Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

We ve heard you my friend. How many times are you going to repeat the same thing?

As long as you or Bill or others try and argue that Bill's description was not misleading I am afraid I will continue to argue it is, because clearly , plainly and obviously it is.

[Sotos]

.... not this, neither any other human right of anybody would be violated even if Cyprus was united with Greece. All such humans rights violations are a result of your partition actions of ethnic cleansing and stealing of properties.

Even ignoring the absurd notion that TC being forced against their will to agree that their homeland becomes a part of what is to them a foreign nation is not a violation of their right to self determination, from which all other rights derive.. Even ignoring this, you claim under enosis there would have been no violations of TC rights ? Have you seen the cases in the ECHR against Greece in relation to the violations of the rights of 'Greek Muslims' ? If you had succeeded in the imposition of enosis on us in our own homeland through the use of illegal violence against us, then there can be no doubt, in light of these cases against Greece, that the TC community would have suffered similar violations to their rights.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... =001-58518

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng-pre ... 05-3063795

Shall I go on ?

Which exactly of your human rights would be violated if Cyprus was part of Greece? If you believe you have a "self-determination" right in Cyprus then why wouldn't the same be true for parts of mainland Greece and other Greek islands which also have similar Turkish speaking Muslim minorities who even have longer history than what you have in Cyprus. Can you show me a case where a member of such minority won a case against Greece for "forcing their homeland to to be part of what is to them a foreign nation"? And if Turkish minorities in Greece... who are a result of Turks invading Greeks, can supposedly have a "self-determination" rights on Greek lands, then shouldn't the same and even more rights be granted to the Greek minority in Turkey?? It is obvious that what you say doesn't stand at all and it is just cheap excuses. The ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation of Cyprus has resulted in the human rights violations of almost 200.000 GCs on property issues alone... and if we are to believe you, some 10s of thousands of TCs who have properties in the free areas also. Now add the missing, and the enclaved ... and you can see that we are talking about a huge number of PROVEN human rights violations of 100s of thousands of people in a country of less than a million! And you compare that with 2 or 20 or whatever other tiny number of cases in Greece?

[erolz66]

Which exactly of your human rights would be violated if Cyprus was part of Greece? If you believe you have a "self-determination" right in Cyprus then why wouldn't the same be true for parts of mainland Greece and other Greek islands which also have similar Turkish speaking Muslim minorities who even have longer history than what you have in Cyprus.

Everyone has a right to self determination - the only issue is through what 'grouping' they are able to exercise that right.

The right to self determination does not mean a right to a separate nation state for a given 'grouping' and it certainly does not mean a right to force people from their homes against their will to achieve separation that would allow for a separate state. What the right does demand however is consideration for a 'group' as far as it is a separate group.

The issue of 'grouping' (what constitutes a 'people' in terms of the right to self determination of peoples) is not a simple one nor is there a single definitive legal definition of what constitutes a 'people' in this regard. There are many ways such 'groupings' can be defined, in theory and in practice. At some level there has to be some greater commonality of those within the group. So a grouping (people) can be defined as all those within an existing nation state and often is in many cases. It can be defined based on commonality of ethnicity, language, religion and culture. Or it can be defined as all those in a given geographical area, provided there is some wider commonality that unites them as a group / people. There is also a numerical factor as well, equally un defined (an individual can not be a 'people').

The above is all to do with the 'principal' of a groups right to self determination. Then there is the practical reality of if a group is able to defend such rights or not , given the chronology of when they try and do this (India could not do it in 1840 but could in 1940 for example) and the realities of political and military strength of the group and those around them who either oppose or support them for whatever reason.

So we come to Cyprus.

In 1959 Cyprus was not a nation state. Nor did the two communities share a common language or religion (you can argue about culture). We did share a common clearly defined geographical area. This is where enosis becomes problematic, because it drove a wedge between the one remaining 'greater commonality' that could make us a unitary people, namely to just be Cypriots in a future independent Cypriot nation. Even then enosis in and of itself as an ideal did not have to destroy the prospect of both communities exercising their rights to self determination jointly as a unitary Cypriot people. If enosis had of been pursued with an acceptance and recognition that TC also had a communal right to consideration of their desires and wishes in their own shared homeland then in theory at least enosis could have been pursued validly in the name of a unitary Cypriot people. So for example if the GC had pursued enosis but said to the TC community, we accept that you wishes and desires are due consideration, and we therefore propose enosis but in a from where Cyprus will be a federal element within a wider Greek federation and within this Cypriot federal element TC can have certain protections in terms of representation for their community, then strong arguments could have been made that the pursuit of enosis was indeed a valid expression of the will of a unitary people, even if the TC community rejected all such offers of consideration for them as a community and simply insisted on taksim and nothing else. However this is not how the GC community sought to purse enosis. It sought to pursue it without having to give ANY consideration to the wishes of the TC community at all. What is more it sought to pursue enosis without any consideration for the TC communities wishes in their own shared homeland using means that included the use of organised illegal violence against ordinary TC where and when deemed necessary. So as far as the GC community sought to pursue enosis without any consideration for the wishes of the TC community and using means that included organised illegal violence against ordinary TC they undermined the legitimacy of that pursuit being a valid expression of the right to self determination of a unitary Cypriot people and in the process increased the legitimacy that TC therefore express their right to self determination as a different and separate people to the GC community. That was then. Today as far as you continue to insist that the GC community, should it wish to, has a right to impose enosis on the TC community without any consideration for the wishes of the TC community in their own shared homeland I will continue to argue that doing so increases the validity of the argument that the TC community are a separate 'people' to the GC community as far as the right to self determination goes and thus have a separate and equal right to self determination.

Coming to 'other places'

Many nation states were formed as such at a time that pre dates an international recognition of the right to self determination of 'peoples'. In those nation states afaik without exception the grouping of 'peoples' is defined as all those within that nation state. Having said that I believe that my principals above still hold, morally if not in practice. So in the case of say Kurdish (or Greek) communities within Turkey, as far as Turkey gives consideration for these communities desires within Turkey as far as they are different as communities to that of just 'Turk' then I think they can and do express their right to self determination as part of a unitary 'Turkish people'. Conversely as far as Turkey gives no consideration for the wishes of these communities as far as they are different from the wider community of just 'Turk' I think that increases the validity of the argument they have a right to separate and therefore equal self determination as a people that is not Turkish. I would also say that Turkey's historic track record in this regard is not good, though there have been improvements and I would hope to see more such improvements in the future.

All of the above in the sections 'So we come to Cyprus' and 'Coming to other places' is the principals of self determination. There is also of course the practical realities of if a group is able to defend its rights to self determination or not. If Cyprus had of been 80% TC and 20% GC and TC sought union with Turkey and gave no consideration for the rights of that GC community, they probably would have 'got away' with it. It would not have been right and would have represented a violation of that (GC) communities rights to self determination but it is almost certainly what would have happened. Similarly if Cyprus was 50km off the coast of mainland Greece, rather than Turkey, then almost certainly enosis would have been achieved. It would not have been right and would have represented a violations of the TC communities right to self determination but it is almost certainly what would have happened. Finally if Cyprus had been 80 TC and 20 GC and 50km of the coast of mainland Greece then in all probability we would be having the same argument but in reverse.

The above is long - I know that and I apologise for it but let me just finish by making some things explicitly clear. I do not argue the above as any sort of justification for the events of 74. What happened in Cyprus in 74 was a catastrophe that inflicted massive suffering and violation of peoples rights, principally on GC but not solely, many of which violations continue today. Nor do I argue that the current 'status quo' is any sort of acceptable solution - not least because of these ongoing violations of individual Cypriots rights. I accept this and have always accepted it. However what happened in 74 did not happen in a vacuum. Understanding how and why it happened and more importantly why it continues to this day is of the utmost necessity. I WANT a solution but as far and as long as you continue to insist that a GC majority acting purely on their desires as Greeks had and has a right to impose anything on the TC community with out ANY consideration for the wishes of that TC community in their own shared homeland beyond that of them being an 'ethnic minority' you make it near impossible for me to see a way forward.

[bill cobbett]

We ve heard you my friend. How many times are you going to repeat the same thing?

As long as you or Bill or others try and argue that Bill's description was not misleading I am afraid I will continue to argue it is, because clearly , plainly and obviously it is.

What a self-important pratt...!!! Others say it ain't misleading but if Erol says it's misleading, then it's misleading...

[erolz66]

We ve heard you my friend. How many times are you going to repeat the same thing?

As long as you or Bill or others try and argue that Bill's description was not misleading I am afraid I will continue to argue it is, because clearly , plainly and obviously it is.

What a self-important pratt...!!! Others say it ain't misleading but if Erol says it's misleading, then it's misleading...

Where do others say it is not misleading ? In any case it is not a matter of opinion, it is just a plain fact that they way you chose to present the ruling, using not what was said by the ECHR in the judgment, but by adding something of your own based on what they had not said, is misleading. If others refuse to accept such plain and obvious fact, simply because they are on the 'same side' as you, just proves my wider point. You do not address the issue, the points I have raised. You just resort to personal insults. Why is that Bill ?

[bill cobbett]

We ve heard you my friend. How many times are you going to repeat the same thing?

As long as you or Bill or others try and argue that Bill's description was not misleading I am afraid I will continue to argue it is, because clearly , plainly and obviously it is.

What a self-important pratt...!!! Others say it ain't misleading but if Erol says it's misleading, then it's misleading...

Where do others say it is not misleading ? In any case it is not a matter of opinion, it is just a plain fact that they way you chose to present the ruling, using not what was said by the ECHR in the judgment, but by adding something of your own based on what they had not said, is misleading. If others refuse to accept such plain and obvious fact, simply because they are on the 'same side' as you, just proves my wider point. You do not address the issue, the points I have raised. You just resort to personal insults. Why is that Bill ?

You carry on believing yourself mate.

... and don't frigging well play the innocent over matters of instigating an exchange of insults.

[erolz66]

You carry on believing yourself mate.

In the case Kazali and others v CY at the ECHR in 2008. Case No 49247/08 it is factually accurate to say

The ECHR found No evidence of life on Mars and declared the case Inadmisable.

It is also misleading in that it inherently implies that the ECHR made some sort of determination as to if there is life on Mars or not, when in fact they did no such thing. Only an idiot or an extremist of monumental proportions would try and argue that the statement is not misleading. You are that idiot / extremist of monumental proportions because what you did is EXACTLY the same as the above and misleading for EXACTLY the same reason, that the ECHR made no determination what so ever as to if the RoC had violated the plaintiffs rights or not.

... and don't frigging well play the innocent over matters of instigating an exchange of insults.

As ever Bill you miss the point. I argue my case and then insult you. You just insult. Why is that Bill ? Is it because you know you can not argue the case ? Pratt.

[bill cobbett]

You carry on believing yourself mate.

In the case Kazali and others v CY at the ECHR in 2008. Case No 49247/08 it is factually accurate to say

The ECHR found No evidence of life on Mars and declared the case Inadmisable.

It is also misleading in that it inherently implies that the ECHR made some sort of determination as to if there is life on Mars or not, when in fact they did no such thing. Only an idiot or an extremist of monumental proportions would try and argue that the statement is not misleading. You are that idiot / extremist of monumental proportions because what you did is EXACTLY the same as the above and misleading for EXACTLY the same reason, that the ECHR made no determination what so ever as to if the RoC had violated the plaintiffs rights or not.

... and don't frigging well play the innocent over matters of instigating an exchange of insults.

As ever Bill you miss the point. I argue my case and then insult you. You just insult. Why is that Bill ? Is it because you know you can not argue the case ? Pratt.

If you think "arguing a case" is repeating the same point, time after time, boring the pants off everyone over days in this thread , well you really are in need of some nice warm milk and a biscuit.

Case Argued... You Very Repetitive Prick.

[erolz66]

If you think "arguing a case" is repeating the same point, time after time, boring the pants off everyone over days in this thread , well you really are in need of some nice warm milk and a biscuit.

Why do you not answer the questions Bill ? Why ? Maybe if you actually answered the questions there would not be a need to keep going on ?

Is a ruling by the ECHR of 'no violation' the same or different from one of 'not admissible' ? Simple question Bill. Will you dare to answer it ?

Do you accept that in the case Kazali and others v CY at the ECHR in 2008. Case No 49247/08 the court did NOT exonerate the RoC of violating the plaintiffs rights re property ?

Do you accept that posting "The ECHR found No Violations against CY and declared the case Inadmisable." creates an impression that the court DID exonerate the RoC of violating the plaintiffs rights re property ?

Why do you not answer these questions Bill ? Why do you not explain what is wrong with my logic in the 'life on mars' example ? Why Bill ?

Yes this is very repetitive. In any sane and rational world, you would have made your statement, I would have pointed out that it was in fact misleading and you would have acknowledged that yes you can see my point as to why I think its misleading and it would have ended there. But this is not a sane and rational world is it Bill ? This Cyprus Forum and a microcosm of why nothing has been achieved in 50 years of 'negotiations'. So instead what you did was deny that that your description was misleading, first using the absurd argument 'show me where the ECHR said there was evidence of life on mars or shut up' and then just by offering denial and personal insults. Yes it is repetitive, yes it is pathetic and yes it is boring and YOU are the start of that and a continuer along with me. At least I am being a stubborn assed prick in support of something that is right, you on the other hand are being a stubborn ass prick trying to support something that is plainly bollocks.

My specific argument that your description was misleading is solid and irrefutable - at least no one has offered any meaningful refutation that have seen to date. The more you continue to try and deny that it was misleading and increasingly with no more argument that personal attacks and the more others on 'your side' join in to try and do so, the more you highlight and enforce my wider point, that what is going on here is an example of exactly the kind of systemic problem with discussion here and with the whole cyprob.

[Sotos]

erolz here are some bullet point answers.

• You didn't give me any example of a minority... especially one created by a colonist the last few centuries, that would have this "self=determination" right. I gave you the most similar example "other Turkish speaking Muslims in mainland Greece and other islands" and and the example of "Greeks in Turkey" as counter examples... but there are a lot more counterexamples to your claims. Non of those groups was asked where they should belong... and in those cases there was a lot more blood and bigger conflicts also.
• You didn't tell me which exactly of your human rights would be violated merely by Cyprus being part of Greece. In other words if Cyprus would become part of Greece would you be able to take Greece to the ECHR merely because you think of Greece as foreign to you?
• You talk about "practical reality". I don't agree that human and other rights are a matter of practicality. You either have the rights or you don't.
• In the 50s we asked for a referendum to be held by the British. Your community would vote in this referendum which means you would have a say as well. The armed struggle started only after all our peaceful attempts were refused ... and it was directed against the British and not against you. The conflict with you started when you attacked us and you also threatened us with partition ... which unlike enosis would mean the violations of our human rights.
  
  My conclusion is that enosis was at most inconsiderate to you feelings. I can accept that maybe it was not ideal if...and that is a big "if"... we are to assume that perusing independence from the beginning would actually give us a real independence. We are Christians and you are Muslim. The interests of UK and Turkey in Cyprus are a given. Do you really think they would have let us have a free and independent Cyprus? I doubt. They would have probably found some other excuse to do the same and maybe worst. But in any case enosis was not a crime and if you and the British accepted it then there would be no conflict. And nobody from your side made any reasonable counter proposals of how Cyprus would be decolonized. You didn't propose federation with Greece instead of enosis. You didn't propose any measures that would make you feel OK about being part of Greece. You didn't even propose independence. What you did was to attack us and demand partition ... in other words our ethnic cleansing from half of our island... and also, and lets not forget this, that TCs would move from south to the north.... this was also part of your goal, but now you want to sue RoC about it!