Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

whats the matter charluiswine, have you lost it. i have some marbles if you is interested.

you stupid ugly son of an unmentionable female animal.

[Kikapu]

Erol, what happens when a TC property in the south was divided 3,4,5 ways by the same TC family in the "trnc" and were issued points against it and those family members who were living in Cyprus before and after 74 have gotten GC properties for their points in the "trnc", but if a member of that same family who were also given points for their share of said TC property in the south but were living in the UK before and since 74, how can the ECHR help that family member living in the UK for their share of the family property in the south when the rest of the property was "exchanged" for a GC ones by the rest of the family members? I'm sure this is the case for VP's family member(s) in the UK as the case is in my family also. Some family members took GC properties with their points against the family TC properies in the south and others were also given points but never took any GCs properties against it. Unless the TC property in the south remained 100% "intact" and that no TC family members have gotten any GC properties against it or that they were also NOT living in Cyprus before 74, not sure the ECHR can do much to help any TC family member who has not received any GC properties even if they were living in the UK before 74 but the said TC property was divided by the same family members, points were issued against it, and some from the same family have gotten GC properties against it?

Firstly I am no expert on these matters and you should never take advise on such important things from forums. Having said that it is a complicated scenario. It may well be that the proposed changes to the IPC to allow TC to make claims there for loss of use of their property in south is your best hope. They will be able to take into consideration TRNC 'points' allocated against such property and if these were used or not.

Well, the point I was trying to make was, I believe ONLY very small percentage of TC land in the south actually have TC owners with 100% title to their land. The vast majority of TCs would fall under the scenario I have posted above. Surely, in order for the ECHR to accept a case from any TCs, the said TCs need to have "clean hands" legally and also be the legal owner of the said TC land with titles in their own name in order to demand compensation from the RoC via the ECHR. Many TCs today are not the legal owners of their own family's land in the south. After ‘74, TCs (grandparents/parents) would have needed to use the RoC's courts to pass on their TC land in the south to their heirs through probate or wills. I doubt many did given the circumstances at the time or the desire to do so, specially after being convinced by Denktash and the Gang that the Cyprus problem has been solved once and for all in ‘74, so instead, most signed their legal properties away for points, to be converted for stolen properties owned by the GCs in the north.

[erolz66]

[*]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.

The examples of Turkey and Greece are examples where the creation of these nation states pre date the international recognition of the right to self determination of peoples. If you want an example, then post colonial India splitting into India and Pakistan and then Pakistan into Bangladesh would be an example. The difference there is that they did first pursue the end of British colonial rule as a unitary group and people, mainly because of Ghandi, but after achieving that as a unitary people they then split as different peoples.

[*]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?

I would not be able to go to the ECHR in such a situation not because there is no right to self determination of peoples but because the ECHR does not have the authority or jurisdiction to rule on such cases. The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1966 sets out and defines the right of self determination of peoples. The European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms created by the Council of Europe does not. The ECHR rules on those rights defined in the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The lack of any definition of the right to self determination in the European Convention is often cited as being one of its biggest flaws.

If Britain had made Cyprus an integral part of the United Kingdom and given Cypriots the same rights as all other UK citizens, without any consideration for the wishes of Cypriots in this regard, you would not have recourse to the ECHR for a violation of your right to self determination, nor, you could argue, would there have been the mass violation of rights that occurred through out the 60s and 70's in Cyprus - BUT would this mean that such a solution was 'right' ?

[*]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.

I am not saying that your rights , individual or as a group (people) exist or not depending on practical realties. I simply acknowledge the reality that many individuals and groups of such have their rights violated and they are unable to do do anything about this because of practical realities. So in the hypothetical example of Cyprus being 50km off the coast of Greece rather than Turkey I believe that almost certainly enosis would have been imposed on the TC community against their will and without any consideration being given for their rights. This would not mean that they did not have the right to resist such imposition of enosis on them, just that they did not have the means to do so.

[*]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.

Here we are back to the whole issue of trying to claim that the desires of GC in 1950 were a valid expression of the free will of a unitary Cypriot people. They were not, they were the desires only of those that choose to consider themselves Greeks who lived in Cyprus. Starting in the 40's and through into the 50's the British tried to introduce increasing self rule for Cypriots, a process that else where was a precursor to peaceful transition from colonial rule to independence. In Cyprus all such attempts were rejected by the GC leadership because they all involved some degree of 'consideration' for the rights of the TC community and the GC leadership did not want to set any precedent for having to recognise such because they wanted to achieve enosis without having to pay any regard for the wishes of the TC community. To say the conflict started when we attack you and threatened you with partition is I am afraid an over simplistic and inherently one side perspective.

My conclusion is that enosis was at most inconsiderate to you feelings.

It is not a case of you should have given consideration for our 'feelings'. It is a case that we had a RIGHT to have our desires and wishes for the future of our own (shared) homeland taken into consideration as far as such was a valid expression of the will of a unitary Cypriot people. As far as you denied this RIGHT you in turn increased the validity that we express our right to self determination not as part of a unitary Cypriot people but as a different and separate people to you as Greek who lived in Cyprus.

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.

I think that if all Cypriots had wanted and pursued was independence then I think there is no doubt this could have been achieved. Yes we probably would have had to give concessions to the British (SBA) and possibly to Turkey as well to achieve it but it was in my view not a question of if but only of when. Nor do I accept this thesis that the reason why GC wanted and sought enosis was simply they believed it was the only way they could rid themselves of British rule. Enosis was first and foremost an ideological desire not a practical response to the situation of Cyprus.

But in any case enosis was not a crime

I have never said that enosis was a crime. I have said and do say that the pursuit of enosis by the GC community without any consideration for the desires of the TC community was not a valid and legitimate expression of the right to self determination of a unitary Cypriot people. What is more the degree to which the TC community can be validly said to have to express it's right to self determination as a separate (and therefore equal) people to GC is directly and inversely proportional to the degree to which you gave consideration to our wishes for the future of our shared homeland. Enosis was not a crime, but the pursuit of it by the use of organised ethnic based violence against ordinary TC was a crime.

and if you and the British accepted it then there would be no conflict.

If you and the British had accepted union with Turkey at the end of British rule would there have been no conflict ?

[erolz66]

Well, the point I was trying to make was, I believe ONLY very small percentage of TC land in the south actually have TC owners with 100% title to their land. The vast majority of TCs would fall under the scenario I have posted above. Surely, in order for the ECHR to accept a case from any TCs, the said TCs need to have "clean hands" legally and also be the legal owner of the said TC land with titles in their own name in order to demand compensation from the RoC via the ECHR. Many TCs today are not the legal owners of their own family's land in the south. After ‘74, TCs (grandparents/parents) would have needed to use the RoC's courts to pass on their TC land in the south to their heirs through probate or wills. I doubt many did given the circumstances at the time or the desire to do so, specially after being convinced by Denktash and the Gang that the Cyprus problem has been solved once and for all in ‘74, so instead, most signed their legal properties away for points, to be converted for stolen properties owned by the GCs in the north.

I think you are right that in order for a TC to make a claim for the return of and free use of their land in the South a basic pre requisite is that those TC did not chose to take 'points' from the TRNC in exchange for their land in the south. You are also correct in saying that these TC are only a minority of all TC who had land in the south pre 74. For the majority that did choose to take 'points' from the TRNC in exchange for their land in the south, whether they used those points or not, any recourse for them would have to be via TRNC / Turkey. However there ARE TC who had land in the south and chose to NOT take 'points' from the TRNC in exchange for their rights to that land. Originally the RoC, via the Guardian law said that these TC could not claim return and free use of their land until after a settlement. This was challenged , via the ECHR and in the face of which the RoC admitted that such denial of use of said land by the TC owner was a violation of their rights. They amended the law such that TC in this scenario who were not living in Cyprus in 74 could now claim their land back. However there still remain TC with land in the south who never took 'points' in exchange for that land but who were living in Cyprus in 74 and currently the RoC denies them return and free use of that land until a settlement. This too is being challenged and ultimately at the ECHR at which time the ECHR will decide if such is or is not a violation of their rights, or more likely a day before the ECHR is due to rule the RoC will admit liability, settle the individual claims in this category and again seek to make the most minimal of changes to the law as a result.

[Pyrpolizer]

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 ?

Oh please, please.... no need to feel alone when I personally said your are as much partly right and partly wrong as BillC is.Copperline said EXACTLY the same thing as I did, without even reading my post, just go a few pages back and read both replies.So I don't think either me or CL align with anyone.
For what is worth I consider most of what you write very valuable and well put as for example this post,
cyprus42080-170.html#p787819
but you don't give us any chance to say anything a)because of this attitude of yours of getting stuck on non important issues and b) these whole tons of input, that i personally can't catch up.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't mean you should write like our friend Lordo who constantly recycles the words charlui,and swine in different modes:

[Sotos]

The examples of Turkey and Greece are examples where the creation of these nation states pre date the international recognition of the right to self determination of peoples. If you want an example, then post colonial India splitting into India and Pakistan and then Pakistan into Bangladesh would be an example. The difference there is that they did first pursue the end of British colonial rule as a unitary group and people, mainly because of Ghandi, but after achieving that as a unitary people they then split as different peoples.

The example of India does not support your argument because (a) Non of the peoples who had a self-determination right were colonists of the recent centuries. Neither the British nor any of the other European colonists that have been in India for several centuries had any "self-determination" right in India.... and (b) the Muslims and Hindus were the MAJORITIES in separate areas and exercised their self-determination right as the Majority ... in areas of India where the Muslims were a small minority they had no self-determination right. So this example again supports what I say.

I would not be able to go to the ECHR in such a situation not because there is no right to self determination of peoples but because the ECHR does not have the authority or jurisdiction to rule on such cases. The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1966 sets out and defines the right of self determination of peoples. The European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms created by the Council of Europe does not. The ECHR rules on those rights defined in the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The lack of any definition of the right to self determination in the European Convention is often cited as being one of its biggest flaws.

If Britain had made Cyprus an integral part of the United Kingdom and given Cypriots the same rights as all other UK citizens, without any consideration for the wishes of Cypriots in this regard, you would not have recourse to the ECHR for a violation of your right to self determination, nor, you could argue, would there have been the mass violation of rights that occurred through out the 60s and 70's in Cyprus - BUT would this mean that such a solution was 'right' ?

Why don't you show us this "UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1966" then, and tell us where it supports your "right" as a minority to either prohibit union with another country or to force partition via ethnic cleansing? And didn't you say earlier that "The examples of Turkey and Greece are examples where the creation of these nation states pre date the international recognition of the right to self determination of peoples"? The creation of the state of Cyprus also predates 1966. Which brings us back to my point that if something applies to your minority it should also apply to those and many other minorities also... and the UK annexing Cyprus would not be a violation of our human rights but it would be in violation of several other UN declarations about colonialism.

Here we are back to the whole issue of trying to claim that the desires of GC in 1950 were a valid expression of the free will of a unitary Cypriot people. They were not, they were the desires only of those that choose to consider themselves Greeks who lived in Cyprus. Starting in the 40's and through into the 50's the British tried to introduce increasing self rule for Cypriots, a process that else where was a precursor to peaceful transition from colonial rule to independence. In Cyprus all such attempts were rejected by the GC leadership because they all involved some degree of 'consideration' for the rights of the TC community and the GC leadership did not want to set any precedent for having to recognise such because they wanted to achieve enosis without having to pay any regard for the wishes of the TC community. To say the conflict started when we attack you and threatened you with partition is I am afraid an over simplistic and inherently one side perspective.

The conflict started when you attacked us and threatened us with partition. If you want to generalize and include everything then we will have to go a few decades earlier ans also include the Ottoman rule. A referendum includes everybody. The British held such referendums in Gibraltar and Falklands... one person one vote. Communities were not asked separately. So you can not say that in a referendum you have no say and that you are ignored... you have as much say as you ought to have. But you wanted the voice of the 18% to be louder than that of the 82%!!

It is not a case of you should have given consideration for our 'feelings'. It is a case that we had a RIGHT to have our desires and wishes for the future of our own (shared) homeland taken into consideration as far as such was a valid expression of the will of a unitary Cypriot people. As far as you denied this RIGHT you in turn increased the validity that we express our right to self determination not as part of a unitary Cypriot people but as a different and separate people to you as Greek who lived in Cyprus.

So far you failed to provide any evidence to support your claim that your minority had a right to oppose enosis which was supported by the majority. Claiming that you have a right is easy.

I think that if all Cypriots had wanted and pursued was independence then I think there is no doubt this could have been achieved. Yes we probably would have had to give concessions to the British (SBA) and possibly to Turkey as well to achieve it but it was in my view not a question of if but only of when. Nor do I accept this thesis that the reason why GC wanted and sought enosis was simply they believed it was the only way they could rid themselves of British rule. Enosis was first and foremost an ideological desire not a practical response to the situation of Cyprus.

And still you didn't show any evidence that the TCs wanted or would support a real independence. All evidence we have from your whole history in Cyprus from the beginning until today point to the opposite.

I have never said that enosis was a crime. I have said and do say that the pursuit of enosis by the GC community without any consideration for the desires of the TC community was not a valid and legitimate expression of the right to self determination of a unitary Cypriot people. What is more the degree to which the TC community can be validly said to have to express it's right to self determination as a separate (and therefore equal) people to GC is directly and inversely proportional to the degree to which you gave consideration to our wishes for the future of our shared homeland. Enosis was not a crime, but the pursuit of it by the use of organised ethnic based violence against ordinary TC was a crime.

A referendum would be a valid consideration of the desires of everybody. That is the whole point of referendums. You choose ethnic based violence because peaceful democratic processes didn't suit you.

[erolz66]

Oh please, please.... no need to feel alone when I personally said your are as much partly right and partly wrong as BillC is.Copperline said EXACTLY the same thing as I did, without even reading my post, just go a few pages back and read both replies.So I don't think either me or CL align with anyone.

I am sorry Pyrpolizer I am going to get nit picky and pedantic with you

Bill states as fact that "Others say it ain't misleading" and you feel no need to point out to him that "either me (you) or CL align with anyone"

I state "If others refuse to accept such plain and obvious fact, simply because they are on the 'same side' as you..."

and you do feel a need to point out that "either me (you) or CL align with anyone". Please do note the IF that starts that sentence (but that is not included in your color highlighting).

Can you see how to me this feels a little 'un balanced' of you ?

For what is worth I consider most of what you write very valuable and well put as for example this post,
cyprus42080-170.html#p787819

Thank you.

a)because of this attitude of yours of getting stuck on non important issues and ...

I understand what you are saying but I really do believe that actually this 'spat' I am having with Bill over if his description is misleading or not and then subsequent reaction of others is not a 'non important issue'. At the risking of again repeating myself I really do think it is an example of a pattern that pervades the Cypprob in general terms and highlights systemic failures on all our parts that make possible negotiated solution that much harder.

[erolz66]

The example of India does not support your argument because (a) Non of the peoples who had a self-determination right were colonists of the recent centuries. Neither the British nor any of the other European colonists that have been in India for several centuries had any "self-determination" right in India.... and (b) the Muslims and Hindus were the MAJORITIES in separate areas and exercised their self-determination right as the Majority ... in areas of India where the Muslims were a small minority they had no self-determination right. So this example again supports what I say.

If you expect an example that is exactly the same as Cyprus then you are going to be disappointed because unless the conditions of that comparable example are identical to Cyprus, which is physically impossible, there will always be differences. All that can be compared are the principals that underlie other examples

India gained independence as an expression of the right of self determination of an Indian people. Pakistan then gained independence from Indian as an expression of the right to self determination of Pakistanis and Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan as an expression of the right to self determination of Bangladeshis. In fact there were mass population movements as a result of these things.

The idea that TC would have had a right to self determination in Cyprus if they had been geographically separate within Cyprus but not if they were spread through out Cyprus is a nonsense in my opinion. Graphical separation affects massively how easy it would have been for TC to exercise their right to self determination as a separate people from the GC without infringing their rights (individual and communal) but it does not define if those rights exist at all.

Why don't you show us this "UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1966" then, and tell us where it supports your "right" as a minority to either prohibit union with another country or to force partition via ethnic cleansing?

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalint ... /ccpr.aspx

PART I

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

As I have already said the issue comes down to what constitutes a people. This is a complex issue without clear defined legal definition but at the most basic level it should be clear that there HAS to be some wider general 'commonality' within the group for them to constitute a people. You can argue that physical geography alone determined that all Cypriots GC and TC were party of a single and unitary Cypriot people and thus expressed their right to self determination as such. You can argue that but I argue that such a definition is one of 'convince' as far the pursuit of enosis without any regard for wishes of the TC community goes and not one based on the spirit or intent of the declaration above. I would argue that it is bordering on insane to claim that the pursuit enosis by GC in Cyprus without any consideration for the wishes of the TC community was a valid and legitimate expression of the right to self determination of a unitary Cypriot people, given that all those who supported it were GC all those that rejected it were TC and that it sought to destroy the one thing that could have given us a wider 'commonality' as a 'people' - to just be 'Cypriot', given we did not have shared language, religion, ethnicity or (arguably) culture.

I have already explicitly stated that the right to self determination of TC, as far as it could not be exercised as part of the wider group / people of 'Cypriot', did not and does not confer a right to partition Cyprus by force of arms. What it did and does confer is a right, as far as we express it as part of a Cypriot people, to have consideration of our wants and wishes as a community and if that is denied then a right to self determination as a separate (and therefore equal) people to that of GC (or Greeks who live in Cyprus if you prefer).

I do feel I am just repeating myself here.

And didn't you say earlier that "The examples of Turkey and Greece are examples where the creation of these nation states pre date the international recognition of the right to self determination of peoples"? The creation of the state of Cyprus also predates 1966. Which brings us back to my point that if something applies to your minority it should also apply to those and many other minorities also... and the UK annexing Cyprus would not be a violation of our human rights but it would be in violation of several other UN declarations about colonialism.

The 'UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1966' was the culmination of the growing international recognition of the right to self determination of peoples. It was not the starting point. Generally for those states where the formation and international recognition of that state pre dates this 'growing recognition of the rights of individuals to self determination' - which started in the 30's gained ground through the 40's and 50's ended up with the above in 66 - in states as such as these the definition of 'peoples' was an is all those within that nation state. This definition however could not be used in Cyprus as it sought to end British colonial rule because there was no Cypriot nation state at that point.

The conflict started when you attacked us and threatened us with partition. If you want to generalize and include everything then we will have to go a few decades earlier ans also include the Ottoman rule. A referendum includes everybody. The British held such referendums in Gibraltar and Falklands... one person one vote. Communities were not asked separately. So you can not say that in a referendum you have no say and that you are ignored... you have as much say as you ought to have. But you wanted the voice of the 18% to be louder than that of the 82%!!

The conflict started and continues because (it can be argued) because you refused and still refuse to accept our rights to self determination, either in the form of a right to consideration for our wishes in our own shared homeland as part of a unitary Cypriot people, or as a separate people to you, given you choose to want to not be part of a unitary Cypriot people but part of a Greek people.

Once more for such a referendum to be a valid expression of the right to self determination of a unitary Cypriot people, there has to be some wider commonality that makes us all part of the same unitary people.

So far you failed to provide any evidence to support your claim that your minority had a right to oppose enosis which was supported by the majority. Claiming that you have a right is easy.

For us to have been and be a 'minority' and 'majority' there has tom something 'wider' that we are the minority and majorities off, some grouping or peoples. You can claim that the wider 'thing' we were parts off was that we all lived in the physical location of the island of Cyprus, but as far as you argue that this is that 'wider thing' I will argue such a definition is merely a convenience to you and not in any way based on the spirit, purpose or intent of the right to self determination of peoples as laid out above. That in fact such a definition is in fact a perversion of the spirit intent and purpose of the right to self determination of peoples.

And still you didn't show any evidence that the TCs wanted or would support a real independence. All evidence we have from your whole history in Cyprus from the beginning until today point to the opposite.

I am not sure what possible evidence I could give about what TC 'would' or 'might' have done ? What I can say is that I truly believe that if GC had pursued just independence for Cyprus and not Enosis, accepting that TC had a right to consideration for their wishes, there is no way that Cyprus would be in the mess it is in today. Can I 'prove' this ? No. Do I sincerely believe it ? Yes I do. In any case the point is if independence had of been the only goal and desire of GC, then the argument that TC right to self determination could be and should be exercised as part of unitary Cypriot people would be next to unassailable. The problem comes with trying to claim TC could and should exercise their right to self determination as part of a unitary Cypriot people , when the thing sought by GC in the name of that unitary people is that such a unitary people should not exist at all.

A referendum would be a valid consideration of the desires of everybody. That is the whole point of referendums. You choose ethnic based violence because peaceful democratic processes didn't suit you.

See above. And let me finish by giving you another hypothetical scenario to consider. Let's say there is a proposal to turn the European Union into a single unified state. Should a referendum on such an issue simply be down a majority vote of all those who would be citizens of this new super state or should it require the spate assent of each member state individually ? Further imagine that not a single person in Cyprus votes for the creation og this new super state , yet a majority of EU citizens do vote for it.

[Sotos]

Here is a map of prevailing religions by region in India from 1909.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/India_religion_map_1909_en.jpg

As you can see Muslims could have a right of self-determination in the territories that they were the majority. What would be nonsense is to say that the Muslims could have a right for self-determination on territories that they were just a small minority. They didn't have such right there.... what those minorities had a right to do is to move to some place were their kind was the majority ... that is where the population movements come from. And who couldn't have any right for self-determination in India at all were the European colonists. As you see even the example you gave proves my point. One territory can have only one self-determination... it is not even possible to have more than one, and that one self-determination belongs to the majority. You are an ethnic, religious and linguistic minority... which by definition means you are different from the majority, and for you it is this article that applies:

Article 27

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.

The 'UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1966' was the culmination of the growing international recognition of the right to self determination of peoples. It was not the starting point. Generally for those states where the formation and international recognition of that state pre dates this 'growing recognition of the rights of individuals to self determination' - which started in the 30's gained ground through the 40's and 50's ended up with the above in 66 - in states as such as these the definition of 'peoples' was an is all those within that nation state. This definition however could not be used in Cyprus as it sought to end British colonial rule because there was no Cypriot nation state at that point.

More excuses from you. The document you use is from 1966, so it came AFTER the creation of Greece, Turkey AND Cyprus. Therefore you can not claim that what is written in that document can supposedly apply only to Cyprus and not in the cases of Greece, Turkey and every other country. If you are a "people" and you can supposedly have 'self-determination' right, then the Greeks in Turkey should also be a "people" have the same right. Such declarations are universal and should be applied universally... when the states were created is irrelevant.

The conflict started and continues because (it can be argued) because you refused and still refuse to accept our rights to self determination, either in the form of a right to consideration for our wishes in our own shared homeland as part of a unitary Cypriot people, or as a separate people to you, given you choose to want to not be part of a unitary Cypriot people but part of a Greek people.

Once more for such a referendum to be a valid expression of the right to self determination of a unitary Cypriot people, there has to be some wider commonality that makes us all part of the same unitary people.

You don't have any right for self-determination... the conflict continues because you continue to act like Ottoman overlords trying to impose your will undemocratically on the native population.

For us to have been and be a 'minority' and 'majority' there has tom something 'wider' that we are the minority and majorities off, some grouping or peoples. You can claim that the wider 'thing' we were parts off was that we all lived in the physical location of the island of Cyprus, but as far as you argue that this is that 'wider thing' I will argue such a definition is merely a convenience to you and not in any way based on the spirit, purpose or intent of the right to self determination of peoples as laid out above. That in fact such a definition is in fact a perversion of the spirit intent and purpose of the right to self determination of peoples.

What is a perversion of the spirit intent and purpose of the right to self determination of peoples is that a minority of people, who are a result of colonization of the last few centuries, should obstruct the TRUE self-determination rights of the native population who are also the majority.

I am not sure what possible evidence I could give about what TC 'would' or 'might' have done ? What I can say is that I truly believe that if GC had pursued just independence for Cyprus and not Enosis, accepting that TC had a right to consideration for their wishes, there is no way that Cyprus would be in the mess it is in today. Can I 'prove' this ? No. Do I sincerely believe it ? Yes I do. In any case the point is if independence had of been the only goal and desire of GC, then the argument that TC right to self determination could be and should be exercised as part of unitary Cypriot people would be next to unassailable. The problem comes with trying to claim TC could and should exercise their right to self determination as part of a unitary Cypriot people , when the thing sought by GC in the name of that unitary people is that such a unitary people should not exist at all.

What I am asking for is evidence that Turks or TCs supported an independent Cyprus at any point in history. Do you have any such evidence? What you are talking about is just hypothetical scenarios. What I am asking for is actual facts ... like declarations of your leaders that what they want is a free and independent Cyprus. All facts point to the opposite... that the Turks did everything they could to enslave Cyprus ... the whole of it for as long as they could, and then half of it, for as long as they can.

See above. And let me finish by giving you another hypothetical scenario to consider. Let's say there is a proposal to turn the European Union into a single unified state. Should a referendum on such an issue simply be down a majority vote of all those who would be citizens of this new super state or should it require the spate assent of each member state individually ? Further imagine that not a single person in Cyprus votes for the creation og this new super state , yet a majority of EU citizens do vote for it.

The MAJORITY of people on each territory should decide. See... the principle is universally applied... like in the case of India above. But according to you they should ask each minority in each country separably ... no... let me rephrase... they should ask no minority anywhere ... except your minority which is special

[erolz66]

One territory can have only one self-determination... it is not even possible to have more than one, and that one self-determination belongs to the majority.

What defines a 'territory' ? Why are Haiti and Dominican Republic different territories ?

You are an ethnic, religious and linguistic minority... which by definition means you are different from the majority, and for you it is this article that applies:

Article 27

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.

In those STATES. The RoC was not a state. The ending of British rule was all about it becoming a state, or becoming a part of the 'territory' of another pre sxisting state.

More excuses from you. The document you use is from 1966, so it came AFTER the creation of Greece, Turkey AND Cyprus. Therefore you can not claim that what is written in that document can supposedly apply only to Cyprus and not in the cases of Greece, Turkey and every other country. If you are a "people" and you can supposedly have 'self-determination' right, then the Greeks in Turkey should also be a "people" have the same right. Such declarations are universal and should be applied universally... when the states were created is irrelevant.

It is just historical fact the right to self determination became established in law after the nation states of Turkey and Greece were established and in essence before the RoC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

You don't have any right for self-determination...

Keep repeating the mantra if you have to. The truth is EVERYONE has such a right, the only question is through what grouping they exercise that right. You can claim that the TC had and have no separate right from the GC community and exercise that right as an ethnic minority within a unitary Cypriot people but the problem is enosis denies the existence of that very unitary people and that is the 'problem' in trying to argue that enosis was the valid expression of the will of a unitary Cypriot people.

the conflict continues because you continue to act like Ottoman overlords trying to impose your will undemocratically on the native population.

And we are back to the propaganda slogans.

What is a perversion of the spirit intent and purpose of the right to self determination of peoples is that a minority of people, who are a result of colonization of the last few centuries, should obstruct the TRUE self-determination rights of the native population who are also the majority.

And we are back to the old 'we are the true Cypriots and you are just invaders and colonisers - our rights are therefore greater than yours'.

The MAJORITY of people on each territory should decide. See... the principle is universally applied... like in the case of India above. But according to you they should ask each minority in each country separably ... no... let me rephrase... they should ask no minority anywhere ... except your minority which is special

What defines a 'territory' ? There were areas in Cyprus where TC where the numerical majority, could these areas then legitimately cede from the RoC and any GC in those areas could choose to live as an ethnic minority or leave ?