Cyprus-Forum.com

[Murtaza]

how many TC president you had?

We had one!
Dr Kutchuk from 1960 until 1963!

You might not know it but the Cypriot government (RoC) was a bicephalous (double-headed,) one. It was a diarchy system with two presidents, a TC and a GC. The one was “navigating” the steering wheel of the car and the other was “holding” the brakes, according to Dr. Kutchuk’s famous assertion after the “independence.” Of course it is inevitable that such a car riding will only have one faith, to crash in the first turn or dive into the next cliff.

Yes, you have with laws,
He is not choosen by greek people. and this laws are not made by TC and GC but by Turkey , greece and england. So It holds no water.

[Piratis]

You are right it is absolutely pathetic to claim that TC should have more rights than anyone else. If I had ever done that you accusation might have been appropriate.

You did claim it when you said that TCs had more human rights than Kurds. Anyways, if this was a misunderstanding, then I guess you would accept to get what Kurds get, right?

My view has been and remains that as indivduals we should be equal. As partner communites in a shared country we should be equal.

Can you please tell me where, apart from your imagination, you found that communities of different sizes of one country should have equal power?

If GC had been ready and willing to implement the 1960 treaties in full and not just the parts that suited GC from 1960 onwards we would not be in this mess today.

If the Turks never came to our area we would never be in this mess either. If you want to discuss the past again, no problem. I will remind you of the barbaric acts of the Turkish nation against our whole area, and then you can compare all that suffering that you caused to us for centuries with that one decade that you complain about.

However the point is not to discuss the past. The point is the future. You want to keep violating our human rights. We don't want to violate even a single human right of yours.

Here are our human rights that you want to keep violating:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

You want people to have different rights based on their race. This is a violation of human rights.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Don't you want distinction based on race? Clearly you want to violate this human right also.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

This is what you did, and apparently you didn't regret and you don't want all the refugees to return to their homes, right?

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

No need to comment about this clear violation of our human right.

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

You want Turkish Cypriots to have 4.5 times more voting power than the Greek Cypriots.

I believe that double standards should be stopped and everybody should enjoy the full human rights in its country.

[erolz]

You did claim it when you said that TCs had more human rights than Kurds. Anyways, if this was a misunderstanding, then I guess you would accept to get what Kurds get, right?

Again if I had ever said this then I might be able to answer your questions but I have not ever said this. If I have said could you please provide the evidence?

Can you please tell me where, apart from your imagination, you found that communities of different sizes of one country should have equal power?

The above is pretty much the defintion of a federal system. Cyprus has the added problem of the federal components being based on ethnicity but the principal is the same.

If the Turks never came to our area we would never be in this mess either.

The ottomans were not a partner community in a sovreign Cyprus, they were conquerors of Cyprus.

If you want to discuss the past again, no problem. I will remind you of the barbaric acts of the Turkish nation against our whole area, and then you can compare all that suffering that you caused to us for centuries with that one decade that you complain about.

The one decade I refer to is also the only decade in which Cypriots had the opportunity and ability to rule themselves. It is also a decade in living memory, where the 'attrocites' of the ottomans in Cyprus is ancient history. Are you really saying that the GC community acted as it did in Cyprus post the WWII because of what the ottomans did in 1571 to 18whatever?

I want to talk about Cyprus as a sovreign nation, not as a colony. I want us to understand why we failed so miserably to create a unitd Cyprus. If you tell the reason we failed is because of what the ottomans did in Cyprus then I despair. I also do not believe that this was a major factor or cause of the failure of Cypriots to live together in peace and harmony. I believe there were and are other much more important fatcors in this failure and that is what I am interested in, not ancient history of a empire that no longer exits.

However the point is not to discuss the past. The point is the future. You want to keep violating our human rights.

I want to find a solution to our differences and you want us to just 'capitualte' to living under GC rule in our own (shared) country.

We don't want to violate even a single human right of yours.

Do you claim this is true for the period 63-74 (that GC did not want to violate a single human hair on tc heads). If it was not true in the period 63-74 why is is it true now?

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

You want people to have different rights based on their race. This is a violation of human rights.

But smaller EU states (like the RoC) wanting some form of political equality within the EU (ie different rights as you would have it) independent of their numerical size and based on nationality / race is not a violation of human rights in your view?

Don't you want distinction based on race? Clearly you want to violate this human right also.

No more so than equal rights of nations in international fora are based on race and by your interpretation are a violation of this human right

I could go on but we have had this same discussion so many times before and yet we make no progress

I believe that double standards should be stopped and everybody should enjoy the full human rights in its country.

And again for the umpteenth time. Human rights apply to groups (peoples) as well as indivduals. You want to deny us any right we have as a community or people. You wanted this in 1960 and you still want it now. We did not want to be made subjects of a foreign antatgonistic government (Greece) in 1960 and we do not want to have no effective say in our future and our country today, wether the rulers are G or GC. Is that so hard for you to understand. You didn't want to be ruled by the British. We did not want to be ruled by Greece then and we don't want to be ruled by GC today.

[MicAtCyp]

Erol,

First of all welcome back. We missed your analytical input all this time.

If only GC had shown such 'comittment' to human rights when they had the 'balance of power' (63-74), instead of the total contempt they actualy showed towards the ideals of human rights, then we almost certainly would not be in the mess we are in today.

Correct.

If you can not see this and realise why in light of the total contempt shown by the 'RoC' for human rights in the period 63-74, such lectures and moralising today by GC on the 'universiality' and 'primacy' of human rights do nothing to help us find a solution,

Do you mean to say that because the GCs (actually a small part of them) did a mistake this mistake should now be repeated and perpetuated? If yes then you are right, any solution based on that is destined to fail once again.

Human rights must be respected. People may not care very much about their voting human rights, but they are ready for the most extreme reactions if someone steals their belongings i.e their properties.

[Piratis]

Again if I had ever said this then I might be able to answer your questions but I have not ever said this. If I have said could you please provide the evidence?

The question you avoided to answer is: Do TCs have the same human rights as the Kurds?

The above is pretty much the defintion of a federal system. Cyprus has the added problem of the federal components being based on ethnicity but the principal is the same.

Federal system? Until now you were telling us that it was your human right, didn't you? So if its not your human right, then what is it? Do you have the right for a federal system? If you don't manage to force a federal system in Cyprus, can you please tell me which of your human or other rights will be violated?

And by the way, in federations (USA, Russia etc) there is no kind of discrimination based on race (which is against human rights) and people are free to move from state to state as they like. What you are asking for is not federation.

The ottomans were not a partner community in a sovreign Cyprus, they were conquerors of Cyprus.

And we were the conquered, so no problem ah? Do you think if you had let Cyprus to be independent and sovereign we would have said no?

The one decade I refer to is also the only decade in which Cypriots had the opportunity and ability to rule themselves. It is also a decade in living memory, where the 'attrocites' of the ottomans in Cyprus is ancient history. Are you really saying that the GC community acted as it did in Cyprus post the WWII because of what the ottomans did in 1571 to 18whatever?

How old are you? If 'living memory' is what is important, then the 60s is as much of history for most of us as it was the 1571. What we live every day all of us though is the Turkish occupation of 1/3rd of our country.

Interesting that for you the only part of history that matters is that one decade. What happened before that decade doesn't matter, and what happened after is excused. On top of that, you want as to sign something unfair for us because of that decade. So in 100 years from now, we will still have to suffer for that one decade, but you will be rewarded even if you had made 100 times more crimes against us during our history.

I want to talk about Cyprus as a sovreign nation, not as a colony. I want us to understand why we failed so miserably to create a unitd Cyprus. If you tell the reason we failed is because of what the ottomans did in Cyprus then I despair. I also do not believe that this was a major factor or cause of the failure of Cypriots to live together in peace and harmony. I believe there were and are other much more important fatcors in this failure and that is what I am interested in, not ancient history of a empire that no longer exits.

The reason it failed is related to the Ottomans and to the colonialist friends of yours that followed them. The great majority of this island wanted union with Greece, but the Ottomans/British didn't allow it. Also when you try to put the blame for that period, you should also remember that the TCs didn't want an independent united Cyprus and they have been working for partition instead. So don't blame GCs exclusively for that decade.

I want to find a solution to our differences and you want us to just 'capitualte' to living under GC rule in our own (shared) country.

Our country is shared, you are the 18% we are 82%. A fare share for you is 18%, not 50%. We don't want to take anything away from you, but you want to take away from us and give it to yourselves.

Do you claim this is true for the period 63-74 (that GC did not want to violate a single human hair on tc heads). If it was not true in the period 63-74 why is is it true now?

It is true because we don't ask from you to sign off any of your human rights. You ask this from us though.

But smaller EU states (like the RoC) wanting some form of political equality within the EU (ie different rights as you would have it) independent of their numerical size and based on nationality / race is not a violation of human rights in your view?

So it is a violation of the human right of France and Germany? EU is a union of countries. I know that what you want is for your "TRNC" to be another separate country in the EU, but I hope you understand that such thing has nothing to do with United Cyprus - which is a country and not a union of independent countries like the EU is.

No more so than equal rights of nations in international fora are based on race and by your interpretation are a violation of this human right

Dude, you have no country just by yourselves, you share the one same country with us, you are a minority community of Cyprus. If you want a country just for yourselves to be equal with other countries in international fora etc. go buy some land in the desert of Libya or something and make it there. You can't have a separate country on the land that you only own an 18% share.

Human rights apply to groups (peoples) as well as indivduals. You want to deny us any right we have as a community or people.

I posted the link to the UN human rights document (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) and I clearly said which of our rights you want to violate. Can you tell me which the 30 articles of human rights you claim we want to violate?

Lets see:
1) The right of minority communities to have their our federal state
.... nop, no such human right

2)The right to make a federal state on the land stolen from others
... nop, no such right

3)The right of a group of people that are numerically less to have the 50% of power.
...nop, no such right either

So, which is the human right that we don't accept for you to have?

[erolz]

The question you avoided to answer is: Do TCs have the same human rights as the Kurds?

Just like you claim I say things then when I deny having said it and ask for some eveidence you simply ignore the whole subject?

Of course they have the same rights. However that does not mean they have to have the same poltical set up. Eqach situation is unique. French and Belgiums have the same rights but they have different poltical systems.

Federal system? Until now you were telling us that it was your human right, didn't you? So if its not your human right, then what is it? Do you have the right for a federal system? If you don't manage to force a federal system in Cyprus, can you please tell me which of your human or other rights will be violated?

Its quite simple really and I have explain this time and again with you and every month or so we start again at the beginning. Quite frustrating really.

There is no such thing as a single Cypriot people. What there is is two distinct peoples in Cyprus. Each has a right to self determination - the basis for all human rights. In suvh a situation, if we want a unitary state that respects this reality then some form of federate state is necessary. A federate state is a solution to the probolem of two peoples in one country.

And by the way, in federations (USA, Russia etc) there is no kind of discrimination based on race (which is against human rights) and people are free to move from state to state as they like. What you are asking for is not federation.

We are saying that there has to be some protection that ensures that a TCCS remains under effective control of TC and does not become controlled by GC. 20 or 30% of the TCCS can be non TC but if 55% of the TCCS is GC then there is no point in a federal solution. Our right to self determination will have been stolen (once again).

And we were the conquered, so no problem ah? Do you think if you had let Cyprus to be independent and sovereign we would have said no?

what I am saying is that it is ridiculous to compare how the ottomans behaved in Cyprus as conquerors with how the GC behaved as a 'partner' community in Cyprus.

How old are you? If 'living memory' is what is important, then the 60s is as much of history for most of us as it was the 1571. What we live every day all of us though is the Turkish occupation of 1/3rd of our country.

As my aunt lives with the loss of her husband every day and her childre the loss of her father.

The reason it failed is related to the Ottomans and to the colonialist friends of yours that followed them. The great majority of this island wanted union with Greece, but the Ottomans/British didn't allow it. Also when you try to put the blame for that period, you should also remember that the TCs didn't want an independent united Cyprus and they have been working for partition instead. So don't blame GCs exclusively for that decade.

Of course it was all the fault of the ottomans and British. GC did nothing to contribute to leading us to the disater we have now.
The great majority of GC (alledgedly) wanted Enosis (and those that said they did not were shot), the great majority of the other peoples in Cyprus did not. You sought to impose the will of the GC people on us and we resitisted and still resist. I have never blamed GC exclusively - but I do say that the the way the GC behaved from after WWII has alot more to do with the mess we are in today than what the ottomans did in 1571 - and this should be accepted.

Our country is shared, you are the 18% we are 82%. A fare share for you is 18%, not 50%. We don't want to take anything away from you, but you want to take away from us and give it to yourselves.

You want to take away our right to self determination, always have and still do. As communites we should be equal - just as in unions of countries the countries are equal regardless of size, then so in a union of communites they should be equal. By isnisting we can only ever have a minority say in the running of our affairs at any and all levels you deny our human rights as a people.

It is true because we don't ask from you to sign off any of your human rights. You ask this from us though.

So by your same logic Turkey is not violating any GC rights because they have not asked you to sign them away, they just took them. You totaloy avoid my point. In the period 63-74 GC abused the rights of TC as a community and as indivduals. Now you say GC do not want to harm a single right of TC. I ask again what has changed between these two opposed situations?

But smaller EU states (like the RoC) wanting some form of political equality within the EU (ie different rights as you would have it) independent of their numerical size and based on nationality / race is not a violation of human rights in your view?

So it is a violation of the human right of France and Germany? EU is a union of countries. I know that what you want is for your "TRNC" to be another separate country in the EU, but I hope you understand that such thing has nothing to do with United Cyprus - which is a country and not a union of independent countries like the EU is.

The human rights of peoples, belogns to peoples. There is no human rights of countries. You are saying because we want a system based on ethnicity it is a vioolation of human rights. Well the french people have a poltical union with the GC people. The french people are massively larger than the GC people, yet they have equality in this union or disproprtionat representation. So by your defintion th9is union (EU) is a violation of the french peoples human rights beczause they are not equal to GC people in terms of poltivcal representation in the eu and this is based on race. The UN charters say nothigh about people being equal within a nation but not needing to be within unions of nations. It simply says we should all be equal. If you argue that political represntation disproprtionate to numbers is unequal - then you are saying the EU is in violtion of the charters of human rights.

Dude, you have no country just by yourselves, you share the one same country with us, you are a minority community of Cyprus. If you want a country just for yourselves to be equal with other countries in international fora etc. go buy some land in the desert of Libya or something and make it there. You can't have a separate country on the land that you only own an 18% share.

Where in the human rights charter does it make a distinction between it being ok basing rights on ethnicty between nations but not within a nation. It does not. If you claim poltical represntation based on ethnicity and disproprtionate to numerical numbers is a violation of human rights in Cyprus then it is also so in the EU.

Human rights apply to groups (peoples) as well as indivduals. You want to deny us any right we have as a community or people.

So, which is the human right that we don't accept for you to have?

The same one that you have been trying to rob us from for as long as their has been an independent Cyprus - and that is the 'source' of all other rights - namely the right to self determination.

[Piratis]

Just like you claim I say things then when I deny having said it and ask for some eveidence you simply ignore the whole subject?

This is what you said:

What is the basis for human rights if not some historical agreement signed at some point in the past?

Human rights are enshrined in various treaties between governments (and in national laws as well). Just the same as the 1960 agreements as I see it.

you claimed that human rights are enshrined in various treaties between governments (and in national laws as well).

You deny having said this? You did, and I hope now you understood that human rights are universal and are not made up by treaties between governments and national laws as you claimed before.

Of course they have the same rights. However that does not mean they have to have the same poltical set up. Eqach situation is unique. French and Belgiums have the same rights but they have different poltical systems.

Sure, political systems however should not be against human rights, which is what you want for Cyprus.

There is no such thing as a single Cypriot people. What there is is two distinct peoples in Cyprus. Each has a right to self determination - the basis for all human rights. In suvh a situation, if we want a unitary state that respects this reality then some form of federate state is necessary. A federate state is a solution to the probolem of two peoples in one country.

So the human rights of Blacks in the US or UK, or the human rights of any other minority in the world are violated because they don't have their own separate state?? Or maybe you insist that TCs have more human rights than everybody else?

In Cyprus we have one country made by two communities. Beyond that you can name yourselves whatever you want, but you have no right to steal from us and to perform ethnic cleansing.

We are saying that there has to be some protection that ensures that a TCCS remains under effective control of TC and does not become controlled by GC. 20 or 30% of the TCCS can be non TC but if 55% of the TCCS is GC then there is no point in a federal solution. Our right to self determination will have been stolen (once again).

Show me which is your human right that will be violated if you do not have your own separate state. Show me where does it say that an 18% community should have separate state or 50% power.
Here is one of our human right that will be violated if you do:

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

what I am saying is that it is ridiculous to compare how the ottomans behaved in Cyprus as conquerors with how the GC behaved as a 'partner' community in Cyprus.

So if the GCs behaved as conquerors too it would be ok with you?

As my aunt lives with the loss of her husband every day and her childre the loss of her father.

We have a lot more people living with a lost relative. Why should your aunt be rewarded by given property stolen from GCs, and our people that lost somebody be punished on top of that? Why you don't agree that they should at least get their property back, which is their human right?

Of course it was all the fault of the ottomans and British. GC did nothing to contribute to leading us to the disater we have now.
The great majority of GC (alledgedly) wanted Enosis (and those that said they did not were shot), the great majority of the other peoples in Cyprus did not. You sought to impose the will of the GC people on us and we resitisted and still resist. I have never blamed GC exclusively - but I do say that the the way the GC behaved from after WWII has alot more to do with the mess we are in today than what the ottomans did in 1571 - and this should be accepted.

The great majority of the population wanted union with Greece and some foreigners didn't allow this 100% democratic wish to materialize. According to your logic, every decision taken by a democratic government, or decisions taken by referenda are "imposed" to the minority that voted differently!
The bloodshed was caused by those that wanted to force their own against the democratic wish of the majority.

You want to take away our right to self determination, always have and still do. As communities we should be equal - just as in unions of countries the countries are equal regardless of size, then so in a union of communites they should be equal. By isnisting we can only ever have a minority say in the running of our affairs at any and all levels you deny our human rights as a people.

I don't deny any of your human rights. What I deny is that you have the right for a separate state created by ethnically cleansing part of the island. Do you have such right? What I deny is that you have the right for 50% power when you are the 18%, do you have such right? Why don't other communities in the world have such rights then? You still insist that TCs have more human rights than everybody else?

So by your same logic Turkey is not violating any GC rights because they have not asked you to sign them away, they just took them. You totaloy avoid my point. In the period 63-74 GC abused the rights of TC as a community and as indivduals. Now you say GC do not want to harm a single right of TC. I ask again what has changed between these two opposed situations?

Turkey and TCs violated our rights, they violateour rights as we speak and they want to keep violating our rights in the future also.
You claim that GCs violated your rights in the past. This is true, but in the past you violated the rights of GCs 100 times more. So why you should now be rewarded and GCs punished again?? Why do you think that the "solution" is the continuation of the human rights violations?

The human rights of peoples, belogns to peoples. There is no human rights of countries. You are saying because we want a system based on ethnicity it is a vioolation of human rights.

No, what is a clear violation of human rights is that you stole our land and you ethnically cleansed it. If you want an area just for yourselves and your 18% share of Cyprus is not enough for you, then go build your country somewhere else. Not on the land you stole from us.

Well the french people have a poltical union with the GC people. The french people are massively larger than the GC people, yet they have equality in this union or disproprtionat representation. So by your defintion th9is union (EU) is a violation of the french peoples human rights beczause they are not equal to GC people in terms of poltivcal representation in the eu and this is based on race. The UN charters say nothigh about people being equal within a nation but not needing to be within unions of nations. It simply says we should all be equal. If you argue that political represntation disproprtionate to numbers is unequal - then you are saying the EU is in violtion of the charters of human rights.

We didn't steal our land from the French people and the French people could reject union with us if they wanted. We didn't force them to accept anything. Also France can withdrew from EU whenever she wants if they believe their rights are violated.

Where in the human rights charter does it make a distinction between it being ok basing rights on ethnicty between nations but not within a nation. It does not. If you claim poltical represntation based on ethnicity and disproprtionate to numerical numbers is a violation of human rights in Cyprus then it is also so in the EU.

As I said above EU is an option and nobody is forcing any country to join. If you don't like EU, don't join it. It is as simple as that. Maybe the french are willing to sacrifice something from their rights in order to get some benefits in another area. When they decide that they don't benefit they can withdrew with non of their human rights violated.
On the other had, you want to force on us something that is against our human rights, you want to keep the land you stole from us, and you want to force an undemocratic system on us.

The same one that you have been trying to rob us from for as long as their has been an independent Cyprus - and that is the 'source' of all other rights - namely the right to self determination.

So you claim that you have the right to ethnically cleanse an area or to have 50% power when you are the 18%?
Your rights are those of a community in Cyprus. If you want the kind of rights that separate countries have then by all means go create your own separate country but not on our land.

[erolz]

Just like you claim I say things then when I deny having said it and ask for some eveidence you simply ignore the whole subject?

This is what you said:

What is the basis for human rights if not some historical agreement signed at some point in the past?

Human rights are enshrined in various treaties between governments (and in national laws as well). Just the same as the 1960 agreements as I see it.

you claimed that human rights are enshrined in various treaties between governments (and in national laws as well).

You deny having said this? You did, and I hope now you understood that human rights are universal and are not made up by treaties between governments and national laws as you claimed before.

You accused me of saying things in your previous post. You accused me of saying TC should have more rights than kurds (and being pathetic for saying so). Dont believe you said this? Your exact words were

It is just pathetic that you claim that the TCs should have more human rights than Kurds or Greek Cypriots. As you said in your own quote

Small problem is I have never said this.

Then you did it again

You did claim it when you said that TCs had more human rights than Kurds

Then you try and defend yourself for having falsely accused me of saying TC should have more rights as Kurds, by saying that I said human rights were enshrined in international treaties and in national laws???? Is this what passes for reasoned discussion where you come from? First say a said x. The repeat I said x. Then we I push you (twice, first time ignore) to prove I said x you show me saying y. I give up. How can one reason with a person that does this?

Anyway to you 'point' - human rights are not universal. That is a fact. They ARE enshrined in international treaties and national laws. That is a fact. Do some study about the history of human rights. If they were universal they would have existed as long as humans exited and be applied to all humans eveywhere.

Sure, political systems however should not be against human rights, which is what you want for Cyprus.

What I want is no more against human rights than the RoC and RoC citizens having greater poltical reprentation in the EU than their absolute numbers would dictate.

So the human rights of Blacks in the US or UK, or the human rights of any other minority in the world are violated because they don't have their own separate state?? Or maybe you insist that TCs have more human rights than everybody else?

If those minorites qualify as 'peoples' as the charters on human rights states the term and if they want it then yes they have a right to self determiation - like all other peoples do. If they do not qualify as peoples then they have the rights of a minority. TC are a people. You want us to be a minority because you want to steal our rights as a people because that will mean you have to share cyprus equaly with us polticaly or at least give us rights in excess of a minority (as rights not 'gifts') and you do not want to share cyprus and never have. That is the theft of our rights that you have been perptrating against us and until you agree to let us have our rights do not expect us to worry about yours.

In Cyprus we have one country made by two communities. Beyond that you can name yourselves whatever you want, but you have no right to steal from us and to perform ethnic cleansing.

The TC are a people. We have all the necessary criteria to make us a people. That gives us a right to self determination. You have been trying to steal that right from us for as long as Cyprus as existed as a sovreign nation and you continue with your theft right up to your latest post. That we stole from you and Turkey moved you from your former homes is a consequence of your theft. That does not make it right but it dos mean if you had not and do not continue in your attmepts at theft you would have lost no land. You created the condintions that led to what happened and you remain unrepentant. Your theft led to the events of 74 and even after that you still want back everything you lost in 74 AND want to maintain your prior theft of our rights as well.

Show me which is your human right that will be violated if you do not have your own separate state. Show me where does it say that an 18% community should have separate state or 50% power.
Here is one of our human right that will be violated if you do:

I am not asking for a seperate state. I am asking / demanding our rights to self determination. I am willing to compromise on absolute exercise of these rights because we share cyprus, but I am not willing to forgoe them totaly because you want to rule all of cyprus and both the peoples that live there. It says a people have the right to self determination (the root of all other human rights). We are a people. Thus we have a right to self determination. So you can agree to share power with us or agree to separate from us. But neither of these is good enough for you, because you want all of Cyprus and refuse to share power with us. It is this maximal and unreasonable apraoch that is why you lost what you did in 74, why so many innocnent Cypriots died from 60 onwards and we are in this mess today, and your position has not changes one iota - despite all the death and killing and suffering and pain.

what I am saying is that it is ridiculous to compare how the ottomans behaved in Cyprus as conquerors with how the GC behaved as a 'partner' community in Cyprus.

So if the GCs behaved as conquerors too it would be ok with you?

If the GC were conquerors then it would be 0ok with me to compare how the GC behaved as conquerors with how the ottomans behaved as conquerors.

As my aunt lives with the loss of her husband every day and her childre the loss of her father.

We have a lot more people living with a lost relative. Why should your aunt be rewarded by given property stolen from GCs, and our people that lost somebody be punished on top of that? Why you don't agree that they should at least get their property back, which is their human right?

Your 'point' was that whatever happened to TC at the hands of GC is over and finsihed and history but what GC have suffered at the hands of TC and T continues on today. Well that is just rubbish. We live with our losses today as you live with yours. Today (literaly) you (personaly) are still trying to rob us of our rights as a people and force us to a lesser status - so that you can have all that you want - all of cyprus and unhindered poltical control of all of cyprus and both its people. In the 60's you tried to steal this right from us with guns and murder and terror. Today you still insist on robbing us of our rights, so you can have it all.

According to your logic, every decision taken by a democratic government, or decisions taken by referenda are "imposed" to the minority that voted differently!

Of course they are. That is the defnition of the 'tyranny of the majority' and remains one of democracy biggest weaknesses. When the imposed upon minority is also a people with the right to self determiantion, then the imposition of anothers will moves from one level to an entirely different one.

I don't deny any of your human rights.

You deny the TC are a people. That is the same thing as denying us our rights as a people - namely the right to self determination, which is not just a right, but actualy the foundation of all human rights. Without self determination all other rights are meaningless. So effectively you wish to steal ALL our human rights.

What I deny is that you have the right for a separate state created by ethnically cleansing part of the island. Do you have such right?

We do not have a right to a seperate state. We have a right to self determination. That right can be met without the need for a seperate nation by sharing power. The problem is that you deny (steal) that we have the right to self determination.

What I deny is that you have the right for 50% power when you are the 18%, do you have such right? Why don't other communities in the world have such rights then? You still insist that TCs have more human rights than everybody else?

When there are two peoples living in one geographical area there are the following options

1. Agree to seperate. - Always rejected by GC from the bith of the nation onwards

2. Agree to share power - Always rejected by GC in their hearts, thoough they did agree to it as a means to an end (getting rid of british rule) and then when they got the end renaged on it.

3. Fight - physicaly and polticaly for one side to lose it rights at the expense of the other - Always the GC policy and still your own personal policy today.

It is exactly beacuse as peoples we have EQUAL rights that we should have some form of poltical equality. It is you who is claiming that GC have a right to self determination (under the guise of 'cypriots') but that TC do not. It you that thinks rights apply differently to different peoples not me, and this is what has made cyprus the mess it is today - yet still you maintin this approach.

Turkey and TCs violated our rights, they violateour rights as we speak and they want to keep violating our rights in the future also.

You said "It is true because we don't ask from you to sign off any of your human rights." with 'it' refering to GC not wanting to abusing TC human rights. So bascially what you were saying is that the GC abuses of TC human rights (which you admit) were not in fact abuses of human rights because we did not ask you to 'sign away your rights'. If that is the case (and clearly it is rubbish - but it YOUR rubbish not mine), then Turkey is not abusing your rights unless she asks you to sign them away.

You claim that GCs violated your rights in the past. This is true,

yet you said

"We don't want to violate even a single human right of yours. "

and then also said this same thing was true of the period 63-74 (because you never asked us to sign away our rights that you abused. The inconsistencies in what you admit now and said before are glaring

I will ask yet again, now that you have finally admitted that GC abused TC rights in the period 63-74, why should I believe your assertation that "We don't want to violate even a single human right of yours. " when clearly you were more than willing and able to abuse our rights then . What has changed since 74 that I should believe you?

Anyway without a means to exercise our right to self determination in some way, talk of abuse or non abuse of any other rights is meaningless - and you still refuse to accept this.

but in the past you violated the rights of GCs 100 times more.

No in the past someone else (the ottomans) abused your rights - and then only by todays standards. By contemporary standards these people did not abuse your rights for the rights you refer to did not exist in 1571.

So why you should now be rewarded and GCs punished again??

I do not think we should be rewarded and GC punished. I think we should be able to exercise our rights to some form of self determination. It is you that refuse and have always refused the only two peacfulways of us being able to exercise our rights by refusing to share power and refusing to seperate. You are the ones that would rather continue the death, the pain the suffering in the persuit of stealing our rights from us.

Why do you think that the "solution" is the continuation of the human rights violations?

It is you who continues to insist a solution must be based on the the violation of the TC peoples human right to self determination. Accept that right and all the other problems will disapear, deny it and conflict is the only result. That was true in 1960 and it's still true today.

We didn't steal our land from the French people and the French people could reject union with us if they wanted. We didn't force them to accept anything. Also France can withdrew from EU whenever she wants if they believe their rights are violated.

Your argument was that poltical representation disproprtionate to numerical numbers is a violation of human rights and that poltical representation based on ethnicity is a violation of humans rights. Now that argument has been destroyed by showing examples of both (involving the RoC) that are not considered by anyone to be violations of human rights, you move the goal posts to 'stolen land'. Fairly typical of your 'style' I might add.

Where in the human rights charter does it make a distinction between it being ok basing rights on ethnicty between nations but not within a nation. It does not. If you claim poltical represntation based on ethnicity and disproprtionate to numerical numbers is a violation of human rights in Cyprus then it is also so in the EU.

As I said above EU is an option and nobody is forcing any country to join.

And nobody is forcing you to agree to share power in Cyprus. You can chose to or you can choose on of the other 2 options, namely seperation or conflict. It seems despite all that has happened you still prefer conflict, presumably in the hope that enough of it for long enough will bring you what you really want - the theft of TC rights as a people to self determination.

Maybe the french are willing to sacrifice something from their rights in order to get some benefits in another area.

Exactly - yet you refuse to give up your desire to rule all of cyprus and both it's people without hinderance (not a right I might add) for the benefit of peace! You could chose otherwise but you rfuse to do so, as you have in the past.

On the other had, you want to force on us something that is against our human rights,

No I want you to accept that you can not simply rule all of cyprus and both its people without any let or hinderance. That is not yor right and nver has been.

you want to keep the land you stole from us,

No I do not.

and you want to force an undemocratic system on us.

No I want you to accept a system that is no more undemocratic than the EU is (and no more based on ethnicity for that matter)

So you claim that you have the right to ethnically cleanse an area

No I claim we have a right to self determiantion as all peoples do as laid out in the charters on human rights.

or to have 50% power when you are the 18%?

That would be one solution that guarantees our rights as a people and yours as a people - because as peoples we are equal, just as within the EU as nations the RoC is equal to Germany.

Your rights are those of a community in Cyprus.

There is no such thing as the rights of a community. There is not a single human rights charter that talks of the rights of communites. There are rights of peoples (not nations or states but peoples) and their are the rights of minorites. There are no rights of communites - though in the past I have suggested that there should be and that if there was it could help the situation in Cyprus and many other places in the world.

If you want the kind of rights that separate countries have then by all means go create your own separate country but not on our land.

Countries do not have human rights - indivduals do and peoples do but countries states nations do not. I want the rights of peoples as laid out in the charters of human rights because we are a people and unfortunately we live in a area that has another people in it that do not want to share do not want to seperate and refuse to accept we even have the same rights as a people that they do.

[Piratis]

Small problem is I have never said this.

You say it all the time because you claim that you should have more rights than the Kurds or any other minority in the world. This is so evident there is no need to waste more time on this.

Your whole argument is that you have self-determination rights the kind that countries have (this is why you say "EU this, EU that". EU is a union of countries!!). But you are not a country. You are an 18% minority, just like all the other minorities in the world.
So instead of comparing yourselves with a country, start comparing with other minorities. E.g. the Kurds in Turkey, the Greeks in Turkey, the Blacks in the US or UK. Even better the Turks in Bulgaria which is the closest thing to TCs.
If you look to all similar examples you will see that we don't want you to get anything less than them, but you want to take a whole lot more than them on our expense. You are the 18% and your share is 18%, not 50%! We have no problem to share power with you, as long as you take the right share (18%).

You have no right for a separate state based on the land you ethnically cleansed.

You have no right to demand 50% power when you are the 18%.

As to what happens when different ethnicities live in the same country it is simple. Every country has minorities, and in Cyprus they can get what all minorities get in the whole world.

So you can keep the land you stole from us for as long as you can. However you have no right to keep it, and you have no right to demand things like a federal state, 50% power etc. So keep it, but later on we have every right to reclaim our own land, and we will never sign this right away.

[erolz]

You say it all the time because you claim that you should have more rights than the Kurds or any other minority in the world. This is so evident there is no need to waste more time on this.

I claim we should have the same rights as other peoples becuse we are a people. If the kurds are a people (which a believe they are) and if they want a right to self determination they should be able to have it , either within the existing countries they reside in or seperate from them.

Your whole argument is that you have self-determination rights the kind that countries have

Countries to not have a right to self determination. Peoples do. There is a very good reason why the various charters on human rights talk about the the rights of peoples and not the rights of countires.

(this is why you say "EU this, EU that". EU is a union of countries!!). But you are not a country. You are an 18% minority, just like all the other minorities in the world.

We are nothing like, to take one example, the Indian minority in the UK. To claim we are just the same as them is just an attempted continuation of your theft of our rights.

So instead of comparing yourselves with a country, start comparing with other minorities. E.g. the Kurds in Turkey, the Greeks in Turkey, the Blacks in the US or UK. Even better the Turks in Bulgaria which is the closest thing to TCs.

If these groups are people they have the rights of peoples. If they are not a people they do not have the rights of a people.

I was not comparing TC with other countries in this thread. You were claiming the universialtiy of human rights and how accoriding to you they state that poltical representation disproprtionate to numerical numbers is a violation of human rights and how political reprsentation based on ehtnicity is a human rights violation. If you were correct - which plainly you are not - then this would be true in the EU as well as it Cyprus. You can not logicaly claim they are true in Cyprus but not in the EU - yet this is what you constantly do - regardless of how unsupportable your claim is.

If you look to all similar examples you will see that we don't want you to get anything less than them, but you want to take a whole lot more than them on our expense.

This thread was not about comparing similar examples. You chose to lecture me on how poltical represntation disproprtionate to numerical numbers is a human rights violation and how poltical representation based on ethnicity is a human rights violation. I have simply shown how unsupportable this position is. Now that is shown you try and find a different reason why your attempted theft of or rights is justifed. No doubt in a few weeks we can start all over again, with you claiming that poltical represntation disproportionate to numerical numbers is a human rights violation and anti democratic.

You are the 18% and your share is 18%, not 50%! We have no problem to share power with you, as long as you take the right share (18%).

You can not share power on a 18% 82% basis with a democracy. The notion is absurd. You could perhaps share power on such rations on the basis that GC alone make a random 82% of the decisions and TC make 18% but that would also be absurd. You have no problem sharing power on a 82% 18% ratio in a democratic system because you know that means that GC get to effectively control eveything - your real objective.

You have no right for a separate state based on the land you ethnically cleansed.

And once more if I had ever said this then your statment might have some relevance. I havent and it doesn't. Maybe you will try and prooove I have said this by refering to my post about the human rights being enshrined in international treaties and local laws? It wouldnt be the first time would it?

You have no right to demand 50% power when you are the 18%.

As a people sharing a state with another people we most certainly do have such a right, just as small states in the USA have the same right, smaller federal units in any federal country have that right and the Roc has that right within the EU.

As to what happens when different ethnicities live in the same country it is simple. Every country has minorities, and in Cyprus they can get what all minorities get in the whole world.

Ignoring the pretty absymal record of the RoC with regard to how it treats its minorites, we do not wnat what all minorites in the world get because we are not a minority but a people. We wnat what all peoples in the world get or should get - as is our right under the charters on human rights.

So you can keep the land you stole from us for as long as you can. However you have no right to keep it, and you have no right to demand things like a federal state, 50% power etc. So keep it, but later on we have every right to reclaim our own land, and we will never sign this right away.

If you did not deny our rights in the past you would not have lost your land. If you stop denying us our rights today we can sort out the land issue - accepting that 30 years have passed since it was lost. However you still hope to deny (steal) us our rights, as you did before you lost any land, and to get back your lost land.

Even ignoring your historic and continued attempts to steal our rights as a people to self determiantion I am still waiting to know why when you abused our human rights in the period 63-74 (as you recognise you did) I should believe you when you say now 'we do not want to harm a single one of your rights'. What has changed since 74?