who Erol, for Denktash or for Eroglu? Or for a leader of the 2000 gypsies you sent us in Limassol? in case you don't know the 1960 constitution gives you rights to vote FOR YOUR OWN LEADERS not for our leaders.
But anyway for your information Ibrahim Asiz went to ECHR and got the right for all TCS in the free areas to vote in our elections. Satisfied now?

There is both offical and unoffical prejudice against TC living in the south.

This is just in your imagination. Ask the TCs who live in the Free areas to give you some examples. Start from the University professors e.g Niazi Gizilyurek, Niase Yasin, Ozdemir Ozgur, etc.
By the way do you know how many TCs applied to register their children to the purely Turkish school that will operate in September? Only 3. Do you know how many of them want their children to go to the GC school and at the same time learn Turkish from their Turkish Language tutor? More than 500!

***********************
Main_Source,

So Arsenal did go there or dit it not? I am rather confused

[Kifeas]

Dear Kifeas,

We are not after being a part of GC community and therefore vote with GC community. IF RoC is going to start giving the rights from 1960 constitution where TCs choose their own MPs, their VP, etc. etc. then fine.

The court decided that since the TC community is not participating in the power functioning of the RoC, then the term “Greek Cypriot community” has lost its practical significance and became equivalent (submerged) into that of the citizen of the RoC. In the same way that a naturalised British living in the south is not (and by definition he cannot be) a member of the GC community (or the TC community either,) but can still participates in the elections for president and the MPs, consequently the TCs living in the south can be treated in the same way.

Do you mean that the 800 TCs living in the south should be allowed to vote and elect Separately the 30% of the RoC MPs and also elect a vice president, with a veto right too? Is this what you mean?

Under the law of necessity!!! What kind of necessity is this. It is necessary for RoC to restrict TC using their own rights from 1960 constitution? Is this what you are saying to me?

Do you mean that the 800 TCs living in the south should be allowed to vote and elect Separately the 30% of the RoC MPs and also elect a vice president, with a veto right too? Is this what you mean?

The right of necessity is a notion used in legal matters that allows for the enactment of laws or orders, contrary to the provisions of the constitution, in order to confront extraordinary circumstances. If this was your question.

[Kifeas]

Turkcyp, why you do not read first the decision of the EHRC court that I posted above and then if you like we can discuss the other issues that you brought up? I think you will be able to understand some issues better, as I believe there are a few misconceptions in your mind relating to the whole issue.

[Main_Source]

So is this sorted?...TC CAN vote in the RoC?...or is there any more "but...but" to come up?

and no, Arsenal didnt go. As far as I can remember, the GC board members (or shareholders...I forget) threatened to quit...and Arsenal also has a large GC following, which the tour could have been detremental to their on-going support for the club.

[turkcyp]

Turkcyp, why you do not read first the decision of the EHRC court that I posted above and then if you like we can discuss the other issues that you brought up? I think you will be able to understand some issues better, as I believe there are a few misconceptions in your mind relating to the whole issue.

Dear Kifeas,

I have read the ECHR decision. And also I know what does “principle of necessity” means in law as well. It is only used under extraordinary circumstances and is stop being used when the those extraordinary circumstances seize to exist. It is used in the 1964 UN security council resolution for the first time in Cyprus problem to give GC right to represent the whole island while the intercommonal strife was going on, and TC and Turkish side was forced to accept the resolution because that was the only way of getting UN troops to the island to supposedly save our asses. (What a great job they did, I leave evaluation of that to you?).

GC side could easily stop using the same principle after 1967, where the violence on the island subsided to certain degree, but they never did. Because it was much more easier for them to use their existing government power exercised without the interruptions of TCs to force TCs to accepts changes to 1960 constitution. And we did in early 70’s but the ever greedy Makarios rejected it.

Anyway coming to today environment. The only way you can justify extraordinary circumstances on the island is the existence of Turkish army. That is why I have bluntly asked you the question of if you are willing to put back the 1960 constitution back into effect if Turkish army leaves tomorrow?

And you are also talking about 800 TCs living in south? I have asked this question in thos forum before and let me ask you one more time? What is the critical threshold for RoC? 20000, 50000, 100k. What is it? RoC should let us know. I understand if they say 800 people can not have all those rights from 1960 constitution, (legally they should not but morally if they say it, I would understand) but at the same time they should tell us what is the cutoff point?

Also furthermore, isn’t it GC thesis that north of your country is under illegal occupation. So according to your thesis all the TCs that used to live in north before 1974 which are actually in substantial numbers, is under occupation. Shouldn’t RoC help them to ease their occupational pain. I mean all the GCs that used to live in north but became refugees after 1974 has got all their political rights right? Why not all the TCs that does not occupy any GC land and did not become refuge after 1974 can not use those rights too?

The point is there are a lot inconsistencies in RoC position in the eyes of TCs. And TCs simply do not trust RoC or as it is right now run by GCs thus GCs. You keep on claiming that we give them health care benefits. Who asked for health care benefits? We are asking for our constitutional rights?

Anyway in short please answer me what is in your opinion should RoC do to uphold its own constitution? And make us want to be part of RoC again.

[turkcyp]

So is this sorted?...TC CAN vote in the RoC?...or is there any more "but...but" to come up?

Main_source,

Would you want to live in a country where your constituional rights are toppled everyday?

TCs can vote in RoC, yes that is true. This also means that under the current constituion it is illegal for us to vote in RoC.

Do you know how many MPs exist in RoC today and how many your laws say it shoud exist? And do you know why there is that discrepancy?

And why don't GCs can not choose VP, which exist under your own constituion?

For gods' sake we are not asking you to much. All we are asking you to uphold your own constituion, so we can feel more trust towards you guys. You should not be needing our demands to uphodl your own constituion. It should come as respect to law.

[Main_Source]

TCs can vote in RoC, yes that is true. This also means that under the current constituion it is illegal for us to vote in RoC

Contradiction in terms...I dunno, was it a typing error or have i missed something. Explain please bro.

And also, considering the borders only opened under three years ago...I dont see how you could want things to change so quick. Things dont change just by someone demanding for change on the spot...be realistic.

But have we come to relise that TC CAN or CAN'T currently vote in RoC with legit Cypriot citizenship?...Yes or No?[/quote]

[garbitsch]

T.Cs can vote for elections in RoC, but this is a violation of the constitution. This is where we are ended up.