Cyprus-Forum.com

[Afroasiatis]

Well, the law in Greece was as I said it, at least until the last elections (I heard something that PASOK wants to change it now, but I'm not sure). And this is was the law in Germany too until some years ago. A child born in Greece or Germany didn't get the citizenship automatically, if his parents didn't have the citizenship themselves. So the child was not considered as a citizen although it may have lived his whole life in that country, because it didn't have the right genes. If this is not racism, then what?

This isn't racist. If the parents were black and the baby wasn't given citizenship, while if the parents were white and it was, that would be racist.

Well, it seems we define racism in a different way. If the two of us can't agree on what exactly is racism, what makes you so sure that the Europeans can?

How many of them actually read the Annan Plan in full, to make such a judgement? You trust politicians far too much.

I believe the ones mostly responsible for Cyrpus EU membership have. I trust EU politicians at least at this. EU politicians were generally very distrustful to a possible EU membership of Cyprus, due to the problems which could arise from it. I don't think they would ever agree to a Cyprus as an EU-member according to Anan Plan (which is what they expected), if they were not at least good possibilities that it could withstand EU courts.

If Cypriots don't stand up for their rights then it's not just the north you should be worried about. (And BTW, the northern part of Cyprus will still be the northern part of Cyprus, for many, many years to come).

No doubt that it's going to be the northern part of Cyprus. But the problem is, it can be a province of Turkey at the same time.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the Aland islands. Are the rights of Aland Islanders restricted? On their own island? I very much doubt it.

No. But the rights of other EU-citizens are, which contradicts the the rules of EU, as every EU-citizen should have these rights in the whole EU territory.
So, if they can make one exception, why not a second one?


To make clear what I mean, I'm not saying that the restrictions according to the Anan plan were not racist. I only think you trust too much the EU. You present it as if it is some kind of a heaven of anti-racism and human rights, and always loyal to its basic principles, while I think it's far from being that.

I think it's wrong for Cypriots to expect our salvation from the EU. It seems to me that there is a false hope that EU principles will prevail over geopolitical interests of all great powers in the Earth (including the ones that are EU-members). This is a big overestimation of the EU. This reminds me of a similar way that UN were overestimated by GC politicians in 60s. There was a false hope that UN principles would prevail over geopolitical interests - and we all know the tragic results of this.

[Afroasiatis]

In that case you have no answer because you don't know that racism is when you apply different rules to particular races and not merely have citizenship regulations which apply to all regardless of origins. But, then you are a Turk from Turkey pretending you are a GC

This regulation doesn't apply regardless of origins. It is based exactly on the origins of your parents. So, the state practically says that alhtough you were born and raised in your country, you can have equal rights as the rest of the population because your genes are not so good as them. I'm sorry, but there are no other words to describe this logic as pure racism.

It had nothing to do with the EU because Cyprus was not in the EU then.

But again, you don't know because you are Turk pretending you are a GC.

Cyprus was about to enter. The EU is not so stupid not caring about the political situation in one of its future members

No they are not discriminatory against women just as having Male-only toilets is not discriminatory against women, so long as you also allow Female-only toilets!

Well, I think comparing a toilet to a whole peninsula is not a logic that an EU court would accept.

Your opinion means nothing when it is contrary to actual EU practice. You are sexist and racist and pretend otherwise, but your arguments reveal your bias.
The example of Mount Athos, which I gave you, is where biological sex differences are accounted for and have nothing to do with "sexism" which is the practice that women are of lower importance than men. That might be the case in your country (Turkey), but it certainly is not in the EU.

You are accepting a practice of not allowing women to enter a whole peninsula, specifically a territory which is considered to be a very holy one, and you are accusing others of being sexist because they disagree with you? Don't you think that there is a problem with your logic?

The other ways are a war, or a socialist revolution. I'm sure EU wants neither of these two options. Can you think of anything else?

Those aren't the only ways, so keep thinking little Turk!

Well, I can think of only three ways: war, socialist revolution, negotiations. If you can think of a fourth one, which do you avoid naming it?

My preferable way is the socialist revolution. Everyone will enjoy the same rights everywhere, not only in Cyprus, but in Greece, Turkey, Syria, Egypt and all of our neighbouring countries, no racist restriction nowhere.
Unfortunately I don't think I will find a lot of people in Cyprus following me on this.

The second option, war, I think is also one which would find very few followers in Cyprus.

That leaves one option: negotiations. This means finding a compromiss between conflicting interests. This was by the way the policy officially carried out by all greek and cypriot governments after 1974, and it still is.

P.S. I'm sorry I couldn't convince you of my Greek-Cypriotness, but I really think there is no point to repeat your assumption that I'm a Turk four times in one post. If you like to think of me as a Turk, please do, I don't have anything against them. But we can continue our discussion without mentioning it anymore

[Malapapa]

Well, the law in Greece was as I said it, at least until the last elections (I heard something that PASOK wants to change it now, but I'm not sure). And this is was the law in Germany too until some years ago. A child born in Greece or Germany didn't get the citizenship automatically, if his parents didn't have the citizenship themselves. So the child was not considered as a citizen although it may have lived his whole life in that country, because it didn't have the right genes. If this is not racism, then what?

This isn't racist. If the parents were black and the baby wasn't given citizenship, while if the parents were white and it was, that would be racist.

Well, it seems we define racism in a different way. If the two of us can't agree on what exactly is racism, what makes you so sure that the Europeans can?

I'm not sure this argument works. Maybe your definition of racism is way, way off the mark, which is why we can't agree. This doesn't mean most reasonable Europeans wouldn't come up with a consensus. Certainly not sure that your example of racism in Europe (about whether a baby can automatically claim the nationality of the country it is born in) equates in any way to the institutional racism you appear willing to accept for Cypriots.

How many of them actually read the Annan Plan in full, to make such a judgement? You trust politicians far too much.

I believe the ones mostly responsible for Cyrpus EU membership have. I trust EU politicians at least at this. EU politicians were generally very distrustful to a possible EU membership of Cyprus, due to the problems which could arise from it. I don't think they would ever agree to a Cyprus as an EU-member according to Anan Plan (which is what they expected), if they were not at least good possibilities that it could withstand EU courts.

I don't believe they read it. It was a veritable door-step. I also don't believe they took legal advice as to whether its provisions would stand up in the EU courts. It was a rush job. I think, with hindsight, they should have spent more time doing this and also seeing whether there was a good possibility that the plan could be accepted by the majority of the Cypriot people.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the Aland islands. Are the rights of Aland Islanders restricted? On their own island? I very much doubt it.

No. But the rights of other EU-citizens are, which contradicts the the rules of EU, as every EU-citizen should have these rights in the whole EU territory.
So, if they can make one exception, why not a second one?

My reasoning for this is implied in my question. "Are the rights of Aland Islanders restricted? On their own island? I very much doubt it." If you're going to give examples of exceptions, make sure they are in some way comparable to Cyprus. Why would anyone else in the EU care or challenge whether or not they had the right to Aland island citizenship?

To make clear what I mean, I'm not saying that the restrictions according to the Anan plan were not racist. I only think you trust too much the EU. You present it as if it is some kind of a heaven of anti-racism and human rights, and always loyal to its basic principles, while I think it's far from being that.

I think it's wrong for Cypriots to expect our salvation from the EU. It seems to me that there is a false hope that EU principles will prevail over geopolitical interests of all great powers in the Earth (including the ones that are EU-members). This is a big overestimation of the EU. This reminds me of a similar way that UN were overestimated by GC politicians in 60s. There was a false hope that UN principles would prevail over geopolitical interests - and we all know the tragic results of this.

We'll have to see. The hope may be false but the alternative is to just accept being ridden over rough-shod by a local bully. If it's true that actually, at its core, the EU – which has secured many decades of peace, prosperity and stability for a continent previously perpetually at war with itself – has no principles, I'd like to discover this the hard way.

[Afroasiatis]

Welcome Afroasiatis to the forum. This is what you will get if you insist on disagreeing with the Lady from Lesbos island. Her understanding of Cyprus and EU is correct and everybody else is wrong. Ignorance is bliss. Don't even think about accusing her of being racist, you will be hounded to the end of the galaxy.

Thanks for welcoming.

And I think I will take the risk of disagreeing with Oracle .

[denizaksulu]

Welcome Afroasiatis to the forum. This is what you will get if you insist on disagreeing with the Lady from Lesbos island. Her understanding of Cyprus and EU is correct and everybody else is wrong. Ignorance is bliss. Don't even think about accusing her of being racist, you will be hounded to the end of the galaxy.

Thanks for welcoming.

And I think I will take the risk of disagreeing with Oracle .

Dont worry AA (is that a battery?) you will pass the strict 'Oracle' entry exams soon with flying colours. Didnt anyone tell you Oracle is our 'honorable Ombudsperson'.

Truly

[Oracle]

P.S. I'm sorry I couldn't convince you of my Greek-Cypriotness, but I really think there is no point to repeat your assumption that I'm a Turk four times in one post. If you like to think of me as a Turk, please do, I don't have anything against them. But we can continue our discussion without mentioning it anymore

It was just a reaction to you feeling the need to start a thread declaring you are Greek Cypriot ... I thought that was unnecessary and preferred if you let your opinions speak for themselves. After all, it's our behaviour which classifies us into groups and not our genes ...

I apologise if I overly offended you But, I am enjoying reading your debates although you should really give us your definition of racism and sexism if we are not going to keep going over the sanctity of Monasteries/Nunneries and Male/Female toilets.

[Get Real!]

But, I am enjoying reading your debates although you should really give us your definition of racism and sexism if we are not going to keep going over the sanctity of Monasteries/Nunneries and Male/Female toilets.

Not in the CyProb section Oracle...

[Oracle]

But, I am enjoying reading your debates although you should really give us your definition of racism and sexism if we are not going to keep going over the sanctity of Monasteries/Nunneries and Male/Female toilets.

Not in the CyProb section Oracle...

This thread is about the reasons why the EU could not allow GC-specific racist segregation to be continued by a Turkey entering the EU whilst still occupying Cyprus specifically to keep out one group of EU members based entirely on their ethnicity.

A definition from AA would help identify why he thinks it would be acceptable to the EU to allow Turkey to continue GC-specific racist segregation whilst it is a member of the EU.

[Afroasiatis]

I don't believe they read it. It was a veritable door-step. I also don't believe they took legal advice as to whether its provisions would stand up in the EU courts. It was a rush job. I think, with hindsight, they should have spent more time doing this and also seeing whether there was a good possibility that the plan could be accepted by the majority of the Cypriot people.

Well, I disagree here. I think that the people most responsible for this issues in the EU (Enlargement Commisioner etc) were familiar at least with the basic principles of Anan Plan. I just can't accept the idea they were not. Germans are generally people who get good prepared.
But you're right that they made a mistake in the acceptance of the plan by GCs. Obviously they didn't estimate the political situation in Cyprus very well. They thought that they would have to deal with someone like Kliridis or Christofias, and didn't know how to deal with Tassos.

My reasoning for this is implied in my question. "Are the rights of Aland Islanders restricted? On their own island? I very much doubt it." If you're going to give examples of exceptions, make sure they are in some way comparable to Cyprus. Why would anyone else in the EU care or challenge whether or not they had the right to Aland island citizenship?

Let say, someone wants to bye a piece of land in Aland islands which he needs for his business. He knows that as an EU-citizen he has right to acquire property everywhere in the EU and he's surprised that in the Aland islands they don't allow him to do this, because he's a "foreigner". Wouldn't he think of the possiblity of challenging that and presenting it as discrimination?

We'll have to see. The hope may be false but the alternative is to just accept being ridden over rough-shod by a local bully. If it's true that actually, at its core, the EU – which has secured many decades of peace, prosperity and stability for a continent previously perpetually at war with itself – has no principles, I'd like to discover this the hard way.

EU has some principles, but it's not so difficult to leave them aside when geopolitical interests are regarded. This is the same in every state or state union in the world.
Many EU-countries actively supported the greatest international bully (USA) in breaking international law and killing thousands.
Most EU-countries are supporting the greatest local bully in our region, Israel, compared to whom Turkey is an angel.

The most important reason for the EU to exist is to make Europe the most economically strong region in the world. This requires good relationships with Turkey (if Turkey is accepted to EU is another question. Even the countries which don't want Turkey in the EU want good relationships with her). And they won't risk this just because of a small island.

[Get Real!]

I think it's wrong for Cypriots to expect our salvation from the EU.

The most important RoC achievement from joining the EU, was an additional re-recognition and reinforcement of the contiguity of Cypriot territory, despite a military occupation!