Viewpoint wrote:Thank you for at least saying you did state that the AP will be used as a basis, how many pages remain and how many go no one knows for sure but its more than likely more will stay than go this happened during the transition from AP1 to AP5.
Let me say this from the beginning, that you VP, with your attitude, is never going to be able to live with anyone where you are a numerical minority in a Democratic country, therefore, I recommend that you get your own country to live and run, but I'm afraid that will not be in Cyprus. If you want to live with all Cypriots, then you will need to adopt to how everyone else manages to live in a Democratic countries all over the world regardless of their numerical size. This was not meant to be as an insult to you, but an answer to your overall problem accepting your numerical minority status.
VP, stop flying in the clouds without wings and come down to earth before you crash down with your thesis on the AP being used as the basis for the present talks. I'm just taking your word for it that your lawyer friend has told you that it was, that the AP was being used as basis for the talks. Whether your friend is telling the truth or you for that matter is irrelevant, because no doubt, if some things that both sides agree with that's in the AP, why wouldn't they use it rather than have it rewritten. This does not make the AP being the basis for present talks. It is unavoidable that out of 9,000+ pages, that somethings will not be kept. The American Constitution was just ONE page when it was written, but the AP was over 9,000 pages, so some things will be kept, but I do not believe it has anything to do with Undemocratic policies and violations on Human Rights.
Viewpoint wrote:Lets look at what you have posted by choosing a few words and sentences, you say we will become a minority if we ask for safeguards and not a minority if we join the ranks of 800.000 GCs, I'm having problems understanding this as it is exactly what we are fighting against not be pushed aside by the 80% and reduced to a status where the majority of GCs can vote whatever they wish against our wishes, you expect us to leave it to chance and hope for the best experiencing what we have in the past at the hands of "democratic" GCs? You are more naive than I ever thought you were, what we need is a mechanism that will allow us the right to say no on sensitive issues which will effect our community/state more negatively than the state. Kifeas has acknowledged this addressed it and put forward a system that could work that allows TCs the opportunity to have effective say in their own future, and stops them being brushed to one side as would be the case if we took your recommendations. Its this approach that make me suspicious of your intentions and why on the whole I do not take you seriously as you not see the dangers in store for us and blindly try to push us into oblivion at the hands of GCs.
The TC's have always been a numerical minority in Cyprus and more than likely, will always be if a solution is found. But being a numerical minority does not mean that you have to be classified as a minority group or community, because everyone have equal protection under the law, just like no numerical minority in Switzerland is ever considered to being a minority group or community. Out of 4 major Swiss ethnic communities, 3 of them are numerical minorities, and yet they are not seen as minority groups or communities , either by themselves or by the numerical majority, which happens to be the Swiss Germans. Therefore, minority and majority is only relevant when numerical groups and communities want extra treatment that is not given to the majority. This automatically then labels the numerical minority into a minority group or community.
For example, if a gay person is not discriminated for their sexual orientation in the society as a whole from jobs to renting apartments, to opening a business, there would be no need to have extra laws to protect them by the bigots. This puts them into a official minority status. Same with women in the job place. Women are hardly a numerical minority in any country, but often they are considered as a minority group, because they have been given special protections that "men" do not have, because they have been discriminated mostly in the job place. The moment any group asks for special treatment that others do not get, they are then seen as a minority group no matter how big or small their numerical numbers are.Therefore, by you asking for special treatment for the TC's as a community, you are accepting for us being a minority community because you do not feel secure as an equal citizen to everyone else, the GC's.
So once we accept these special protections, we then become official minority group by our own request. No one is forcing us to become a minority group, but we are asking to become one ourselves. But it is more than that, because we are not asking for any special treatment, but the one that violates other Democratic and Human Rights, which is not the case in other situations where the numerical minorities has been given special treatments, which is what we call in the states, "affirmative action" where certain number of people from these "minority groups" will need to be in all ares of the job market regardless of their qualifications. Of course, this was seen unfair by those who were most qualified for those jobs, so in a way, it was reverse discrimination by putting someone to a job who was less qualified than others. We do not have a "affirmative action" practices when it comes to the government elected offices however, because everyone is Democratically elected by the people in a one man one vote system, as they are in all Democratic countries, including in the de facto state of the "trnc", therefore you do practice Democracy when it suits you, but want special treatment when it doesn't. So decide whether you believe in Democracy or not first before anything else.
Viewpoint wrote:Political equality to us means a balance between being forced to do everything the GCs force upon us and the right to say no to decisions that will effect the north state and TCs more negative than the GCs in the south state, this balance above all is vital to any solution as TCs will not joint take their chances by putting themselves at the mercy of the 800.000 GC who have yet to prove that their donkey which has a saddle on it is in fact a race horse, we have seen no sign of this in the past 4 years.
You can interpret "political equality" in anyway you want. What is important, what political equality means as it is practiced all over Democratic countries, and that is, one man one vote. You will have the same rights as everyone else, and if it wasn't, then how can one use the word "equality" in the same sentence, because it will become "political inequality" otherwise if one man one vote was not used. The 1% Romansch ethnic group in Switzerland have same political equality in every sense as their 69% ethnic Swiss Germans, no more no less. Does the votes by the overwhelming 69% Swiss Germans effect the outcome of the elections when it comes to national issues, you betcha, but non of these decisions made the 1% Romansch, the 10% Swiss Italians, or the 20% Swiss French any less Swiss than the 69% Swiss Germans, nor did it bring harm to them. You will have to accept, that the TC's are a numerical minority to the GC's and nothing more, because we are equal citizens to every one of them. Decisions taken by the government effects all citizens and not just one community, so I don't know what decision a government will take that will only effect the TC's and the north, and not the GC's who will also be living in the north.
The 800,000 GC's thousand you always talk about who are going to make a difference of the TC's lives with their votes is overstretched, because most citizens votes only effect them when they vote locally in selecting a representative in the government for their region. The north will have their local representatives chosen by those who live there and the same in the south. That is why it is important to have mixed ethnic groups living in each areas, because the locals will vote for someone that will represent them and their interest. The Federal Government will only look after the interest of the country as a whole and will have very little to do with each state, because each state will run their own affairs, as long as it does not violate the Federal Constitution, which will be to protect all citizens rights. In a True Federation Cyprus, it is not going to be Turkish Cypriot North and Greek Cypriot South drawn on ethnic lines. It will not be a seperate independent countries. So, what ever the government approves, it will be the best for both states and for the country of Cyprus, because there will be mixed ethnic groups living both in the north and the south.
Viewpoint wrote:How do you expect to combat discrimination and persecution when you have a majority which will sure keep TCs out of office out of official jobs and generally at arms length, what safeguards do you recommend? or do we leave things to chance yet again, without a secure and safe structure to guarantee the majority act fairly and equally to all those who live on this island there will never be a solution TCs can commit to.
This is the wonderful thing about True Federation, since most TC's will choose to live and work in the north, where they will be amongst their own ethnic group. This alone solves most of your question about discrimination and persecution, unless of course it is perpetrated by the same people of the same ethnicity. Both the states will have their own constitutions dealing with these issues, including in the Federal Government. You want to put all your concerns into the constitution and have laws against such practices. Nations live by laws, therefore we too have to live by laws. Is there an answer to every single problem that gives projection to every citizen, and the answer is NO, but citizens will be free to challenge any law that may seem a violation against their Democratic and Human Rights, and each of those cases won, will then become part of the fabric of laws that will govern everyone. By asking special "safeguards" in order to protect you may well be hurting someone else's Democratic and Human Rights, when all they are asking is, to be an equal citizens with you.
Viewpoint wrote:As for your last comment let me try to answer this simply I am the indigenous population of this island and want to be in the position of the English Scots or Welsh in the UK not the Pakistanis or Indians also in the UK, can you grasp the difference? Safeguards have to be in place to ensure or force, no guarantee that the GCs majority cannot ignore, push aside, discriminate against TCs who have to be included in all walks of life be it the government, official offices, representation etc.
You cannot claim to be indegiouns to the island of Cyprus with the GC's and then turn around and say that you want to be treated like the Scots , the Welsh and the English when you are demanding "safeguards" when the Scots , the Welsh and the English are not asking the same for themselves. Even the Indians and the Pakistanis are not asking for "safeguards" that will violates others rights. So VP, how are you like those people above, when all they doing is being an equal citizens to each other without "safeguards". So in short, you are nothing like the English, the Scottish, the Welsh, the Indians or the Pakistanis, or any other groups living in the UK.
Viewpoint wrote:Look at it this way do you feel that the 80% GC majority would ever vote for a song sung by a TC in Turkish to go into the Eurovision? This may sound like a very stupid question but its the underlying racists tone that is import, the 80% would never allow this to happen, think about it for just a few seconds, you want us to leave it to chance??? what if the was a safeguard that stated that every 3 years at least 1 has to be a TC with a Turkish or English song, lets say and hope the GCs showed they were not racist and voted a TC singer 2 years in a row this would make this safeguard redundant, so explain to me what so wrong with having the safeguard in the first place because for us without it is a big risk and no one TC will ever agree to leaving things to chance as you wish to do so.
Once again, you want to legislate rules that will violate others rights, including the TC's by the way. Lets take your above example for a minute. My answer would be to make all the songs to be sung in English no matter who sings it, and let the best song win, because this silly song contest is not going to elect any song if it's sung in Turkish or Greek. But look at what you are proposing. If only GC's are able to represent Cyprus for 2 years in a row, that would mean no Turkish song singer will be able to show their talents for 2 years, therefore no chance for exposure to be discovered, and the same for the GC's for that 1 year where only TC's will perform. But lets just say the GC's will go along with your idea, then they will say, "OK, you want to play that game, then lets do it on proportional basis", which means that they will do it for 4 years and the TC'as for 1 year. They will then propose everything down the line on 4:1 ratio, for the government, decision makings, jobs and so on. Is this what you want? Personally I would pull out of that silly contest, but as I said, I understand the point you are trying to make, but just where do you draw the line, because the GC's will want the same benefits as we want for ourselves, and the fact that they are the numerical majority, why should they accept anything less than their proportionate share. You can't always look at thing only from your own prospective. As they say, "walk a mile in other's shoes before making such demands". So, will you agree on a 4:1 ratio on everything if you want to have "safeguards" on everything for the TC community.?
Viewpoint wrote:You need to do a bit more research as I have inside information on the AP negotations and everything was geared to 1st May 2004 and the entry as 1 island with transition periods for the north to come inline with the south. Join then carry out amendments was the policy.
I will need to find that report for you that stated that if the AP resulted anything atother than keeping the RoC intact, that they would not have been allowed to become an EU member, and that they would have had to reapply under the new country name. The entry date as you stated was not the issue, but when that date was given, it was given to RoC and no other new name that may come along 5 years later.
