Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

Ok, so what do you say? If you agree that there is no excuse for illegally occupying our properties then I take what I said back. But from what I see in here, you do everything possible to excuse the illegal occupation of our land, which means my conclusion about what you mean is very correct.

I think that those that lost land -pre 74 and post 74 - should have compensation for that loss, either by return when and where possible and desired or by monetary compensation where not. Can you show me anywhere where I have claimed that GC should have no rights over lost land? Where I have said the change of ownership was/is legal and GC no longer have any claim on those properties lost?

[MicAtCyp]

Some native TC live in former GC properties, some in new properties that have been built on land formerly owned by GC - the same is true for non Turkish mainland settlers. Some Turkish mainland settlers live on land and in properties that were never owned by GC ever..

The difference between a settler and a TC regarding the property issue, is that the TC has left behind a property that he can eventually exchange, whereas the settler did not. European settlers will one day see all the property they built on stolen land and all the money they invested getting vaporised and let them go to the European court to seek their rights.

There is no simple division between former GC properites and land and who lives where in the north

Perhaps you are not aware that the title deeds in the occupied areas are of 5! different types, are you? And that only on certified land the building is totally free and needs no licence.

How you define who is a citizen and who an immigrant is not clear as you yourself point out.

What I pointed out is not that. The definition of a citizen, an immigrant, and a settler is very clear in international law. What is not clear is how many settlers whose presense is illegal per se, can stay after a solution on reasons of human rights etc etc. And the reason why that number is not clear is because there has not yet been a case by case study-not because the criteria of the study are unclear or unknown. (I said they are unknown to me because I am not a legal expert, but at least I do know where the experts will draw the criteria from)

That no land that used to be owned by TC prior to 63 is being used by GC or the GC state?

I think the matter of the Guardian of the TC properties in the Roc is crystal clear and I am not going to repeat over and over the same explanations.The Guardian has the same obligations and responsibilities as the legal TC owner and he is oblidged by law to grant those rights to the TC owner after a solution.And yes I guarantee you that no TC land is owned by any individual or can be sold or transfered to anyone.It is just used according to the right of necessity that the peaceful(!!) Turkish Invasion forced us to apply.

though often one right conflicts with another

For example?

What I do not accept is that the ONLY reason such settlement was encouraged and effected was to benefit Turkey or a ruling eleite in the north.

Who said that was the only reason?Each one of the reasons can be examined separately. Wouldn’t you agree the above was one of the most major ones?

Are you seriously telling me that there is not a sinlge RoC citizen that was not born in Cyprus. That there has been no granting of citizenship to anyone not already a native of Cyprus?

Thats why if you noticed I did not even mention the settlers who got married with TCs.And thats why I pointed out that the settlers question has to be examined on a case to case basis using 3 criteria human rights, international law, Eu aquis

That there are no 'russian greeks' with citizenship in the RoC for just one example? How did you count settlers to come that ratio, given that you have already admited that you are not sure who should be classed as a settler or not?

Who a settler is can be classed alright. My arguments were not conceringing their classification as settlers or illegal immigrants, but the question as to which ones of them can stay after a solution.
Yes I can guarantee you that not even one of the Pontian Greeks got a RoC citizenship, in fact all of them have a Greek passport and all of them went back to Greece to vote in last Greek elections.And I can guarantee you noone of them voted for Papadopoulos, noone voted OXI at the referendum, simply because they cant vote, as they have no citizenship.

About how I count the settlers, I told you many times about the Poucau report, and I can also refer you to an estimate that I posted in the past in this forum that the TCs left are about 70-80K compared with 120K in 1974 the settlers 110-120K, with total voters at referendum date 140K.
Thus there are 110-120K settlers with so called "citizenship" rights and according to the Poucau report about half a million mainland Turks who never even step foot in Cyprus with potential "citizenship" rights, and an unknown number of seasonal or temporary Turkish workers coming and going everyday.

[erolz]

What I pointed out is not that. The definition of a citizen, an immigrant, and a settler is very clear in international law.

If it is so clear is a Turkish mainlander married to a TC a citizen or a settler? Are their children citizens or settlers? Are the children of Turkish mainland settlers that were born in Cyprus settelers or citizens? Are the children of children born in cyprus citizens or settlers? It may be clear and simple to you but not so to me.

though often one right conflicts with another

For example?

The United Nations International covenant on civil and political rights (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html) states that indivduals have the right to

freedom of thought opinion and expression.

The same covenant also forbids "propaganda advocating either war or hatred based on race, religion, national origin, or language"

There is an obvious 'tension' between these.

Or for another example

Article 18

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

This is a specific recognition that this right can be in conflict with other peoples rights. It is some peoples religous and cultural belief for example that marriages should be arranged by the parents yet there is also a human right that states a person can choose freely who they marry. So the rights of the parents to observe their cultural and regligous beleifs can be in conflict with the childs right to freely choose who they marry.

These are just a sample of potential conflicts between ones persons human rights and anothers. In many ways this tension is more straight forward in general 'rights' rather than the codifed specifics of human rights per se, but the basis of one persons rights clashing with anothers is clear (to me anyway). Take owning some land. At one level the owner should have a right to build what they want on the land. Yet a neighbour also has some rights to not have the views in their properties destoryed by a building next to them. Or take the case of playing loud music. I have a 'right' to listen to music in my house but my neighbour also has a 'right' to not be annoyed by such music playing. In some ways all our laws are based on the idea of a need to mediate one persons rights against another persons. To find a balance between these conflicting desires, wants and 'rights'. Human rights are not different in this respect in my mind.

On a wider more philosophical angle I personaly believe there is nothing complicated that is not also simple at some level and nothing simple that is not also complicated at some level. I see no pardox in something being both simple and complex at the same time - in fact not only do I not see this as a paradox I see it as the natural reality for everything. So in some ways I am not arguing with you that there is no simple approach to human rights (for one example). What I am saying is that for every 'simple' view there is also a complex one and the problem comes when there is no balance or acceptance of this reality - when something is described only as simple (or complex) and the complex (or simple) is denied totaly.

Who said that was the only reason?Each one of the reasons can be examined separately. Wouldn’t you agree the above was one of the most major ones?

Well when all that has been said so far is a 'sinlge' reason (from you,poratis and Insan in this example) then you must fogvie me if I come to a conclusion that you think there is only a single reason. I would not deny that support for a political elite played some part in the decision - how large I really could not say. I am also sure that if there was no other reason than this (which _seems_ to be your and others views given they have constantly said this was the reason why settlers were brought to the north and have never, to my recall, mentioned any other reason) then they (the political elite that benefted from the introduction of settlers) would not have been able to 'get away with it'. There were _practicle_ reasons to introduce new citizens into the norrth as well as political ones - and to deny the practicle reasons and only focus on the political does not help in understanding the issue imo.

About how I count the settlers, I told you many times about the Poucau report, and I can also refer you to an estimate that I posted in the past in this forum that the TCs left are about 70-80K compared with 120K in 1974 the settlers 110-120K,

So how did they count settlers married to TC - as TC or as settlers? How did they count children of mixed marriages? How did they count children of settlers born in Cyprus or children of children born in Cyprus?
This whole issue lacks both clear definitions and clear and accurate believable numbers imo. The numbers (and basis for the numbers) has been mainpulated and propgandised on both sides that for me there is no 'definative' count. My personal belief is that settlers represent around 50% of the population of the north - this is a purely subjective view based on what I see and percieve with my own eyes and not objective in any way. However given the mainpulation of the real figures on all sides for propaganda puproses I am more inclined to rely on my own personal subjective judgment than quoted figures in this specific issue. At the end of the day I do not really care very much how many settlers there are. I do care how they are treated in the TRNC and how they are to be treated in any united Cyprus - regardless of their actual number. I percieve them to be as a group weak economicaly and politicaly and easily victimised and villifed because of this and thus my natural reaction is to support and protect them as far as I can (which in reality is not much) because they are weak and I am strong and I believe it is a duty of the strong to protect and support the weak.

[Piratis]

If it is so clear is a Turkish mainlander married to a TC a citizen or a settler?

I believe that you have to pass through some procedure to get the citizenship. Just getting married to a citizen doesn't automatically give it to you. (This is to try to avoid giving citizenships through fake marriages and it is not the case only in Cyprus. In the US I know they have the same)
So most of these people can potentially get the citizenship, but currently they are not.

Are their children citizens or settlers?

Children of a Cypriot parent can all without exception become Cyprus citizens. (maybe they have to register, but thats about it)

Are the children of Turkish mainland settlers that were born in Cyprus settlers or citizens?

Settlers.

Are the children of children born in Cyprus citizens or settlers?

Settlers.

This is a specific recognition that this right can be in conflict with other peoples rights.

The misuse of what you think is a right can conflict with someone else rights, and not the legal use of it. When they say that you have the right to listen to music, they don't mean you can listen to it in the highest volume possible at 4am and disturb the neighborers. This is common sense, and if you lack this common sense then there are courts that will give the solution.
So there is this thing called common sense and in the few cases that common sense does not apply (or people pretend to lack this common sense, like you) there are courts to solve the differences, as you said yourself.

This is just to show to you that claiming that you have a right (e.g. self determination) doesn't automatically allow you to do whatever you feel like, what you do should be in accordance with the law. As we all know the "TRNC" is illegal by local and international laws, the settlers are illegal by local and international laws, and we even have the case of Titina Loizidou where the court was crystal clear that not only she has the right to live and handle her property, but that Turkey is guilty and should now pay compensation to her for the past 30 years.

So Erolz, if you lack the common sense to realize that your self determination right can not be misused and go to the extent that violates our basic human rights, then there are courts to give the solution. But unfortunately, not only you pretend to lack this common sense, but you also insist to act in an illegal way by not respecting any law and court decision.

So a direct question (don't avoid it): Do you accept that if you believe (for whatever reason) that you can not understand the real meaning of each right that the solution should be given by the law and courts?

[erolz]

This is just to show to you that claiming that you have a right (e.g. self determination) doesn't automatically allow you to do whatever you feel like

Have I ever said that our right to self determination means we can do anything we like? Why do you insist on putting words into my mouth? My issue with you re the right of TC to self determination is that you deny we have this right at all. I have never said this right means we can do x or y or z or that it justifes this action or that action. All I have said is that recognising this right is for me a vital pre requist of any lasting solution.

...but you also insist to act in an illegal way by not respecting any law and court decision.

where have I ever said this?

So a direct question (don't avoid it):

Are you telling me what to do? Have you not avoided questions yourself, yet demand(?) that I answer yours?

Do you accept that if you believe (for whatever reason) that you can not understand the real meaning of each right that the solution should be given by the law and courts?

I believe that where there are disputes, between indivduals or between groups, and where they have been unable to resolve the problem themselves, then a competent authority should make a decision.

Like when there was the dispute about seperate municipalites in Cyprus and the Cypriot supreme court ruled that seperate municipalites should be implemented and your 'great leader Makarios' decided to ignore that ruling because it did not suit him?

[Piratis]

Have I ever said that our right to self determination means we can do anything we like? Why do you insist on putting words into my mouth? My issue with you re the right of TC to self determination is that you deny we have this right at all. I have never said this right means we can do x or y or z or that it justifes this action or that action. All I have said is that recognising this right is for me a vital pre requist of any lasting solution.

In the "Minority" thread you asked me and I said three times that if by "self determination" you mean the standard meaning of it as described in the page you gave then I have no problem with it. What I told you then, and I am telling you again now, is that you can not misuse this right of yours to violate our rights, and that if you don't have the common sence to realize it, there are also the local and international laws, as well as court decisions, that say that what you do is not your right and is also illegal.

where have I ever said this?

This is how you act. Your actions talk for themselves.

Are you telling me what to do? Have you not avoided questions yourself, yet demand(?) that I answer yours?

I never avoided intentionaly any question, yet you do it since many times you avoid the main meaning of a post and you reply to some minor detail within it.

I believe that where there are disputes, between indivduals or between groups, and where they have been unable to resolve the problem themselves, then a competent authority should make a decision.

Like when there was the dispute about seperate municipalites in Cyprus and the Cypriot supreme court ruled that seperate municipalites should be implemented and your 'great leader Makarios' decided to ignore that ruling because it did not suit him?

I don't know about the court rulling you refer to, but if it is like this, then I agree that ignoring it was wrong. Do you also agree that "TRNC" the settlers and the occupation are wrong? Are you not supporting with your actions today the "TRNC" and the occupation?

[erolz]

In the "Minority" thread you asked me and I said three times that if by "self determination" you mean the standard meaning of it as described in the page you gave then I have no problem with it. What I told you then, and I am telling you again now, is that you can not misuse this right of yours to violate our rights, and that if you don't have the common sence to realize it, there are also the local and international laws, as well as court decisions, that say that what you do is not your right and is also illegal.

Well I remain confused because you have also stated directly that TC do not 'qualify' as a people as far this human right goes yet you then tell me that I (we) can not abuse this right. In order to be able to accuse me of abusing this right surely you first have to accept I have this right?
I have never said and do not say that because TC have a right to self determination they then had a right to take part of Cyprus by force. What I am saying and am continuing to say is that TC ARE a people as far as this right is concerned and that your continued insistance that we are NOT a people (in these terms) is just a continuation of the probelms in Cyprus that led to division in the first place. Are you now arguing that we have no right to self determination as a people because of what happened in 74? Or on some other basis (like the spurious 'single state' approach)? Or are you saying you accept the TC are a people and have the right to self determination but that does not give them the right to act illegaly (in which case I agree)?
Nothing gives anyone a right to act illegaly. I have never said otherwise. Now could you state once and for all with a simple yes or no - do you believe that the TC 'qualify' as a people as far as the UN declarations on human rights go? Yes or NO?

This is how you act. Your actions talk for themselves.

Beacuse I decide to live in the country of my father amongst the people of my father? Have I forced anyone from their homes? Have I denied anyones human rights? Does it make any material difference to the situation on Cyprus if I choose to live in the North or not?

I never avoided intentionaly any question, yet you do it since many times you avoid the main meaning of a post and you reply to some minor detail within it.

Let me be clear here. I make no accusations about not answering questions. Everyone intentionaly or otherwise avoids some questions and addresses others - it is a natural and normal part of a discussion in any medium and particularly so in web based text mediums. I am merely pointing out you 'incosnistency / hypocrasy' on this issue. If you want an example (and I could show many) where you have avoided a question then how about you explain exactly on what criteria you judge Makarios to have been a 'great leader' given that a comaparison between 'the state of cyprus' before and after his leadership is not a valid criteria or relevant according to you.

Do you also agree that "TRNC" the settlers and the occupation are wrong? Are you not supporting with your actions today the "TRNC" and the occupation?

I agree that in strict moral terms the taking by force of a protion of the isalnd by Turkey and TC was wrong. I also believe that by 74 if the TC were to survive as a 'people' in cyprus and as indivduals there were very few options but 'illegal' and 'morally wrong' acts. Would I have preffered that the TC continued to lived under (illegal and morally wrong) domination of GC in Cyprus rather than the illegal and morally wrong acts of Turkey and TC that ended this suffering for them? No in all honesty I can not say that I would have wanted the TC to be abbandoned in such a way. I would have loved for there to have been a way for the TC to have had their rights restored without the need for any GC loss - but such was not possible as I see it. My only action (singular not plural!) that can be seen as supporting what happened in 74 as morally right is my chosing to live in North Cyprus. If I thought for a moment that my being in Cyprus was stopping peace and unity and the resortation of human rights to anyone I wpould leave tomorrow. However if I left tomorrow the situation would not change one iota.

So can I ask you about your views on the actions of the 'great EOKA heros'? Do you agree that they were terrorists and that their illegal and immoral acts were wrong and that the right for GC self determination in Cyprus in no way justifed these illegal acts? Is not your view that Makrios was a 'great leader' not just a form of support for these illegal and immoral acts, given that Makraios himself sanctioned and supported these actions?

[Piratis]

Nothing gives anyone a right to act illegaly. I have never said otherwise. Now could you state once and for all with a simple yes or no - do you believe that the TC 'qualify' as a people as far as the UN declarations on human rights go? Yes or NO?

TCs have the right of self determination just like any other Cypriot does. As I said I agree with ALL human rights. However, it is not your human right to classify yourselves whatever you feel like. The true classification of TCs are a community within Cypriots. So I disagree with you that TCs are "peoples". In any case, our disagreement on this matter can not change the fact that either "peoples" or not "peoples" you have no right to violate any of our rights using this as an excuse.

Beacuse I decide to live in the country of my father amongst the people of my father? Have I forced anyone from their homes? Have I denied anyones human rights? Does it make any material difference to the situation on Cyprus if I choose to live in the North or not?

You support the occupation, don't you?

Let me be clear here. I make no accusations about not answering questions. Everyone intentionaly or otherwise avoids some questions and addresses others - it is a natural and normal part of a discussion in any medium and particularly so in web based text mediums. I am merely pointing out you 'incosnistency / hypocrasy' on this issue. If you want an example (and I could show many) where you have avoided a question then how about you explain exactly on what criteria you judge Makarios to have been a 'great leader' given that a comaparison between 'the state of cyprus' before and after his leadership is not a valid criteria or relevant according to you.

In that case I simply didn't reply to the thread yet. This is different from replying without answering your question.

Would I have preffered that the TC continued to lived under (illegal and morally wrong) domination of GC in Cyprus rather than the illegal and morally wrong acts of Turkey and TC that ended this suffering for them?

There is nothing illegal or morally wrong with democracy. You are not the one who decides what is illegal and what is not, and you are not the one to decide what the correct mesures to be taken against something illegal are. This is the job of courts. If there was something illegal at that time, this gives you absolutely no excuse to act in an illegal way today.

So can I ask you about your views on the actions of the 'great EOKA heros'? Do you agree that they were terrorists and that their illegal and immoral acts were wrong and that the right for GC self determination in Cyprus in no way justifed these illegal acts? Is not your view that Makrios was a 'great leader' not just a form of support for these illegal and immoral acts, given that Makraios himself sanctioned and supported these actions?

It depends on which acts you are talking about. EOKA was an organization against the colonialists and there is nothing wrong about this. And of course the ones that gave their life fighting against the colonialists and the ones that helped these colonialists keep us as slaves are heros.
If some EOKA members acted in a criminal way against inocent people then of course I condemn those(they were wrong, criminals etc). But those are not the EOKA heros. And Makarios never supported any crimes, he supported the liberation war, as we all did.

[erolz]

TCs have the right of self determination just like any other Cypriot does.

There is no idividual right to self determination. The right to self determination is a collective right of a 'people' or 'nation'. If you deny that TC represent a 'people' in these terms then you deny these rights to the TC people.

However, it is not your human right to classify yourselves whatever you feel like.

What are you talking about? You deny that TC represent a 'people' (in terms of UN charter on humand rights), I claim they are. I have presented my reasons as to why I think the TC are a people in these terms on the basis of internationaly recognised apporaches to making such decisions.

The true classification of TCs are a community within Cypriots.

Says who? You? That is your opinion but merely stating it repeatedly without presenting any reasoned argument as to why the TC do not represent a 'people' in reference to the 'norms' (such as they exist) for making such a determination does nothing to make your opinion any more valid. However it does show a determination that TC are, in your opinion, to live under the domination of a GC mojority and without any acceptance of any right for TC to self determination. Either we are a people and have rights to self determination or we are not and do not. There is no approach (consitent with human rights as they are written) that says we have self determianation as indivduals but not as a comunity with shared language, culture, religion and numbers.

So I disagree with you that TCs are "peoples".

and in doing so you deny any right of the TC people to a right to self determination. By extension you assert a _right_ of a GC majority to dominate the TC minority. You also continue the core cause and reason of division in the island imo and make the hope of a united Island a faint and distant one.

In any case, our disagreement on this matter can not change the fact that either "peoples" or not "peoples" you have no right to violate any of our rights using this as an excuse.

Something you continue to accuse me of doing and which in fact is something I have never done!

You support the occupation, don't you?

What do you mean by 'support'?

In that case I simply didn't reply to the thread yet. This is different from replying without answering your question.

what a conicidence! I could go and find countless other examples where you have not answered questions. Alternatively you could recognised that these things happen all the time in all converstations by all parties and stop trying to use this as an 'attack' on me (or anyone else) and stop portraying a 'holier than thou' attitude in this regard? The choice is yours.

There is nothing illegal or morally wrong with democracy. You are not the one who decides what is illegal and what is not, and you are not the one to decide what the correct mesures to be taken against something illegal are. This is the job of courts. If there was something illegal at that time, this gives you absolutely no excuse to act in an illegal way today.

I can't even begin to start addressing such nonsense so I will simply 'ignore it' (as is my right? - or is your right to an answer to this claptrap supreior?)

It depends on which acts you are talking about.

How about the setting up of an orgniastion with the sepecific aim of overthowing the legal and international recognised and accepted government through armed struggle? Was that not an illegal act? Was it justifed by your right to 'self determination'? Did EOKA not contravine these articles of the UN declaration on human rgihts that "forbids propaganda advocating either war" or "hatred based on race, religion, national origin, or language." Or is this excused by the GC right to self determination?
How about shooting people (in the back in many cases?). Was that acceptable and moral and justifed? Was it justifed if the victim was a solider? Or a solider wife? Or a moderate GC? Or a left wing GC?
How about planting bombs? The list goes on and on.

If some EOKA members acted in a criminal way against inocent people then of course I condemn those(they were wrong, criminals etc). But those are not the EOKA heros. And Makarios never supported any crimes, he supported the liberation war, as we all did.

So EOKA itself was not an illegal terrorist organisation, that sought to achieve GC rights to self determination by armed struggle? The 'declaration of war' was justifed and legalised by your right to self determination? Makarios did not support crimes but he authorised the use of ARMED struggle by EOKA?

"Whenever a seperation is made between liberty and justice neither is in my opinion safe" - Edmund Burke

"The proposition that the Greek Cypriots had no choice but to resort to violence implies, first, that they had already exhausted all peaceful means of settling the dispute and, second, that the injustice and suffering inflicted on them was so extreme as to render their lives intolerable. Neither condition was satisfied in the case of EOKA’s resort to terrorism. The Greek Cypriot leadership had repeatedly rejected opportunities of peaceful progress towards a settlement by way of constitutional government. Nor could anyone honestly maintain that the possibilities of diplomacy had then been exhausted. For years past the Greek Cypriots has chosen to deny themselves (and by consequence their Turkish compatriots) the exercise of their democratic right to representative government because they regarded the degree of self-government offered to them as inadequate and insisted that it should envisage self-determination. They may have had a just cause of complaint against Britain on those grounds and that might well justify an intense political struggle, including perhaps passive resistance; but it surely did not by itself justify shedding blood. Only if the denial of their political aspirations had been accompanied by severe moral and material oppression, could a justifiable case have been made out for resorting to the kind of political violence adopted by EOKA. The degree of oppression being inflicted at the present time on the black population of South Africa or on the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza is accepted by a substantial body of opinion, probably by a majority, throughout the world as sufficient justification for a resort to arms by the oppressed against their oppressors. But no such state of affairs existed in Cyprus in 1955 to justify launching EOKA’s campaign of violence and terror. The impasse over the future status of the Island did not impinge on the daily lives of the Cypriots in such a way as to render life intolerable for them. They were free to lead their lives in much the same way as the citizens of many other countries and indeed with greater security for themselves and their property, access to a higher standard of justice, greater freedom of expression and less interference by the state in their religious, educational, cultural and commercial affairs than in many countries claiming to be civilised and independent. It may even be that in most aspects of their daily lives the Cypriots enjoyed greater latitude and suffered less restriction than the peoples of the two motherlands. That may have been no compensation for the denial of self-determination; but it surely calls into question the justification for a resort to armed struggle. Even if that could have been confined to attacks on the ruling power and its agents, the moral justification was questionable. The enforcement of British rule may have been objectionable in principle since it did not rest on the consent of the governed, but it practice it was far removed from the oppression and ‘State terrorism’ of which the blacks accuse the South African and the Palestinians the Israeli authorities. However, what clinches the case against EOKA’s resort to violence is that it was bound, sooner or later, to result in the killing of innocent non-combatants and that it introduced into the political life of Cyprus a habit of violence which is still manifest thirty years later and which may now have become ineradicable. That is the grim legacy that EOKA has left behind it in Cyprus." - John Reddaway

[Piratis]

There is no idividual right to self determination. The right to self determination is a collective right of a 'people' or 'nation'. If you deny that TC represent a 'people' in these terms then you deny these rights to the TC people.

Yes, it is collective. Thats why it is for all Cypriots. I didn't deny any right from anybody.

What are you talking about? You deny that TC represent a 'people' (in terms of UN charter on humand rights), I claim they are.

Well, I claim they are not. But as I said already, even if we suppose that your claims are the correct ones and I am wrong, this doesn't change a thing and it is not an excuse for any human right violations.

Says who? You?

Not just me. I just made a quick search in the Cyprus constitution and the word "peoples" or even "people" doesn't appear anywhere. On the other had the words "community" and "communities" appear 100s of times. Is there any official document in the RoC 1960 constitution or the UN that classifies Turkish Cypriots as "peoples". If there is, then give a link to see what exactly it says about it.

and in doing so you deny any right of the TC people to a right to self determination. By extension you assert a _right_ of a GC majority to dominate the TC minority. You also continue the core cause and reason of division in the island imo and make the hope of a united Island a faint and distant one.

Nobody wants to dominate you. But in democracy there are minorities and there are majorities. Turkish Cypriots are a minority, and there is nothing to do about it. It is a simple fact that doesn't change no matter how much you shout.

What do you mean by 'support'?

Don't you excuse the occupation? You do this right here in these forums. If you were asked to vote in a referendum the return to the 1960 constitution what would you do?

what a conicidence! I could go and find countless other examples where you have not answered questions. Alternatively you could recognised that these things happen all the time in all converstations by all parties and stop trying to use this as an 'attack' on me (or anyone else) and stop portraying a 'holier than thou' attitude in this regard? The choice is yours.

I repeat that I never avoided answering the core of the post, especially if it was specifically addressed to me. You do this often.

I can't even begin to start addressing such nonsense so I will simply 'ignore it' (as is my right? - or is your right to an answer to this claptrap supreior?)

Well, with the same logic we should skip 2/3rds of what you say. Anyways, it is your right not to answer. Just remember that the answer is given to you.

How about the setting up of an orgniastion with the sepecific aim of overthowing the legal and international recognised and accepted government through armed struggle?

Are you talking about EOKA or EOKA-B here??

EOKA-B was a terrorist organization.

EOKA 55-59 was an organization against the colonialists like several other similar organizations around the world.

To to this "John Reddaway" that thinks that their slaves were having fun being slaves we just say to go fuck himself. We asked them to leave from the 30s but maybe he wanted as to wait not 30, but 300 years to "exhaust all peaceful means" and meanwhile serve him like slaves.