B25 wrote:CopperLine wrote:Paphitis wrote:Maximus wrote:Look Paphitis,
If you want to further your argument and convince me, present your case clearly and get to the point. Please pick out your law for me.
Do it from the ECHR if you can.
Furthermore, the Geneva convention is an applicable international law, which exists but you choose to disregard it now. Why?
The Geneva Convention does not apply to individuals born in Cyprus or to those that have married a Cy Citizen.
You cannot deny the basic Human Rights of these individuals, particularly those born in Cyprus, and there is not a single International Law or Convention (which by the way is not International Law) that will allow the deprivation of these Human Rights!
I'm not sure which Geneva Convention you're referring to (there are hundreds) but if, following comments made earlier in this thread you're talking about (one of the ones) referring to war (mainly 1949 and 1977) then two critical things obtain. The Geneva Conventions are laws of war not laws of peace, so they only apply if there is a recognised status of war. Second insofar as the Geneva Convention is a law of war it applies to all signatories and, indeed has become part of customary law and so applies to even non-signatories. In any case, probably the most important point, the Geneva Convention and Protocols say absolutely nothing about citizenship or nationality. Rather, why they
may be interesting for the Cyprus question is in relation to the treatment of civilian populations eg temporary or permanent transfer, movement, re-settlement. But the Geneva Convention and Protocols do not say anything about citizenship/nationality status : they cannot do so, because they are not laws of peace.
The 4th Geneva convention article 10. Deals with and PROHIBITS the transfer of population of the invading occupying armies to territiry they hold. So, by default all these gypsies that were teansfered are illegals, being married to TCs does not make them legal, otherwise I might argue that if I raped a woman using a condom it would ge ok???
Even foreign nationals residing, i don't care how many years, have done so WITHOUT the permission of the only recognised legitimate RoC government. They should also be oust.
Now as for You, Paphitis and others arguing for the HR of the illegals, you very easily and conveniently forget or should I say ignore the HRs of the 200,000 legitimate citizens namely GCs.
Citizenship is granted by the legitimate authority of which Turkey and tge trashcan are not. It can't be any easier than that. This has nothing to do with maximalist demands this is simply a case of right or wrong and clearly you are in the wtong, no matter how you want to spin it.
What is that furious noise that you're making ?
The 4th Geneva convention article 10. Deals with and PROHIBITS the transfer of population of the invading occupying armies to territiry they hold.
That was already entailed in what I said earlier.
So, by default all these HUMAN BEINGS that were teansfered are illegals
Nothwithstanding your hate-filled bile, settlers from war are, by definition illegal. That's again what has already been said.
being married to TCs does not make them legal,
That's exactly why I had several different categories. Please keep up.
otherwise I might argue that if I raped a woman using a condom it would ge ok???
No. An idiotic and offensive non sequitur. You really are brimming over with hate aren't you. Take it easy mate, you'll pop otherwise.
Even foreign nationals residing, i don't care how many years, have done so WITHOUT the permission of the only recognised legitimate RoC government.
We know what you think. I'd already anticipated you in my first or second post on this thread - a maximalist who'd only consider category A if that. That was my point. Thanks for confirming it.
Now as for You, Paphitis and others arguing for the HR of the illegals, you very easily and conveniently forget or should I say ignore the HRs of the 200,000 legitimate citizens namely GCs.
No, I considered all these in my posts on the categories and about international law. That you clearly do not understand is not something I can do anything about.
Citizenship is granted by the legitimate authority of which Turkey and tge trashcan are not.
Already said that, already dealt with that.
It can't be any easier than that.
So easy that you don't understand it yourself.
This has nothing to do with maximalist demands this is simply a case of right or wrong and clearly you are in the wtong,
Several different legal systems and several different laws come to 'right' and 'wrong' in different ways, which is another point you seem to fail to understand. Different ethical systems come to different, sometimes contradictory understandings of right and wrong. So it is not simple. Almost all my posts here, in any case, were about categorising possibilities and not about supporting or other of them. But that was lost on you, too.
Generally I am confident of human progress, that we live and learn from our mistakes and do better next time. But whenever I come back to Cyprus Forum and encounter posters like B25 I'm reminded just how the knuckle-dragging hate-mongers veto any hope.
