Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

You are saying that the GC's stole the TC's rights to an apartheid before the invasion and occupation....and the GC's were wrong.

You just unilaterally declaring that the legal 60's agreements, that you along with Greece and others signed, were 'apartheid' and thus you could just legally ignore those parts of them you did not like by force and not by legal challenge is what strikes me as 'redonkeylous'

[Maximus]

And where would Cyprus seek legal redress for this Erolz?

Constitutional amendments can be changed by simple majority vote. Thats how it works in normal independent democratic countries.

But you think that the TC's have a legal right to disproportional representation in government, disproportionate shares from the state treasury and a veto against the legislative agenda of the country. (re-read first sentence and let that sink in)

Just for your information, the definition of apartheid is a system or policy of segregation or discrimination based on race. This is an absolutely correct description of the system the TC's demand and claim is their "legal right" and it is being perpetuated today, as you write your redonkeylous inept opinions.

[Sotos]

If you accept something which you know is stolen then you are just as criminal as the one who stole it.

Is taking away a communities legal constitutional rights, outside of any legitimate legal process, not stealing ?

The right to property is a human right.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declara ... an-rights/

On the other hand "legal constitutional rights" are not human rights. As Maximus correctly said those agreements were signed under duress and after being blackmailed. The court system was also rigged as part of the "agreement". This is like saying to a slave a few centuries ago that there is nothing wrong with being a slave because it is permitted by the constitution. If the salve challenged this at the courts he would lose, because according to the law of the time there was nothing wrong in having slaves! If the slaves revolted to free themselves, would their former masters then say that the slaves "stole" from them their "legal constitutional rights"?

Even today many countries have some very nasty laws. To say that what is right is necessarily whatever the constitution happens to say, is simply not true.

Therefore to compare human rights, with unjust and racist constitutional rights is incorrect. Violating human rights is wrong. Removing racist constitutional rights is NOT wrong.

During the various conflicts our side of course has also committed crimes which we admit.

But removing racist constitutional rights was certainly not a crime.

[Maximus]

So so far,

The major obstacles and impediment to a feasible and just solution for a united Cyprus are;

1. Stolen property that the TC's are reluctant to return.
2. The TC's expecting and demanding an apartheid system,

Which is being enforced by Turkey and this is another major obstacle.

Up to now, I cant see where the GC's are creating any obstacles.

[Sotos]

And where would Cyprus seek legal redress for this Erolz?

Constitutional amendments can be changed by simple majority vote. Thats how it works in normal independent democratic countries.

But you think that the TC's have a legal right to disproportional representation in government, disproportionate shares from the state treasury and a veto against the legislative agenda of the country. (re-read first sentence and let that sink in)

Just for your information, the definition of apartheid is a system or policy of segregation or discrimination based on race. This is an absolutely correct description of the system the TC's demand and claim is their "legal right" and it is being perpetuated today, as you write your redonkeylous inept opinions.

Well said Maximus. We are talking about an apartheid type of system. Even in federations (the prosperous ones at least) while the territory might be divided in states, all citizens are equal without any discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, religion or anything else. Even in places like Belgium or the Swiss Confederation, citizens are equal and can live in any state they choose with full political rights and no quotas.

And if we were to divide the population by ethnic groups then at the very least this division should be proportional. Otherwise not only it is racist, but on top of that it is unfair. Establishing by force a country with such terms is just a ticking bomb waiting to explode. Those who are at fault are those who imposed such constitution, not those who had to manage the unmanageable that was handed to them!

[erolz66]

And where would Cyprus seek legal redress for this Erolz?

In the first instance you take your grievance to the legal constitutional court that you agreed to when you signed the 60's agreements, except when that did not give the reply you wanted you simply ignored it and just went ahead and took what you claimed was your by right by force. That is the definition of theft. The legal route ion the face of failure at the constitutional court would be to have campaigned, over decades if necessary just as the ANC did with their grievance, until you could find a legal route to get the changes you wanted. You did not do this, you instead used illegal force to take what legally was not yours to take.

Constitutional amendments can be changed by simple majority vote. Thats how it works in normal independent democratic countries.

No it is not. There are laws in every country that has a written constitution that govern by what process the constitution can be legally changed. Just as there were in Cyprus in the 60's. You just ignored these and took by force what you claimed was yours by right.

But you think that the TC's have a legal right to disproportional representation in government, disproportionate shares from the state treasury and a veto against the legislative agenda of the country. (re-read first sentence and let that sink in)

I do not think it, it is just a fact that the 60's agreements legally granted such rights to the TC community. If the word legality is to have any meaning beyond what you just unilaterally declare is legal

All you are saying is our theft was justified, yours was not.

[Maximus]

You are just making it up as you go along,

Constitutional amendments are made by simple majority vote in independent democratic countries.

On the one hand you are saying, these "legal rights" needs to be challenged in a court of law. But on the other hand you are saying that the TC's have a right to a veto against the legislative agenda of the majority. Which basically renders any legal redress as non existent. <--- this should give you a clue that the legal rights of the TC's are legally invalid. But you are still clueless.

So on one foot then, you say that these rights the TC's were given, (under duress I will add) may have been unfair, but you continue to believe that they are "your rights" to discriminate against another race. This would make you a racist by the way.

You are creating a self defeating straw man argument in favor of apartheid.

In the real world, your redonkeylous inept opinion creates conflicts, theft of property and unjust systems that are destined to implode.

well done, you are going to win the Darwin award.

[erolz66]

As Maximus correctly said those agreements were signed under duress and after being blackmailed. The court system was also rigged as part of the "agreement". This is like saying to a slave a few centuries ago that there is nothing wrong with being a slave because it is permitted by the constitution. If the salve challenged this at the courts he would lose, because according to the law of the time there was nothing wrong in having slaves! If the slaves revolted to free themselves, would their former masters then say that the slaves "stole" from them their "legal constitutional rights"?

You are confusing what is right with what is legal. They are not the same thing. If someone is defined in law as a slave then legally they are a slave. When slavery was legally abolished in Britain, slave owners did say their property was being stolen from them and they were paid compensation for that loss (the former slaves were paid nothing) because that was the only LEGAL way to abolish slavery.

Even today many countries have some very nasty laws. To say that what is right is necessarily whatever the constitution happens to say, is simply not true.

I never said what is in the constitution is always morally right. I said it is what is legally true. You saying you can just ignore the law if YOU consider it 'morally wrong' is your prerogative but that does not make such actions LEGAL.

Therefore to compare human rights, with unjust and racist constitutional rights is incorrect. Violating human rights is wrong. Removing racist constitutional rights is NOT wrong.

Removing legally granted constitutional rights outside of any legal process by force is simply illegal. All you are saying is our illegalities, our thefts were morally justified and yours were / are not.

But removing racist constitutional rights was certainly not a crime.

Removing such rights that were legally conferred, no matter how unjust YOU may consider them, outside of any and all legal process by the use of force including depriving individuals of their right to life, like in the case of my uncle, is by definition a crime. That you claim otherwise just indicates the you proclaim the preeminence of the law when it gives you what you want and just ignore it when it does not.

[erolz66]

Even in federations (the prosperous ones at least) while the territory might be divided in states, all citizens are equal without any discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, religion or anything else. Even in places like Belgium or the Swiss Confederation, citizens are equal and can live in any state they choose with full political rights and no quotas.

Under the 60's agreements any Cypriot could live any where in Cyprus without any restriction and all citizens as individuals were equal.

[erolz66]

You are just making it up as you go along,

Constitutional amendments are made by simple majority vote in independent democratic countries.

Actually you are the one who is making it up here. Just check what the legal requirements are for changing the written constitution in countries that have such like say the US or Germany or hundreds of other examples and you will see that in fact the idea that constitutions can be changed by a simple majority vote is utter nonsense.

On the one hand you are saying, these "legal rights" needs to be challenged in a court of law. But on the other hand you are saying that the TC's have a right to a veto against the legislative agenda of the majority. Which basically renders any legal redress as non existent. <--- this should give you a clue that the legal rights of the TC's are legally invalid. But you are still clueless.

No I am not saying that. You are saying I am saying that which is not the same thing. I am saying that for something to be done legally it must be done according to the law as it is written. You just deciding that something as it is written in law is 'unjust' does not mean you can then just unilaterally ignore the law as it is written and use force and murder to silence those who oppose such illegal changes.

So on one foot then, you say that these rights the TC's were given, (under duress I will add) may have been unfair, but you continue to believe that they are "your rights" to discriminate against another race. This would make you a racist by the way.

I am saying that you can not just ignore the law as it is written by force and claim that such action is legal. It is not. When you take something grated to someone via legal means by using illegal means, that is the definition of theft.

In the real world, your redonkeylous inept opinion creates conflicts, theft of property and unjust systems that are destined to implode.

Cyprus did implode in 74 and we are living with the result today. A major factor in that implosion was this very notion that GC can unilaterally ignore what is in written and agreed law if they alone decide it is unfair and then use force against anyone who opposes such actions.