Cyprus-Forum.com

[vaughanwilliams]

Come on Republic of Cyprus. Unprovoked beating up of tourists? Time some of your citizens joined the rest of civilization, isn't it?
How embarrasing for you.


http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

Why do you consider this to be unprovoked? These activists were entering private property and causing wilful damage there. Bird trapping may be illegal but this does not permit private individuals to take the law into their own hands.

Please read the last paragraph of the "background" section on the linked site.

http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

"The trappers in this area are likely to attack unwitting tourists - who could be mistaken for conservation activists - (hikers and strollers in the open countryside) without warning."

Note the term "open countryside".

Meets my definition of unprovoked.

Doesn't meet mine, sorry. The fact is that the previous illegal acts of these activists have created the expectation that such acts will be repeated, so that certain individuals are taking pre-emptive action to see that they are not.

This makes me angry because I love to go walking in the countryside alone when I find the time, and I may find myself being targeted as an activist, when I am not. And I blame these outsiders who have come in and inflamed the situation. They could have chosen far better ways of getting their message across.

So, if I get mugged in a certain street, it's OK for me to attack strangers in that street (taking pre-emptive action) from now on, on the premise that they might also be muggers?

No, it isn't. What a strange question.

How is it strange? You have stated that pre-emptive action based on past experience is OK in the case of the poachers - my example is a parallel.
Or?

[CBBB]

Come on Republic of Cyprus. Unprovoked beating up of tourists? Time some of your citizens joined the rest of civilization, isn't it?
How embarrasing for you.


http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

Why do you consider this to be unprovoked? These activists were entering private property and causing wilful damage there. Bird trapping may be illegal but this does not permit private individuals to take the law into their own hands.

Please read the last paragraph of the "background" section on the linked site.

http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

"The trappers in this area are likely to attack unwitting tourists - who could be mistaken for conservation activists - (hikers and strollers in the open countryside) without warning."

Note the term "open countryside".

Meets my definition of unprovoked.

Doesn't meet mine, sorry. The fact is that the previous illegal acts of these activists have created the expectation that such acts will be repeated, so that certain individuals are taking pre-emptive action to see that they are not.

This makes me angry because I love to go walking in the countryside alone when I find the time, and I may find myself being targeted as an activist, when I am not. And I blame these outsiders who have come in and inflamed the situation. They could have chosen far better ways of getting their message across.

So, if I get mugged in a certain street, it's OK for me to attack strangers in that street (taking pre-emptive action) from now on, on the premise that they might also be muggers?

No, it isn't. What a strange question.

How is it strange? You have stated that pre-emptive action based on past experience is OK in the case of the poachers - my example is a parallel.
Or?

Or you are talking BS as usual.

[Tim Drayton]

Come on Republic of Cyprus. Unprovoked beating up of tourists? Time some of your citizens joined the rest of civilization, isn't it?
How embarrasing for you.


http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

Why do you consider this to be unprovoked? These activists were entering private property and causing wilful damage there. Bird trapping may be illegal but this does not permit private individuals to take the law into their own hands.

Please read the last paragraph of the "background" section on the linked site.

http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

"The trappers in this area are likely to attack unwitting tourists - who could be mistaken for conservation activists - (hikers and strollers in the open countryside) without warning."

Note the term "open countryside".

Meets my definition of unprovoked.

Doesn't meet mine, sorry. The fact is that the previous illegal acts of these activists have created the expectation that such acts will be repeated, so that certain individuals are taking pre-emptive action to see that they are not.

This makes me angry because I love to go walking in the countryside alone when I find the time, and I may find myself being targeted as an activist, when I am not. And I blame these outsiders who have come in and inflamed the situation. They could have chosen far better ways of getting their message across.

So, if I get mugged in a certain street, it's OK for me to attack strangers in that street (taking pre-emptive action) from now on, on the premise that they might also be muggers?

No, it isn't. What a strange question.

How is it strange? You have stated that pre-emptive action based on past experience is OK in the case of the poachers - my example is a parallel.
Or?

Where did I say that it was OK?

[vaughanwilliams]

Come on Republic of Cyprus. Unprovoked beating up of tourists? Time some of your citizens joined the rest of civilization, isn't it?
How embarrasing for you.


http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

Why do you consider this to be unprovoked? These activists were entering private property and causing wilful damage there. Bird trapping may be illegal but this does not permit private individuals to take the law into their own hands.

Please read the last paragraph of the "background" section on the linked site.

http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

"The trappers in this area are likely to attack unwitting tourists - who could be mistaken for conservation activists - (hikers and strollers in the open countryside) without warning."

Note the term "open countryside".

Meets my definition of unprovoked.

Doesn't meet mine, sorry. The fact is that the previous illegal acts of these activists have created the expectation that such acts will be repeated, so that certain individuals are taking pre-emptive action to see that they are not.

This makes me angry because I love to go walking in the countryside alone when I find the time, and I may find myself being targeted as an activist, when I am not. And I blame these outsiders who have come in and inflamed the situation. They could have chosen far better ways of getting their message across.

So, if I get mugged in a certain street, it's OK for me to attack strangers in that street (taking pre-emptive action) from now on, on the premise that they might also be muggers?

No, it isn't. What a strange question.

How is it strange? You have stated that pre-emptive action based on past experience is OK in the case of the poachers - my example is a parallel.
Or?

Where did I say that it was OK?

When you said that the pre-emptive action in question wasn't unprovoked, according to your definition of "unprovoked".

[CBBB]

Come on Republic of Cyprus. Unprovoked beating up of tourists? Time some of your citizens joined the rest of civilization, isn't it?
How embarrasing for you.


http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

Why do you consider this to be unprovoked? These activists were entering private property and causing wilful damage there. Bird trapping may be illegal but this does not permit private individuals to take the law into their own hands.

Please read the last paragraph of the "background" section on the linked site.

http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

"The trappers in this area are likely to attack unwitting tourists - who could be mistaken for conservation activists - (hikers and strollers in the open countryside) without warning."

Note the term "open countryside".

Meets my definition of unprovoked.

Doesn't meet mine, sorry. The fact is that the previous illegal acts of these activists have created the expectation that such acts will be repeated, so that certain individuals are taking pre-emptive action to see that they are not.

This makes me angry because I love to go walking in the countryside alone when I find the time, and I may find myself being targeted as an activist, when I am not. And I blame these outsiders who have come in and inflamed the situation. They could have chosen far better ways of getting their message across.

So, if I get mugged in a certain street, it's OK for me to attack strangers in that street (taking pre-emptive action) from now on, on the premise that they might also be muggers?

No, it isn't. What a strange question.

How is it strange? You have stated that pre-emptive action based on past experience is OK in the case of the poachers - my example is a parallel.
Or?

Where did I say that it was OK?

When you said that the pre-emptive action in question wasn't unprovoked, according to your definition of "unprovoked".

This statement is not backed up with any evidence and is merely speculation. VW BS as usual!

[Tim Drayton]

Come on Republic of Cyprus. Unprovoked beating up of tourists? Time some of your citizens joined the rest of civilization, isn't it?
How embarrasing for you.


http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

Why do you consider this to be unprovoked? These activists were entering private property and causing wilful damage there. Bird trapping may be illegal but this does not permit private individuals to take the law into their own hands.

Please read the last paragraph of the "background" section on the linked site.

http://www.komitee.de/en/index.php?warning

"The trappers in this area are likely to attack unwitting tourists - who could be mistaken for conservation activists - (hikers and strollers in the open countryside) without warning."

Note the term "open countryside".

Meets my definition of unprovoked.

Doesn't meet mine, sorry. The fact is that the previous illegal acts of these activists have created the expectation that such acts will be repeated, so that certain individuals are taking pre-emptive action to see that they are not.

This makes me angry because I love to go walking in the countryside alone when I find the time, and I may find myself being targeted as an activist, when I am not. And I blame these outsiders who have come in and inflamed the situation. They could have chosen far better ways of getting their message across.

So, if I get mugged in a certain street, it's OK for me to attack strangers in that street (taking pre-emptive action) from now on, on the premise that they might also be muggers?

No, it isn't. What a strange question.

How is it strange? You have stated that pre-emptive action based on past experience is OK in the case of the poachers - my example is a parallel.
Or?

Where did I say that it was OK?

When you said that the pre-emptive action in question wasn't unprovoked, according to your definition of "unprovoked".

It can be not OK to respond to provocation. Somebody sticks their tongue out at me, so I shoot them dead. Was I provoked? Yes, because the other person stuck their tongue out at me. Was it OK to kill the other guy? Certainly not.

[Gasman]

Cyprus agrees not to allow future spring hunting

In June 2007 the Commission sent a first written warning to Cyprus regarding a two-day derogation permitting the spring hunting of turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur) on 6 and 9 May 2007, and warned that any future derogation would constitute a generalized practice of bad application of the Birds Directive. The Cypriot authorities agreed not to renew the derogation, and the Commission has decided to close the case, although it will continue to monitor the situation in the future to ensure that any derogations comply fully with the Birds Directive.

[Gasman]

And DIKO MP Zacharias Koulias suggested the activists had no business in Cyprus.

“This is an occupied country with foreign occupation troops, with flagrant violations of human rights…but these gentlemen [the activists] are not moved by any of that,” he asserted.

“Ambelopoulia are not an endangered species,” he added. “In any case, we should have asked the EU for relaxations on outlawing bird trapping, because the situation is not as serious as some make out.”

Martin Hellicar, campaigns manager for BirdLife Cyprus, dismissed offhand accusations that the group engages in misinformation.

“Certainly, we produce regular reports on the bird trapping situation. First and foremost, we apply pressure on a local level, but we do also inform the European Union. Some seem to forget that we are part of the EU now.”

Hellicar also had misgivings on a legal amendment, proposed by DISY MP Hadjiyiannis, providing for on-the-spot fines for people caught in the act.

Currently, bird-trapping cases go to court and violators are liable to fines of up to €17,000 and/or three years in jail. The penalties may be doubled for a second conviction.

But courts rarely dish out the maximum sentence, and more often than not fines range from €400 to €500.

Under the proposed amendment, offenders would be fined €1 per limestick. If this is intended as a financial deterrent, it is absurd, said Hellicar.

For his part, Environment Commissioner Charalambos Theopemptou sought to put things in perspective:

“If we had no problem with illegal bird trapping, the activists wouldn’t keep coming back to Cyprus every year. No doubt the situation has improved since we joined the EU, but not nearly enough.”

Pictures and videos of bird trapping activities are regularly posted on the Internet and Youtube, Theopemptou said, giving Cyprus a deservedly poor image abroad.

But he hastened to add: “If the activists had information about unlawful activities by trappers, they should have tipped off the police and let the police handle it.”

Even managed to bring the Turkish Army into the bird trapping scandal!

[Gasman]

Surely none of this is true? What with Cyprus proclaiming to be a 'modern European Country'?

Despite the clear contravention of EU and Cyprus law, illegal trapping of song birds as delicacies is widespread and practically uncontrolled in the south-east of the Republic.

Of particular concern to conservationists is the large scale use of lime sticks which, when deployed in the quantity and with the professionalism being experienced by the teams from the Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS), are as severe a threat to migrant bird populations as mist nets.

"Our searches, concentrated on suitable rest and forage habitats for small migrants, which include gardens and orchards, seldom go unrewarded" comments CABS general secretary Alexander Heyd.

"The so-called by-catch of other species such as Golden Oriole, Wryneck and Pied Flycatcher also gives cause for concern" he adds.

Yet despite this clear and often blatant contravention of Community law, which Cyprus accepted as part of the accession conditions, law enforcement in the countryside is conspicuous by its absence.

[Gasman]

Ahh, I see! They said they would put a stop to it when they wanted to get into the EU. It's obviously another one of those things they signed up to assuming they could change it afterwards instead of being honest about it beforehand and refusing to agree.

This from 2002

Thousands of Greek Cypriot villagers have handed in their voting cards in protest at government attempts to stop a lucrative trade in trapping and selling small birds.

Cyprus is a candidate for EU membership and EU legislation says bird trapping is illegal.

Sticks, tape recordings of birds - all these methods are prohibited, not only by the EU but by our law as well

But the villagers say its prohibition will mark the end of a traditional activity that goes back to medieval times.

Many are also claiming that they are being deprived of their livelihoods.

The birds - according to conservationists as many as 2 million of them every year - are caught in fine nets suspended from poles or on sticks covered with glue, known as "lime sticks".

The tiny birds - which are considered a great delicacy in Cyprus - are then sold to local restaurants where the custom is for diner's to eat them whole, leaving only the beak behind.

Large flocks of birds fly over Cyprus every year during their biannual migration. Conservationists insist that the trapping has to stop.

They say the methods being used are indiscriminate and threaten the survival of endangered species - in particular the tiny black cap, which sells for up to $8 a piece.

Now, with Cyprus a candidate for EU membership the government says it is time to crack down on the practice and enforce existing legislation.

Interior Minister Andreas Panayiotou is adamant that the trappers will have to back down.

"There are a lot of birds that they can hunt," he says.

"But using shot guns, not lime sticks, tape recordings of birds - all these methods are prohibited, not only by the EU but by our law as well."

Despite the government's attitude the issue does not appear to be going away - with bird trappers planning a series of protests in the months ahead.

That could be embarrassing to the authorities as they try to show Brussels how successful they have been in preparing for European membership.