Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

What I asked was "What if EU integration progresses to that of a state?". What is ridiculous is to make claims such as "Athens is too far" or "Greeks are foreigners". We could even unite into a single state with people who are even further from us and who are not even of the same ethnicity like us... united by our European culture commonalities... IF we believed this to be a good thing for our well being and our future. The Cypriot people should be free to make the choices that they believe are best for their own interests INCLUDING uniting with others.

It changes nothing. If the desire is only wanted by GC and totally opposed by TC then by definition it is not a genuine desire of a unitary Cypriot people but the desire of just one ethnic group within Cyprus. What you should REALLY be asking yourself is why would a desire ever be only supported by one community in Cypriots and rejected by the other and the answer is because what it means to each community, how it affects them is total different. That is the only reason one community would universally or near universal want something and the other oppose it.

What I would take seriously is if you made the argument that you as a Turkish Cypriot felt that you would be threatened if Cyprus became part of Greece given the hostile history between Greece and Turkey.... and to that I would say "yeah, I can understand you", and I would accept your reaction against enosis, not because you had some official UN recognized "right" to determine on your own where Cyprus can belong but because I could understand how you would feel threatened by that specific kind of union.

You would take me seriously and understand my 'issue' and then STILL insist you had every RIGHT to impose it on me and my community in our own homeland without any regard for our wishes and we had no RIGHT to resist such an imposition, regardless.

At the same time I would expect you to understand how for us enosis meant liberation after centuries of being oppressed by others. Independence might be an easy alternative to think of NOW but back then out of all Mediterranean islands non of them had been independent and enosis was a natural way to try to liberate ourselves given that the majority of the population are Greek and we were counting on the support of Greece on this effort.

Actually I do not accept the notion that Union with Greece was the only conceivable way Cyprus could free itself from British Colonial rule. By 1950 it was clear that colonialism was over and that for colonies it was not a matter of if they would ever end colonial rule but only one of when and how. The fact is enosis was as much or more about Greek nationalism and the 'Mengali idea' and the Greek Orthodox church as it was realistically the only means to the objective of ending British rule in Cyprus. In any case and regardless of this the problem was not (and is not) that you sought and wanted enosis for yourselves. The problem was (and with you STILL is) is that you thought you had a right to impose it on the TC community without ANY regards for their wishes. That was the problem. If you had said then 'we want enosis but we understand that you do not, so lets talk and discuss how we might be able to find a way to accommodate your concerns, lets talk about forms of enosis, of federation for Cyprus under greek rule and protections for TC within such a federal entity' then maybe things could have been different. You did not do that, what you did then is what you personally still advocate today, that you could and had the right to simply impose it in any form you liked without any consideration for our wishes, That was and with you still is the problem. Do I claim that TC had a right to dictate to you what the status of Cyprus would be after British rule ? No. Do I claim TC had a right to taksim ? No. Do I claim TC had a right to a separate state of their own ? No. I claim we had a right to consideration for our communal wishes as far as you chose to pursue a future defined not by your Cypriotness by solely by your Greekness.

By the way Malta was a Mediterranean Island that went from British colonial rule via self rule first granted in 1921, suspended during WW2 and restored in 1947 and eventual full independence in 1964
.

So maybe it is best to stop the blame game about the past and concentrate on correcting what is screwed up today so we can have a better future for all of us with more mutual understanding than what was shown in the past?

I am afraid Sotos that it is YOU who is playing the blame game - the denial of all and any blame. As long as you continue to insist that GC acting purely as ethnic Greeks have the RIGHT to impose something as fundamental as Enosis on TC without ANY regard at all for their communal wishes as people who share Cyprus as a homeland and who are not Greek and that TC have no right at all for such consideration of their communal wishes, what is there left to talk about expect the terms of a 'velvet partition' ? How can I as a TC ever consider living in a unitary Cyprus when you insist such things ? I could not in 1959 and I still can not now. If trying to make you understand this is playing the 'blame game' in your eyes then so be it.

[Sotos]

It changes nothing. If the desire is only wanted by GC and totally opposed by TC then by definition it is not a genuine desire of a unitary Cypriot people but the desire of just one ethnic group within Cyprus. What you should REALLY be asking yourself is why would a desire ever be only supported by one community in Cypriots and rejected by the other and the answer is because what it means to each community, how it affects them is total different. That is the only reason one community would universally or near universal want something and the other oppose it.

See, now you admit that even if we took our "Greekness" totally out of the equation it changes nothing for you! As long as as your community rejects ANY issue then you believe it is your right to block Cyprus from doing what you reject. So enosis was really just one example of this general position of yours... and THAT is where the problem is. If it was JUST for the specific case of enosis that wouldn't be any issue anymore since we no more want enosis anyway. But you seem to believe that your minority has this general right to overwrite the democratic choices of the Cypriot people whenever they so wish. Now you might say "if the overwhelming majority of TCs rejects something which the majority of GCs accepts it means that GCs are voting as Greeks and not as Cypriots"... but that is not necessarily true because the opposite could also be true: The GCs voting as Cypriots and the TCs voting as Turks. Over the last decades we have seen how the TCs have become puppets in the hands of foreign powers who use them in order to serve their own interests in Cyprus. We have also seen how the TCs don't seem to understand the principle of proportionality ... for example demanding 30% of civil servant jobs, 30% of the land in case of federation etc ... and they probably expect to get more than 18% from any natural gas profits also. Now how "Cypriot" is it when you want a bigger share just because you are Turkish?

So... I do not accept that you have this general right. In other words there is no international court or the UN who can come and say that your community has such right. Any such right for you can ONLY be a result of us accepting that you can have it as part of an agreement... I understand that you might want such right as a safeguard but I am also afraid that you can abuse such right to extort from us more than your fair share. So it really depends on the whole of a solution... if for example we have a unitary state and we all live mixed with the same rights and no discrimination based on ethnicity then it is much more difficult to find cases where TCs could be "voting as Turks". But if we are divided in two under some kind of federation then it is very easy to imagine many cases where the TCs will want to serve their own side on our expense and could use such "right" as means to achieve what they want.

[erolz66]

See, now you admit that even if we took our "Greekness" totally out of the equation it changes nothing for you!

Your failure to understand (or is it a will to not understand?) is monumental Sotos.

As long as as your community rejects ANY issue then you believe it is your right to block Cyprus from doing what you reject.

I absolutely do NOT demand a right to block ANY issue. What I describe is reducing what separate power as a community we need to an absolute minimum in the spirit of trying to find a solution. It is the opposite of what you are claiming above. It is saying we ONLY need separate consent as community when you chose to pursue things that do not benefit (or prejudice) all Cypriots the SAME regardless of their ethnic background but that specifically ONLY benefit your community and prejudice our BECAUSE of which ethnic back ground we are, then and ONLY then should separate consent be necessary. You will only ever have a scenario where all those that support something are from one ethnic community and all those who oppose it from another when such an action benefits or prejudices one community differently to the other and that is the only time separate consent of each should be required BECAUSE it benefits or prejudices one community differently to the other and not all Cypriots equally regardless of their ethnic background. So to give some examples.

You want to propose a change to the age of consent up or down. Some Cypriots support the change and some do not. The change affects all Cypriots equally and some from each community support it and some do not. No separate consent needed.
You want to propose putting up speed cameras on motorways. Some Cypriots support the change and some do not. The change affects all Cypriots equally and some from each community support it and some do not. No separate consent needed.
You want to propose same sex marriage as a legal right. Some Cypriots support the change and some do not. The change affects all Cypriots equally and some from each community support it and some do not. No separate consent needed.

You want to propose that Cyprus becomes part of Greece. Only GC support the change all TC oppose it. The changes affects Cypriots totally differently based on what ethnic community they are part of. Separate consent of the communities is required because it is not an issue of choice of individual Cypriots regardless of ethnic back ground but a choice of ethnic communities BECAUASE of which you belong to.

The number of issues where the issue is one not of individual choice but is in fact a choice of one community over the other is extremely small. It is ONLY in these cases would I require, as right, a separate consent of communities and in no others.

So enosis was really just one example of this general position of yours... and THAT is where the problem is. If it was JUST for the specific case of enosis that wouldn't be any issue anymore since we no more want enosis anyway.

I have always and totally consistently made the point that this in not just about enosis per se but about the fundamental principles. That is why you saying to me 'we do not want enosis any more' is not sufficient. Whilst you continue to insist that you can ,even when acting NOT as Cypriots regardless of ethnic background, seeking changes that benefit ONLY your community and affect ours totally differently, IMPOSE, by RIGHT, your communal will on mine and my community has no right what so ever except to just 'take it' I will continue to insist that is not acceptable or just or fair. Is that REALLY so hard for you to understand ?

But you seem to believe that your minority has this general right to overwrite the democratic choices of the Cypriot people whenever they so wish.

No I believe that when you CHOSE to act not simply as Cypriots REGARDLESS of ethnic back ground but as a community on block BECAUSE of your different ethnic back ground to us , then it is not only compatible with the ideals and purpose of democracy to say 'one community one vote' but that actually democracy REQUIRES such.

Now you might say "if the overwhelming majority of TCs rejects something which the majority of GCs accepts it means that GCs are voting as Greeks and not as Cypriots"... but that is not necessarily true because the opposite could also be true: The GCs voting as Cypriots and the TCs voting as Turks.

Give me a hypothetical example of an issue that would benefit (and prejudice) all Cypriot equally regardless of their ethnic background where only GC supported such and all TC opposed it. I do not believe such an issue exists by definition.

Over the last decades we have seen how the TCs have become puppets in the hands of foreign powers who use them in order to serve their own interests in Cyprus.

Now you argument is that TC can have no power as a community in Cyprus because they are ALL proven 'agents of Turkey'. I do not believe it. I think the argument is ridiculous and insulting. I think the idea that we would universally as a community vote against something that would benefit us as Cypriots just because Turkey tells us to do so is a spurious argument - an excuse and a weak one at that, not a reason to deny us our rights as a community.

We have also seen how the TCs don't seem to understand the principle of proportionality ... for example demanding 30% of civil servant jobs, 30% of the land in case of federation etc ... and they probably expect to get more than 18% from any natural gas profits also. Now how "Cypriot" is it when you want a bigger share just because you are Turkish?

But I am not asking for or demanding ANY ratio of civil servant jobs, any % of land or any % of future oil and gas revenues. The ONLY thing I am asking you to accept is that when you act not as individual Cypriots but as a community separate and different from us we have by right to an effective say as a community separate and different from you, equally. That is ALL I ask and its is still 'too much' for you.

So... I do not accept that you have this general right.

No I know you do not accept it. That IS the problem. I demand a right to RESIST the imposition of your communities will, acting purely in its own self interest, on mine. You demand a right to be able to IMPOSE your communities will on mine at any time you might chose to want to do so. And you wonder why we are in dispute ?

In other words there is no international court or the UN who can come and say that your community has such right.

That is simply not true. The right of the TC community to have an effective voice in the ruling of their own shared homeland is recognised and embodied in the very legal international treaties that created an independent Cypriot state. It is recognised in every UN effort to resolve the disputes between us in Cyprus.

Any such right for you can ONLY be a result of us accepting that you can have it as part of an agreement...

We HAD such as part of an agreements and despite your untrue claim that all you did was 'propose changes' to said agreement, the truth is you unilaterally and without any legally valid due process simply took those rights away from us after having previously agreed them and in doing so set the foundations for the disaster that befell Cypriots subsequently.

I understand that you might want such right as a safeguard but I am also afraid that you can abuse such right to extort from us more than your fair share. So it really depends on the whole of a solution... if for example we have a unitary state and we all live mixed with the same rights and no discrimination based on ethnicity then it is much more difficult to find cases where TCs could be "voting as Turks". But if we are divided in two under some kind of federation then it is very easy to imagine many cases where the TCs will want to serve their own side on our expense and could use such "right" as means to achieve what they want.

I have already said, over and over and over that if you could only accept our right to resist the imposition on us of your purely communal desires, sought BECAUSE you are different and separate from us, then I could accept no bizonality, no federal solution, no % of this or that. The ONLY thing I want is a right to not have you free to force anything on me and my community in my own homeland that are solely your desires alone, sought by you BECAUSE you are separate and different from me and my community. That is it and it is STILL too much for you to accept. Whilst it remains too much for you to accept all I have to say to you and those who share you views with regards to a settlement is lets stop fucking around and agree the terms of our separation and what is more you need to do so with the humility and understanding that we are doing so as a result of a war we fought with you and that you LOST and that no nation in history has ever signed an agreement following such a military defeat that has granted them the same or more than they had before the defeat. That is what YOUR positions forces mine to be.

[Sotos]

Starting from the last, the war is not over... the TCs and Turkey have a problem as well and they are not able to force the solution they want.

Yes, you have rights based on the 1960 agreements, and you have those rights because we signed those agreements... not before we signed them. Similarly we also have rights based on the same agreements. If your side wants to re-negotiate those agreements and expect from us to have less rights then we can do that as well for your rights. And yes... those agreements were unfair and we tried to change them... maybe if you insisted on their implementation instead of occupying 1/3rd of Cyprus you would have the legal right on your side ... but you lost that in 1974 with the invasion and then the declaration of the "trnc" and your insistence that a new solution should be re-negotiated.

Give me a hypothetical example of an issue that would benefit (and prejudice) all Cypriot equally regardless of their ethnic background where only GC supported such and all TC opposed it. I do not believe such an issue exists by definition.

First of all... are you saying that every singe TC has to oppose it, or the majority of TCs? I assume you mean the second, so here is an example:

Your side could claim that it is fair that the profits from natural gas be split 50%-50% between the "two equal partners". It is not the first time that TCs make such kind of disproportional demands. In the 1960s they couldn't see how 30% of civil servant jobs is unfair ... now they demand such proportions on many things, including land.

Another one:

There is the question if Turkey should be allowed to enter the EU, some EU countries support this, some don't. In Cyprus almost all GCs reject Turkish EU membership while almost all TCs accept it.

[erolz66]

Starting from the last, the war is not over... the TCs and Turkey have a problem as well and they are not able to force the solution they want.

First be clear you force me into this negotiating position with you adamant refusal to accept you do not have a RIGHT to impose anything you like on my community in my own homeland, even when you act out purely self interest of your own community alone. That is what limits the only option to be one of separation. I would prefer to not negotiate on the basis of separate but your demands leave me with no other option. The war is over, the fighting is over and you lost. All that remains is to agree the 'peace'.

Yes, you have rights based on the 1960 agreements, and you have those rights because we signed those agreements... not before we signed them.

The rights written into the 60's agreement are the embodiment of the rights we already had, that is why they are there. They may not have represented a good balance but that they are there at all is because we had 'natural' rights in and off themselves.

If your side wants to re-negotiate those agreements and expect from us to have less rights then we can do that as well for your rights. And yes... those agreements were unfair and we tried to change them...

You did not try to change them, you did not 're-negotiate' them, you unilaterally changed them without any legal due process.

maybe if you insisted on their implementation

We DID insist on their implementation and it was this insistence and your refusal to implement what was already agreed (detailed as a specific tactic in the akritas plan btw) that led to the break down in 63. We went to the legal body that have the legal jurisdiction to judge such things and they ruled in our favour and your 'executive' (Makarios) simply refused to accept the ruling or the court, again against all legality. Then you proceeded to simply unilaterally change the agreements made.

instead of occupying 1/3rd of Cyprus

It was not a case of choosing the 60's agreements and their implementation or of enforced partition and we chose enforced partition. That you can even suggest we had a simple choice between the two and we chose the latter just shopws the extent to which you seek to distort and pervert historical reality to try and absolve your side of any and all blame and place all on ours.

you would have the legal right on your side ... but you lost that in 1974 with the invasion and then the declaration of the "trnc" and your insistence that a new solution should be re-negotiated.

And I have NEVER claimed that despite all YOU did , it legally justifies the events of 74. Never. What went before and how your side chose to behave explains how and why the events of 74 happened (something you also refuse to accept) but it does not justify it or make it legally valid and I have never said it did. The enforced partition of Cyprus in 74 is no more legally valid than you unilateral removal of our rights under the 60's agreements in 65. Where as I accept that the events of 74 were not legally valid , you continue to try and deny that you behaved illegal (constantly claiming you mere 'suggested' changes) or when force by the weight of evidence claim your illegal act was justified because you decided the agreements were 'unfair'.

First of all... are you saying that every singe TC has to oppose it, or the majority of TCs? I assume you mean the second, so here is an example:

No I am not saying a majority of TC have to oppose it. I am saying if even 10% of TC support something (or oppose it) that a majority of your community supports (or opposes) then I can accept that it is not 'communal' issue but a Cypriot one. What you demand however is even when the ONLY people in Cyprus who support (or oppose) something are GC and not even a single % of TC support (or oppose) it you have the RIGHT to IMPOSE that on us. That is the problem Sotos.

Your side could claim that it is fair that the profits from natural gas be split 50%-50% between the "two equal partners". It is not the first time that TCs make such kind of disproportional demands. In the 1960s they couldn't see how 30% of civil servant jobs is unfair ... now they demand such proportions on many things, including land.

We could claim that but even in the unlikely event we did and support for splitting the revenues a different way could not garner even 10% of support from the TC community, under my system then until we reached agreement NO ONE would get the profits. You would simply just have to stick to your guns and out last us out. We could not FORCE you to accept 50/50 split. However in reverse and under your system if you decided that only 5% of the profits would go to our community, for some spurious reason like we have to pay for our previous crimes or the crimes of the Ottomans 400 years ago, you would have the RIGHT to impose such a split and we would have no right to oppose it.

What you are REALLY saying here Sotos, is we can not agree to give you communal rights, because ethnically you are greedier than us, more selfish than us and more grasping than us. It is in fact nothing short of a racist argument based on the absurd (but unfortunately not umcommon) notion that you are ethnically 'good' and we are ethnically bad.

There is the question if Turkey should be allowed to enter the EU, some EU countries support this, some don't. In Cyprus almost all GCs reject Turkish EU membership while almost all TCs accept it.

Again if you could not get even 10% of the TC to support the RoC rejecting Turkish EU membership then the RoC should not reject it, but neither should that mean they have to support it either. Just abstain.

[Sotos]

What you got in 1960 was a result of force and blackmail against us ... not your "natural rights"! A lot of what was in there was racist and unfair and this is why we wanted to change them. I can accept that you had legal right to them because of our SIGNATURE but not any moral or "natural" right for such unfair, undemocratic and racist crap! Slavery was also legal once... it doesn't mean people didn't have the moral right to try to change racist and unfair laws. But after what you did in 1974 and since then you also lost that legal right.

So the problem is that you believe to have "rights" which are actually unfair, racist, undemocratic and benefit you on our expense. For as long as you believe to have such "rights" there will not be a solution. Having a deadlock every time you demand a disproportionately large share of something is not a "solution" for me. We need to come to an understanding of what is FAIR and what is not... and that should be based on what already exists in other developed countries.

[erolz66]

What you got in 1960 was a result of force and blackmail against us ... not your "natural rights"!

So you claim. Then again maybe you are just wrong in thinking that you had not just communal rights in Cyprus but also the right to impose anything you liked on us and we had no rights communally what so ever. Sure YOU think this but no one else did. Still you must be right and everyone else, cause after all you are Greek.

If you REALLY believe the rest of the world thinks as you do why not stop fucking around. Why not go to the UN and say 'TC should have and can have no rights in Cyprus as community beyond those of a minority even if we choose to impose something like Enosis on them' ? Why not sat this to your American 'friends' when they visit. To you EU partners. You tried it before and you got no where with such arguments as far as gathering international support but of course that was because the whole world was out to get you, hates you so much and loves us so much and not because your demand was in anyway unreasonable, unrealistic or unfair. SO why not do it again now ? Why all this fucking around with negotiating stuff you do not believe we have any right to ?

A lot of what was in there was racist and unfair and this is why we wanted to change them.

You wanted to change them because they stopped you imposing enosis on us against our will in our own homeland. You wrote out a detailed and explicit plan on how to do it. Even if the % of civil service jobs had been 18% or no pre set percentage if it prevented you from imposing enosis on us you would have done exactly what you did do. Because you believe that you not being able to impose your purely communal will on us is 'unfair and racist'.

I can accept that you had legal right to them because of our SIGNATURE but not any moral or "natural" right for such unfair, undemocratic and racist crap!

you personally may now claim to accept them because they have your signature on them but the fact is your community and its leadership did NOT accept them despite having their signatures on them and unilaterally changed them outside of any legal process and if they had not then the events of 74 almost certainly would not have transpired as they did. You still refuse to accept this.

So the problem is that you believe to have "rights" which are actually unfair, racist, undemocratic and benefit you on our expense. For as long as you believe to have such "rights" there will not be a solution.

I ask for the right to not have imposed on me your communities will and ONLY when you act based on your ethnic background as Greeks and you deny that and insist that your community acting solely in its own interests has the RIGHT to impose anything on me in my own homeland without any regard for our wishes and I am the racist one ? I am the 'unfair' one ? Stop acting based on your self interest as GC and not all Cypriots and seeking to impose that on other Cypriots and the situation would NEVER arise.

Having a deadlock every time you demand a disproportionately large share of something is not a "solution" for me. We need to come to an understanding of what is FAIR and what is not... and that should be based on what already exists in other developed countries.

Again with the racism. We are Turkish therefore by definition we will always demand a disproportionate share - that is you argument and it is fundamentally racist.

[Sotos]

So you claim. Then again maybe you are just wrong in thinking that you had not just communal rights in Cyprus but also the right to impose anything you liked on us and we had no rights communally what so ever. Sure YOU think this but no one else did. Still you must be right and everyone else, cause after all you are Greek.

Who is "everyone else"? The British and the Turks who made those agreements and forced them on us? Today Cyprus is democratically ruled with one person one vote and nobody apart from you has a problem with this while at the same time nobody recognizes the pseudo state you created. YOU are the only ones who believe that you have such "natural" rights. Everybody else understands that any such rights for a minority like yours can only exist with the agreement of the majority.

You don't even recognize that the share you got in 1960 was disproportional and today your side again demands disproportional share on just about everything. You are the racists for demanding such things... not me who is pointing out the FACT. You keep talking about enosis when we have established that you want your minority to essentially be able to overwrite the democratic choices of the Cypriot people on ANY issue you want.

Your natural rights are your human rights and minority rights as they exist for all other minorities. We have also a natural right to our human rights and the majority rights...which in the case of democracy is that Majority Rules. The problems started because you showed disrespect to our rights. Not only you violated our human rights for centuries... but you never accepted the democratic principle of Majority Rules.

[erolz66]

Who is "everyone else"? The British and the Turks who made those agreements and forced them on us?

Are you quite sure Sotos that you are not missing a party in the above, that you seem to have apparently removed from history entirely for your convenience ? You really are funny some times. Let me give you a clue to who is missing from your description of the parties that negotiated and agreed the 60's agreements. It begins with the letter G. Have you noticed your omission yet, which I am sure was just an oversight on your part and not intentional. Can you spot my sarcasm ?

YOU are the only ones who believe that you have such "natural" rights.

So name a SINGLE country that supports a settlement based on no communal rights for the TC community in Cyprus. Hell not even your OWN side would claim such openly.

You don't even recognize that the share you got in 1960 was disproportional and today your side again demands disproportional share on just about everything. You are the racists for demanding such things... not me who is pointing out the FACT. You keep talking about enosis when we have established that you want your minority to essentially be able to overwrite the democratic choices of the Cypriot people on ANY issue you want.

Actually I do recognise that some of the proportions in the 60's agreements were disproportional and have said so several times in the past but the principal that we have a right to resist something like enosis being imposed on us in our own homeland against our will that is embodied in those agreements is NOT disproportional , nor is it racist and nor is it unfair.

when we have established that you want your minority to essentially be able to overwrite the democratic choices of the Cypriot people on ANY issue you want.

I have made is absolutely plain and clear without any ambiguity that the ONLY time I want my community to be able to block the imposition of things on them is when you can not even get 10% support from the TC community for such things. From that you now claim I demand the right to 'overwrite the democratic choices of the Cypriot people on ANY issue my community wants'. It is absurd and just proves why such discussion with you is pointless. You turn 'block imposition' into 'overwrite' any you turn 'clearly defined and limited issues' into 'any issues'. Seriously dude.

Your natural rights are your human rights and minority rights as they exist for all other minorities.

Yet not a single country supported you in such a position in 1959 not even Greece and today not a single country supports you in such a position.

We have also a natural right to our human rights and the majority rights...which in the case of democracy is that Majority Rules. The problems started because you showed disrespect to our rights. Not only you violated our human rights for centuries... but you never accepted the democratic principle of Majority Rules.

Sorry 'majority rights' ? Under what charters exactly as these 'majority rights' defined ?

The purpose of democracy is to give people an effective voice in the decision that shape and control their lives. That is what democracy tries to achieve. One person one vote can be an effective MEANS to achieve that purpose but ONLY when there is a larger commonality between the persons voting and how you vote is not defined by a physical unchangeable attribute but by personal choice. This is why in unions between states, or between federal or regional units within a state the unit of democracy is NOT one person one vote but one nation one vote or one federal element one vote or one region one vote. But let me try and make it plainer to a simple minded soul like yourself. Lets imagine 10 friends decide to form a 'film club' whereby once a week they all agree to go see a film and then afterwards sit around and discuss it. Lets also say the 10 are made up of 6 women and 4 men. Lets further say that as it turns out deciding what film to go and see is always decided by if you are male or female. Females always want to see one type of film and males a different type. Under you version of 'democracy' the women will ALWAYS get to see the kind of film they want to see and the men will NEVER get to see a film they want to see. That's is your idea of democracy and the 'right of the majority'. My version would accept that as far as how the members of the club determine what film they want to go and see is defined not by personal choice regardless of gender but by the fixed and unchanging attribute OF gender, then simple one person one vote does NOT provide a means of meeting the purpose of democracy , that people have an effective voice in the decision that affect them. That in actual fact it is a means that defeats the purpose of democracy. In my world I would accept this and look for some other means than simple one person one vote. In this particular simplified scenario I would say the intent of democracy is better served by a system that says any time the vote on choice of film is all women for (or against) a given film and all men for (or against) a different film, then 6 times out of 10 the women get their choice and 4 times the men do.

I put it to you Sotos that you do NOT in fact believe in democracy at all but in actuality only believe in your communities RIGHT to dominate mine in our shared homeland whatever you wish to impose on us at all. You want the RIGHT to dominate - it is plain and clear. I want a right to do nothing more than resist such domination.

[Get Real!]

Where did you get the rights from Sotos?

You claim to be a descendant of Mycenaeans (as dumb as it is) but your race/people are extinct!