Cyprus-Forum.com

[cypriotnado]

While before the war Bosnia was a messy patchwork of ethnicities with no discernable regions devoted to a single ethnicity...

Not true. There were discernable regions before the war. The war and the ethnic cleansing just changed the shape of those regions. So even without the ethnic cleansing they could still have the same kind of federation. While in Cyprus there could never be a bi-zonal federation without ethnic cleansing. I hope now it is clear what I am saying.

Around 1,5 million people were displaced. That is ethnic cleansing It was probably the most significant episode of its kind post war.Your map is accurate but not very good representation a far better map is below it shows the degree of ethnic distribution more accurately. What then followed this ethnic cleansing was the setting up of a federation taking into account the new reality!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cl ... osnian_War

But I am sure you will disagree so Lets agree to disagree!

Lets better focus on Cyprus. Ethnic cleansing in Cyprus in modern times began under British rule and then post 1960 independence. many TC were compelled for security to live in enclaves. Whole villages or parts of villages and towns were abandonned. So ethnic cleansing, is not a new phenomenon to Cyprus. You aIso talk abt living under occupation. Property is occupied, true but Greek Cypriots with the exception of a few hundred are not living under occupation. Thats the problem in another generation those occupied homes will be the property of descendents and not refugees, many of those homes even now no longer exist and many of those that do will have been torn down. Future generations will not know these towns or villages in the north,the sense of belonging to that place will have been forgotten.This applies equally to TCYs with the towns and villages in the south. Greece lived under Ottoman occupation but with the Greek population still in place. Big difference! How can you maintain aspirations for a land where none of the people live. The only example I can think of where this was achieved was Israel and the biblical references are challengeable. But I guess for you far better to maintain the status quo then to have a deal that you cannot accept. As the only deal for you and those like you is a return to pre 74. Annan was partly rejected because many were convinced that the EU would step in I fear the rejectionists are making a similar mistake. The TC rejectionists are also content as they prefer division.

[Oceanside50]

the question is..what is a federation?

Thats the problem in another generation those occupied homes will be the property of descendents and not refugees, many of those homes even now no longer exist and many of those that do will have been torn down. Future generations will not know these towns or villages in the north,the sense of belonging to that place will have been forgotten.This applies equally to TCYs with the towns and villages in the south. Greece lived under Ottoman occupation but with the Greek population still in place. Big difference! How can you maintain aspirations for a land where none of the people live. The only example I can think of where this was achieved was Israel and the biblical references are challengeable. But I guess for you far better to maintain the status quo then to have a deal that you cannot accept. As the only deal for you and those like you is a return to pre 74

The Tc leadership has always insisted on majority and mechanisms to ensure the tc have a majority in their constituent state..why?

in a federation a constituent state functions as a mini state within a bigger state. The constituent state, according to the Annan plan, would have its own parliament,which would be elected by its constituent state citizens, a court system including a supreme court, separate from the federal court system and federal Supreme Court....Citizens of the constituent state usually vote into state office people that they feel share their views....For instance in California, people have voted into office MP's that support marijuanna legalization and gay marriage...therefore California has legalized marijuanna and gay marriage...these laws are separate from federal laws, they are state laws and legal within the boundaries of the state of California....any questions thus far?

[Oceanside50]

If there are no questions we'll move onto,

Today's topic:
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

[Oceanside50]

If there are no questions we'll move onto,

Today's topic:
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

in a Federation we also have state Supreme Courts:

In the United States, a state supreme court (known by other names in some states) is the ultimate judicial tribunal in the court system of a particular state (i.e., that state's court of last resort).

[Oceanside50]

What influences a state or federal Supreme Courts decision, especially on social issues?

The opinion that has prevailed is that the law is decided in accordance with the view expressed by a majority , and this is so even if in a particular matter a heavenly voice (see *Bat-Kol) should declare that the law is according to the minority opinion (BM 59a).

so laws are judged not by morality but by what the majority expresses....the majority would not follow a law that it does not agree with

for instance Gay marriage, as soon as public opinion changed, the federal Supreme Court stepped in and made it legal

The decision, which was the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, set off jubilation and tearful embraces across the country, the first same-sex marriages in several states, and resistance — or at least stalling — in others. It came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of the unions.

There are many instances of public opinion swaying Supreme Court decisions on the state level and on the Federal level....including slavery, separate but equal legislation in certain southern states, and whether or not a slave was the property of a slave owner once he crossed the mason dixon line...All of these decisions were made and later changed according to public opinion and the wishes of the majority, first on the state level and then at the federal level....or vice versa or neither

[Oceanside50]

The Supreme Courts decision whether its at the federal level or state level, makes it the law of the land.....the interesting part of the way a constituent state functions, is that laws tend to branch out, or clone themselves into other parts of society...heres an example of federal and state law cloning themselves into enforcing segregation in the south(USA)...

"..Jim Crow laws were state and local laws enforcing racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued in force until 1965. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in states of the former Confederate States of America, starting in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans. Conditions for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to those available to white Americans. This body of law institutionalized a number of economic, educational, and social disadvantages. De jure segregation mainly applied to the Southern United States, while Northern segregation was generally de facto — patterns of housing segregation enforced by private covenants, bank lending practices, and job discrimination, including discriminatory labor union practices..."

Plessy v Ferguson is a good place to start in explaining these Jim Crow laws, that could be defined in todays terms regarding Cyprus as derogations, which were plastered all over the Annan Plan and what the Tc have wanted and agreed to by over 76%.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal"

Since the legality of segregation was institutionalized in 1896 with Plessy v Ferguson, by the Supreme Court of the USA, the individual states toke it upon themselves to branch out or clone the Supreme Courts ruling, to include housing segregation, bank practices, hiring practices, and even labor union practices..

How does this apply to Cyprus and the proposed BBF plan, thats being negotiated at the moment?? Lets hear your answers....RW I'm expecting a thoughtful response from you since you wrote a "manifesto" about a BBF...

[repulsewarrior]

...well I am of the same view as you it seems; i have confidence that a Modern political process could and should reflect the realisations that are a real advancement in our abilities as societies to organise ourselves in a manner where the benefit is greatest, having the widest array of choices. Here in Canada, or the USA, the identity called "person" is far more complex it seems, it is not so easy a distinction to describe, "gay" as a Person, Iowan as a Person, Native as a Person, Atheist as a Person, etc., but as Individuals, it is pretty clear, because in that respect they, as in all these people do not see things differently, and they are prepared to work as Citizens for a State, toward defending what Universal Principals, the Freedom which offers such Liberty, as such, that they stand for.

...what is missing is another, or other, Cypriot Constituencies; a Federation, the balance between a set of Constituencies and representation as a State. The Republic exists, a Turkish Constituency seeks an equal, in Justice more a matter of Civil Law, whether within a Constituency, it has the capacity or not to execute Criminal Law, or Federal Law, there is a custom in essence, (a common language, schools, hospitals) among its electorate, which in they, as Persons (and trough self representation), they will want to sustain. A Unitary Government offers the least cost, it is its singular advantage, Cyprus is beyond that choice, we either submit to the interlocutors' will to have it, as "Greeks", and identify ourselves as "Turkish'' or "Greek" as though Cypriot is not possible, or we derive from this identity, as Cypriots, something better, while as Cypriots recognising (that although the overwhelming majority is Greek, that recognition of this fact is important too) that we are something more than "Greeks", and that there exists an ethnos which is Cypriot, as Cypriots worth defending too.

...there cannot not be a Republic of Cyprus, no amount of denial can change or influence the vast majority's intention to live in Freedom, respectfully, and as Human Beings, equals. Freedom is Freedom, let's not forget that. Liberty may have its distinctions or discrimination, having to be "black" for example, to describe yourself as "black", but in America, it seems Race, as in Gender, we discover the diversity in defining such terms are far more complex. And in Cyprus we must also overcome our own fears as a People, so that our diversity is our strength, because we are a People, and because Cyprus is an island after all.

...nice topic, thanks ocean, first thoughts, i will reread and try to contribute more; cheers.

[Lordo]

it really could not be simpler. one constituent state will not be able to dictate to the other. all within eu principles. what more do you need.

we had a constitutional court before in 1963 and we all know how you boys treated that one. there is not that much faith in what you do. you do as you please so long as you do not dictate to the tcs and all will be fine.

[Get Real!]

it really could not be simpler. one constituent state will not be able to dictate to the other. all within eu principles. what more do you need.

You mean like the Kurdish state in E.Turkey?

It’s just as well the G3s and hundreds of rounds of ammo are kept in each citizen’s home…

[kurupetos]

it really could not be simpler. one constituent state will not be able to dictate to the other. all within eu principles. what more do you need.

we had a constitutional court before in 1963 and we all know how you boys treated that one. there is not that much faith in what you do. you do as you please so long as you do not dictate to the tcs and all will be fine.

Only a unitary state will be accepted. Find something else to play with.