Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

Brother,

I think you are slightly misrepresenting these two points you have latched on to.

The issue of voting is now being assesed so that TC's living in the south can vote in all elections. This is the result of a court action by a TC living in the south that was denied the right to vote. He won his case, hence why the RoC is now having to review the voting system so that TC's can vote as well, taking into account the current circumstances.

Regarding property rights, well, your property in the south is still yours compared to ours that have been effectively stolen. The issue is for the right to use the land or property. I would agree that because much of the TC property is being used to house refugees therefore it causes problems for a TC wishing to live in the south as in the case of Arif Mustafa. However, the RoC is being ameanable if the property of TC is being used by a refugee, by offering equivalent property until such time as the issue is solved politically or otherwise. The situation is not ideal. I for one think that TC's that have property in the south and particalar property that is not being used, then they should basically return to it, ask the government for aid to rebuild the property and of course to recind any property they were 'given' in the north.

Basically, I don't think the issues you raised are as black and white as you make out.

[brother]

The issue of voting is now being assesed so that TC's living in the south can vote in all elections. This is the result of a court action by a TC living in the south that was denied the right to vote. He won his case, hence why the RoC is now having to review the voting system so that TC's can vote as well, taking into account the current circumstances.

No misrepresentation here, he won the case but still violating tc human rights, when and if when they get the right to vote then it will not be a violation anymore.

Regarding property rights, well, your property in the south is still yours compared to ours that have been effectively stolen. The issue is for the right to use the land or property. I would agree that because much of the TC property is being used to house refugees therefore it causes problems for a TC wishing to live in the south as in the case of Arif Mustafa. However, the RoC is being ameanable if the property of TC is being used by a refugee, by offering equivalent property until such time as the issue is solved politically or otherwise. The situation is not ideal. I for one think that TC's that have property in the south and particalar property that is not being used, then they should basically return to it, ask the government for aid to rebuild the property and of course to recind any property they were 'given' in the north.

Yet again no misrepresentation here aswell, tc have bought cases to ROC court but they get swept under the carpet, either honour all cypriot human rights or stop pointing at Turkey and then punishing the tc because of it.

[detailer]

As in GC society, TC civil society is a passive animal, they don't see that much can be achieved through mass rallies because so little has changed as a result of their brave efforts two years ago. The division remains, they remain outside the EU and their policies on the Cyprob continue to be dictated not in Lefkosa but in Ankara.

The pasiveness and disappointment in TC lies mostly behind the rejection by GC and partly because of the reasons you said.

[Kifeas]

Brother, absolutely no case of a TC in a RoC court has been swept under the carpet. If you have any evidence to the contrary, then bring it here. Otherwise, do not just spread unfair accusations based purely on rumors. The case of Arif Mustafa has been settle with a mutual agreement between the RoC and himself, in an amicable settlement fashion and this is a standard and acceptable procedure that is followed in all countries.

As for the voting rights of the TCs, you must know that the RoC constitution provides for separate elections of MPs and separate elections for the president and the vise president. The TC community votes on separate voting lists the 30% of the MPs and the vise president of the Republic. The GC side did not want to touch these constitutional provisions, since this would have been interpreted as an act that would formally usurp the separate constitutional rights of the TC community and would gear them towards a more pro partition stand. Therefore these separate voting and electing constitutional rights should have remained intact, something which is true even today, although due to the division of the country and the movement of the entire TC community in the north, it has become impossible for these rights to be put in practice.

Unless of course you want the RoC and the GC community to accept and allow the 800 TCs that remained in the south after 1974 to elect in separate elections the 30% of the parliament and the Vise president of the RoC. Now, upon the ECHRs ruling in the case of Ibrahim Aziz, the TCs are going to be allowed to vote and be elected, not in separate elections but in the same lists as the GCs, despite the constitutional provisions. I do not know if this arrangement will make the TCs any happier now.