Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

If we weighed up all the pros and cons to come up with a viable solution, the TCs would not figure in the outcome!

You are over 50 years too late love....The Akritas plan has already been written.....

[Kifeas]

What is “Political Equality”?


The Harvard University report titled…“POLITICAL EQUALITY: WHAT IS IT? WHY DO WE WANT IT?” …has the following explanation for the phrase “Political Equality”:

“By political equality we refer to the extent to which citizens have an equal voice over governmental decisions. One of the bedrock principles in a democracy is the equal consideration of the preferences and interests of all citizens. This is expressed in such principles as one-person/one-vote, equality before the law, and equal rights of free speech. Equal consideration of the preferences and needs of all citizens is fostered by equal political activity among citizens; not only equal voting turnout across significant categories of citizens but equality in other forms of activity..”

http://www.russellsage.org/programs/mai ... 16.180549/


Another report by the Fordham University has this to say on “Political Equality”:

“While, a full consideration of the meaning of “political equality” is an enormously complex task, few would dispute that political equality includes the right and ability of every citizen, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or economic circumstance to freely participate in political affairs through communicating ideas, organizing, and choosing leaders.”

http://www.fordham.edu/politicalsci/pro ... 20Tien.pdf


It is clear from the reports above that “Political Equality” does NOT refer to a specific group of people within a country having special rights over the rest but quite the opposite…

Political Equality refers to ALL citizens having the EXACT SAME RIGHTS via a one-person/one-vote system!

The Turkish Cypriot leadership has long been abusing the democratic phrase “Political Equality” by requesting that a specific group of Cypriot citizens, and namely the “Turkish Cypriots”, be set aside based on their ethnic background and religion to receive favorable political influence in Cyprus at the expense of the remaining Cypriot citizens, and falsely calling this notion “Political Equality”!

The truth is that such a measure would equate to Political INEQUALITY of all Cypriot citizens outside the favored group and in contravention of democracy and their human rights.


Regards, GR.

GR, whether we like it or not (and Ι personally do not,) political equality in the case of Cyprus (due to a series of past mistakes by all of our incompetent historical leaderships, and due to our grand "sell out" by Greece during the 1955-1960 period,) has attained a new and different dimension, outside what you code and /or describe above.

In the case of Cyprus, the notion of political equality that is referred to, is that between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, and not that between the individual citizens. It existed in the 1960 constitution, and it was accepted and agreed by all of our GC political party leaderships to continue to exist as part of a future solution. Furthermore, it was defined and solidified in the UN resolutions on Cyprus. Τherefore, it is a waste of time to continue arguing on things and issues that have already been decided.

[bill cobbett]

What is “Political Equality”?


The Harvard University report titled…“POLITICAL EQUALITY: WHAT IS IT? WHY DO WE WANT IT?” …has the following explanation for the phrase “Political Equality”:

“By political equality we refer to the extent to which citizens have an equal voice over governmental decisions. One of the bedrock principles in a democracy is the equal consideration of the preferences and interests of all citizens. This is expressed in such principles as one-person/one-vote, equality before the law, and equal rights of free speech. Equal consideration of the preferences and needs of all citizens is fostered by equal political activity among citizens; not only equal voting turnout across significant categories of citizens but equality in other forms of activity..”

http://www.russellsage.org/programs/mai ... 16.180549/


Another report by the Fordham University has this to say on “Political Equality”:

“While, a full consideration of the meaning of “political equality” is an enormously complex task, few would dispute that political equality includes the right and ability of every citizen, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or economic circumstance to freely participate in political affairs through communicating ideas, organizing, and choosing leaders.”

http://www.fordham.edu/politicalsci/pro ... 20Tien.pdf


It is clear from the reports above that “Political Equality” does NOT refer to a specific group of people within a country having special rights over the rest but quite the opposite…

Political Equality refers to ALL citizens having the EXACT SAME RIGHTS via a one-person/one-vote system!

The Turkish Cypriot leadership has long been abusing the democratic phrase “Political Equality” by requesting that a specific group of Cypriot citizens, and namely the “Turkish Cypriots”, be set aside based on their ethnic background and religion to receive favorable political influence in Cyprus at the expense of the remaining Cypriot citizens, and falsely calling this notion “Political Equality”!

The truth is that such a measure would equate to Political INEQUALITY of all Cypriot citizens outside the favored group and in contravention of democracy and their human rights.


Regards, GR.

GR, whether we like it or not (and ? personally do not,) political equality in the case of Cyprus (due to a series of past mistakes by all of our incompetent historical leaderships, and due to our grand "sell out" by Greece during the 1955-1960 period,) has attained a new and different dimension, outside what you code and /or describe above.

In the case of Cyprus, the notion of political equality that is referred to, is that between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, and not that between the individual citizens. It existed in the 1960 constitution, and it was accepted and agreed by all of our GC political party leaderships to continue to exist as part of a future solution. Furthermore, it was defined and solidified in the UN resolutions on Cyprus. ?herefore, it is a waste of time to continue arguing on things and issues that have already been decided.

Respect the "UN Solution" negotiated at various times but all off them with the coersive presence of an invading army in the background - two zones in a "federation" within a unitary republic with limited power, each zone with equal powers (50:50) at the zonal/community level with implicit restrictions or annual quotas on movement/settlement and with each zone built to lesser or larger extents on other people's lands.

OR

Strive for the "European Ideal" - equality at the individual level, one person/one vote, with freedom of movement/settlement, no internal borders within a strong unitary republic in which pre-74 property rights are respected.

Clearly not a circle that can be squared. It does seem to be one or the other but here's a question I have been asking myself in recent months...

If CYs arrive at a "solution" based on the BBF/UN model and confirm such an arrangement at referenda, would the overall arrangement be open to legal challenges at the ECHR for not respecting such things as property rights and also at the EU level for flouting basic EU law on such matters as freedom of movement?

I am of the view that those who feel they can negotiate other people's human rights and further seek to ignore basic EU laws are (at the very least) walking towards a legal quagmire.

[YFred]

What is “Political Equality”?


The Harvard University report titled…“POLITICAL EQUALITY: WHAT IS IT? WHY DO WE WANT IT?” …has the following explanation for the phrase “Political Equality”:

“By political equality we refer to the extent to which citizens have an equal voice over governmental decisions. One of the bedrock principles in a democracy is the equal consideration of the preferences and interests of all citizens. This is expressed in such principles as one-person/one-vote, equality before the law, and equal rights of free speech. Equal consideration of the preferences and needs of all citizens is fostered by equal political activity among citizens; not only equal voting turnout across significant categories of citizens but equality in other forms of activity..”

http://www.russellsage.org/programs/mai ... 16.180549/


Another report by the Fordham University has this to say on “Political Equality”:

“While, a full consideration of the meaning of “political equality” is an enormously complex task, few would dispute that political equality includes the right and ability of every citizen, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or economic circumstance to freely participate in political affairs through communicating ideas, organizing, and choosing leaders.”

http://www.fordham.edu/politicalsci/pro ... 20Tien.pdf


It is clear from the reports above that “Political Equality” does NOT refer to a specific group of people within a country having special rights over the rest but quite the opposite…

Political Equality refers to ALL citizens having the EXACT SAME RIGHTS via a one-person/one-vote system!

The Turkish Cypriot leadership has long been abusing the democratic phrase “Political Equality” by requesting that a specific group of Cypriot citizens, and namely the “Turkish Cypriots”, be set aside based on their ethnic background and religion to receive favorable political influence in Cyprus at the expense of the remaining Cypriot citizens, and falsely calling this notion “Political Equality”!

The truth is that such a measure would equate to Political INEQUALITY of all Cypriot citizens outside the favored group and in contravention of democracy and their human rights.


Regards, GR.

GR, whether we like it or not (and ? personally do not,) political equality in the case of Cyprus (due to a series of past mistakes by all of our incompetent historical leaderships, and due to our grand "sell out" by Greece during the 1955-1960 period,) has attained a new and different dimension, outside what you code and /or describe above.

In the case of Cyprus, the notion of political equality that is referred to, is that between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, and not that between the individual citizens. It existed in the 1960 constitution, and it was accepted and agreed by all of our GC political party leaderships to continue to exist as part of a future solution. Furthermore, it was defined and solidified in the UN resolutions on Cyprus. ?herefore, it is a waste of time to continue arguing on things and issues that have already been decided.

Respect the "UN Solution" negotiated at various times but all off them with the coersive presence of an invading army in the background - two zones in a "federation" within a unitary republic with limited power, each zone with equal powers (50:50) at the zonal/community level with implicit restrictions or annual quotas on movement/settlement and with each zone built to lesser or larger extents on other people's lands.

OR

Strive for the "European Ideal" - equality at the individual level, one person/one vote, with freedom of movement/settlement, no internal borders within a strong unitary republic in which pre-74 property rights are respected.

Clearly not a circle that can be squared. It does seem to be one or the other but here's a question I have been asking myself in recent months...

If CYs arrive at a "solution" based on the BBF/UN model and confirm such an arrangement at referenda, would the overall arrangement be open to legal challenges at the ECHR for not respecting such things as property rights and also at the EU level for flouting basic EU law on such matters as freedom of movement?

I am of the view that those who feel they can negotiate other people's human rights and further seek to ignore basic EU laws are (at the very least) walking towards a legal quagmire.

Bil,
I thought that the UN was the Authority on this and once approved by both communities and the UN that should be final. Surely the Agreement will have the mechanism to either have your property back or have compensation according to the rules agreed by both sides (which was included in the last anan plan).

[Get Real!]

I am of the view that those who feel they can negotiate other people's human rights and further seek to ignore basic EU laws are (at the very least) walking towards a legal quagmire.

Very well said Bill and a most unimpressive response from Kifeas who seems to have thrown in the towel!

If it ever came to such an injustice don’t be surprised if your friend GR calls upon all citizens of the RoC to join him in the world’s biggest Class action lawsuit against the RoC for attempting to undermine our human rights and the UN Charter.

[Get Real!]

I thought that the UN was the Authority on this and once approved by both communities and the UN that should be final.

Would that be as final as UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) ?

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm

[YFred]

I thought that the UN was the Authority on this and once approved by both communities and the UN that should be final.

Would that be as final as UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) ?

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm

What can I say GR. I know what you want. My father used to say the same thing. Everyone must go to their homes. Back to 1960. It will not work. Too many people have got interest in it not working and will make sure it will fall apart quicker than 1960.

Surely a half -way house for a while will be worth a try to see if we can make it work. The future generation will decide the rest.

For goodness sake look at EU. How did it begin? and how far has it come?

[bill cobbett]

I thought that the UN was the Authority on this and once approved by both communities and the UN that should be final.

Would that be as final as UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) ?

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm

What can I say GR. I know what you want. My father used to say the same thing. Everyone must go to their homes. Back to 1960. It will not work. Too many people have got interest in it not working and will make sure it will fall apart quicker than 1960.

Surely a half -way house for a while will be worth a try to see if we can make it work. The future generation will decide the rest.

For goodness sake look at EU. How did it begin? and how far has it come?

Not sure as to whether UN resolutions by themselves constitute law in sovereign states and therefore whether the UN can be seen to be the "authority", particularly as the RoT has ignored so many for so long. Sure however that there are some pretty major conflicts between the UN/BBF resolutions and the accepted modern norms of human rights and property rights.

The question (and it is a question) then becomes which takes precedence? I suspect my answer would be that any laws made by any nation must respect the human rights side of things and in so many very real ways a BBF approach runs roughshod over these inalienable rights to such an extent (imho) that a "class action" of the sort suggested becomes a very real prospect.

[YFred]

I thought that the UN was the Authority on this and once approved by both communities and the UN that should be final.

Would that be as final as UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) ?

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm

What can I say GR. I know what you want. My father used to say the same thing. Everyone must go to their homes. Back to 1960. It will not work. Too many people have got interest in it not working and will make sure it will fall apart quicker than 1960.

Surely a half -way house for a while will be worth a try to see if we can make it work. The future generation will decide the rest.

For goodness sake look at EU. How did it begin? and how far has it come?

Not sure as to whether UN resolutions by themselves constitute law in sovereign states and therefore whether the UN can be seen to be the "authority", particularly as the RoT has ignored so many for so long. Sure however that there are some pretty major conflicts between the UN/BBF resolutions and the accepted modern norms of human rights and property rights.

The question (and it is a question) then becomes which takes precedence? I suspect my answer would be that any laws made by any nation must respect the human rights side of things and in so many very real ways a BBF approach runs roughshod over these inalienable rights to such an extent (imho) that a "class action" of the sort suggested becomes a very real prospect.

In normal circumstances I would agree with you. However we are talking about the Cyprus situation. Can we not get an idea from what has been happening in the recent past where property issues were directed to the each community's property commission? Does it not stand to reason that likelihood of this happening in the future after an agreement is more likely?

[Oracle]

Many things have changed since 1960; not least of all that we are now in the EU, the TCs proved how unfair extras above democratic equalisers can pervert, and Turkey has unequivocally demonstrated the guarantor mistakes in the Constitution.

So if we are still looking for the right solution, we need to address the term political equality in the contemporary, unhindered context.