Piratis wrote: Lets ask Erolz to tell us,
When he came to the conclusion that TCs are "peoples", using the exact same criteria would the Armenians, Latins and Maronites qualify as "peoples" too? If no why?
I have already explained my view on this explicitly but once again for your benefit.
If you look at the 'learned opinions' I refered to before on this issue (which you have dismissed on the basis that there will always be 'learned opinions' that disagree - but have not bothered to present any) there are two approaches to determing the status of a group as a 'people' One of these is the criteria approach (which I believe is the suitable approach in the case of cyprus). One of these criteria is 'numbers'. None of the groups above reach this critera as a 'people' in my view and clearly so. You could argue that neither do the TC numbers meet this criteria but being <1% of total population is not the same argument as being 18-20% of the population.
Piratis wrote:Lets ask Erolz again, using the exact same criteria that you used to define TCs as "peoples", would the Hispanics of the US be "peoples" too?
Again I have already explain my postion on this point before but once again for your benefit. Another approach to defining a group as a 'people' or not (rather than a criteria approach) is the 'state' approach that say that all the people within a state are a single people regardless of criteria. If when 'wyoming' came inot existance as a 'state' there were two disitinict and seperate peoples of significant number then it seems that the 'criteria' approach would be a sensible approach. If when the state was created there was essentialy only a single group that consider itself a single group and then a groups comes into that state after its creation then I think the 'state' approach is relevant in defining peoples. If when wyoming was created as a 'state' there were a group that was 80% of the population that consider themselves american / wyoinginites that shared a common culture and language and there was also a second group that shared a different language and culture and did not consider themselves americans/wyomingites but considered themselves 'hispanics' then I think they would have a claim to be a 'people' and have as much right to self determiation as the american/wyomingites have.
I would also point out that in the criteria approach there are also criteria like have the 'people' expressed a will to have self determination. Have they sufficent numbers to make and self determining entity viable as an entity.
I have asked you before and will try and ask you again. Do you really think that the spirit of the 'right to self determination' as it is written was really intended to support your assertion that TC should have no rights in Cyprus excpet those of a minority. Do you think the ideals and concepts that led to the defining of the right to self determination were desined to be used as you try and agrue they should be used - namely that TC as a community as a people as a significant number of people with seperate language, culture and indentity should in fact be dominated by a group of people of a different language, culture and identity simply because there are less than them and the two groups happen to live in the same island? Do you really think that was the intent of those that promote and wrote those rights that it should be used in such a way?
Piratis wrote:All I am saying dear Insan, is that we made our maximum compromise by accepting a solution based on federation. Instead of recognizing our move and do some serious compromises too, you are telling me that accepting a federal solution was not a compromise but your right and you expect from us to do even more compromises?
Yes you have said this many times and we have heard you. It does not make your position any more consistent no matter how much you repeqt it.
You have said we have no right to these 'compromises'
You have said we have no right to anything as a group except as a minority.
You have also accepted that TC should have a RIGHT to block decisions like 'should the offical language of Cyprus be Greek only' or 'Enosis'
You remain inconsistent. Refusing we have any RIGHT to anything other than the rights of a minority whilst also saying you agree we have a RIGHT to some things more that minorites have a right too.
Piratis wrote:It should be clear to you and everybody that accepting a federal solution was our final compromise. If you want to bargain, then you will not bargain against our max compromise, but against our 100% legal rights without a single discount.
In the 'items for sale' section of this forum you offer an old laptop for sale. Your price is simply too high. It is however your minimum price (you maximum final compromise). If I say to you I am interested in a settlement (an agreed sale) but that your price is too high (which it is btw) you then tell me that this is already your minimum price - if I want to negotiate the price is actualy not £295 but £500. I can either accept your minimum price or negotiate from £500. This is your idea of compromise and negotation. To me it is neither. It is simply an insistance that I accept your price, no matter how overpriced it is or what eveidence there is that others also consider it overpriced or I forget a deal. Thats not compromise or negotiation. Thats take it or leave it (and if you leave it you will be my enemy in the case of Cyprus).
