Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

Othello,
I’ ve been watching your posts, and may I just say that each and everyone is nothing less than a masterpiece of dialectic, square logic, and documentation. Congratulations my friend!

[-mikkie2-]

Erol,

I am afraid that I am baffled by your argument!

Are you perhaps saying that you support some kind of conditional racism then?

The question that is being asked is very simple, but your answer is anything but.

I can accept his reasoning on this as long as he also admits that the restrictions on EU citizens is also racist in the same nature if not the same degree (because the degree of restriction is different)

But Europe is motly made up of a Caucasian White ethnicity. Can you elaborate on examples of racism in the EU, or restrictions? Perhaps you are confusing NATIONHOOD with RACE - two totally different things.

I do sense that you are digging a hole for yourself here. Most GC's don't consider the restrictions to be imposed as anything other than racist! There is a big difference between restricting freedom of movement and settlement of all citizens in one country as opposed to EU-wide.

[erolz]

Are you perhaps saying that you support some kind of conditional racism then?

No I have clearly stated that I do not think the restrictions that are suggested should apply to GC and TC in Cyprus are racist. If I am forced to use a limited defintion of racism that forces me to accept they are racist - then I argue that by the SAME defintion the restrictions on some EU citizens are also racist - but obviously not considered a problem by those they apply to or by those applying them (the EU).

But Europe is motly made up of a Caucasian White ethnicity. Can you elaborate on examples of racism in the EU, or restrictions? Perhaps you are confusing NATIONHOOD with RACE - two totally different things.

I am saying that if you define racisim strictly by the defintion (not provided by me but provided by Othellos - supposedly to support his view that restrictions on GC were racist) suppied earlier then by that defintion both the restrictions proposed on Cypriots (GC and TC) and those that currently exist on some EU citizens are racist. The defintion provided makes no such distinction of race and nationality - in fact it explicitly mentions both.
So are you saying a solution that defines two states in a federal Cyprus where citizenship is defined and held firstly at the state level , and then restricts GC nationals in their rights in the TC state is not racist but one that ahs a single Cypriot citizenship and nationality is racist?

I do sense that you are digging a hole for yourself here.

You can do and will sense whatever you want to sense. I sense an attempt to 'divert' attention away from the unambigous, direct, black and white racist postings actively made here.

Most GC's don't consider the restrictions to be imposed as anything other than racist!

Undoubdetly they do. I could consider GC insitance that TC can have no political status greater than minority in Cyprus as racist - but I do not. I also do not say that such is the same in nature, intent or motivation as Piratis' racist comments either.

There is a big difference between restricting freedom of movement and settlement of all citizens in one country as opposed to EU-wide.

I have repeatedly said I accept and understand this difference - what I have failed to understand is why it changes the aspect of 'are they racist or not' - unless you are talking about degrees of racist. Either you can say they are both racist (which is not generally accepted by the EU both those restricted and those restricting) or that neither is racist, or talk about one being more racist than the other. What you can not logicaly do imo is talk about one being racist and the other not being racist.

[-mikkie2-]

No I have clearly stated that I do not think the restrictions that are suggested should apply to GC and TC in Cyprus are racist.

No? What are they then?

If I am forced to use a limited defintion of racism that forces me to accept they are racist - then I argue that by the SAME defintion the restrictions on some EU citizens are also racist - but obviously not considered a problem by those they apply to or by those applying them (the EU).

I asked you for an example of these restrictions within the EU. Care to enlighten me?

I sense an attempt to 'divert' attention away from the unambigous, direct, black and white racist postings actively made here.

You too may sense what you like as well. However, I do think that you perhaps are finding it difficult to explain your position and that you just can't admit that the geographical separation and consequent request to restrict freedom of movement and settlement of Cypriots within their own country is a form of racism.

[erolz]

No? What are they then?

They are (potentialy) necessary restrictions in order to solve the cyprus issue and reunite the ISland in a federtal bi zonal structure - not motivated by hatred of GC or any other race / nationality but by the history of the Cyprus problem.

I asked you for an example of these restrictions within the EU. Care to enlighten me?

I neglected to give them _again_. Have you actualy been reading the discussion? The restrictions I refer to are those that limit the freedom of some new entry Eu citizens to live and work anywhere in the EU - based on their nationality.

You too may sense what you like as well. However, I do think that you perhaps are finding it difficult to explain your position and that you just can't admit that the geographical separation and consequent request to restrict freedom of movement and settlement of Cypriots within their own country is a form of racism.

I am certainly finding it difficult to explain my position it would seem. That may be down to my position being 'weak', my expalination skills being weak or your understanding skills being weak or any conmbination of these.

I can admit it is racist, depending on how you define racist. If I use my personal defintion (as explained before) then they are not racist. If I use the quoted one from Othellos they are racist - and so are the restrctions already in place and accepted on some EU citizens mentioned above. Is that really so hard to understand?

Anyway I leave for the ariport now and will be back in 3 or so weeks so whilst I may 'pop in' to the forum I will not be participating at my normal level for this period. Please do not 'sense' that my reduced posting are evidence or proof of my disbelief in what I am saying - for a fear you might 'sense' such.

[Othellos]

…….So now we get to a 'new' position - as it seems to me. Both are racist, but one is more racist that the other. This was not your position originaly as I understood it. There is nothing worng in refining your postion and reasoning by the way.

I think that what I write has been consistent all along: restricting someone's rights as a citizen just because of his national background or religion is racist. Clarifying further certain points that are raised in a discussion does not constitute a new position, unless of course one prefers to play around with words.

I am not sure what 'secutity excuse' you are reffering too. I have talked about there being reasons why TC want (those that do) such restrictions on GC (for a period or indefinately).

Security has often been cited as one of the reasons why the return of the GCs is not wanted by the TC side. My understanding is that the Turkish side seeks restrictions on the return of GCs that will either be permanent, or temporary enough to have a permanent effect. This will create an effectively Turkish state in the north part of Cyprus, something that has been Ankara's goal all along. Imo however, if we are after a solution that will truly unify the island then the first priority must be the interests of all Cypriots and not Ankara's.

While GCs have no reason to be concerned in a partnership with the TCs, they are absolutely justified to worry about Turkey's role in Cyprus after a solution. Unfortunately many GCs thought that these concerns were not addressed adequately in the Annan plan and this also contributed to its rejection.

There are restrictions placed on some EU citizens and they have been accepted by those restricted and those doing the restrictions. There are considered to be 'good' reasons for these (temporary) restrictions and they are not generally reagrded as racist.

What are the specific examples that you have in mind and how do these compare with Cyprus where the current division is the result of an invasion and an ethnic cleansing operation by Turkey?

If you want my personal defintion of racism its to label someone different from yourself (by race, nationality or religion) as worse than yourself because they are different.

As I wrote earlier, racism can be expressed in many ways, so it is no surprise that there are many different ways to define it. Your definition above as well as the one I provided earlier are just 2 of them. The real issue though is to be able to go beyond definitions and examine a particular situation as well as what really offends people as being racist and why? My impression in this discussion so far is that you prefer to explore the wording of definitions but ignore the real issue.

Actions that are motivate by such a belief are also racists. Actions that are motivated by other beleifs but result in material differences based on race, nationality or religion are not racist. It is the motivation that matters to me. They key point to me is a motive force internally of hatred of a group based on race/ nationality or religious differences. This is the core of what 'racisim' means to me and why it is so dangerous (the hatred element).

While you are debating definitions and meanings you are still ignoring the core of the matter.

You said restrictions on GC were racist.
I said are the restrictions on EU citizens then racist.
You pointed out the differences of the restrictions. You did not accept (or deny) that the restrictions mentioned were racist - you avoided the point originally on the basis of the differences of the restrictions.

Again, the only case I discussed was the one of Turkey that is not even a valid example as this country is not a EU member (although I did clarify what I think about this if they ever become members).

The question , as far as I am concerned is does the EU consider temporary restrictions based on race / nationality 'racist'. I believe they do not (because they have agreed such restrictions on some members and if they though such was racist in the common everyday meaning of the word they would not have imposed them) or that if they do they accept that in certain sistuations such 'racist' policies are necessary and acceptable……

These restrictions that can affect 8 of the 10 new members will remain in effect for a pre specified time (7 years max if I am not mistaken). Furthermore these (temporary as you point out) restrictions were never designed to block out other EU citizens because o their national backgrounds – if that was the case then why make them members in the first place? Instead they were designed to make the integration of these new members in the EU smoother. On the other hand, the derogations that the Turkish side sought (and seeks) in Cyprus are not short in time and their effects will not be temporary but permanent - obviously their primary aim is to restrict the indigenous population from returning to the north part of their island where they existed for millennia and this only because they are Greek. This is racist and if I may add, Turkey's past / present record in dealing with ethnic and religious minorities within her borders only confirms this.

……There is an 'ideal' of free movement of people to live and work anywhere in the EU and there is the reality that the EU has shown it will accept less than this idea when deemed necessary on a tmeporary basis and consider it it on a permanent basis.

How has reality shown that it will accept less than this idea of free movement when deemed necessary? The temporary restrictions that were placed in some new EU member countries are only a temporary "reality" for the reasons I explained above. And as for Turkey's membership, this is not reality yet – some even say that it is utopia - and therefore there is no reason to discuss it.

I think that if there is a good enough reason for such restrictions you can argue that such limits based on race are not racists (the motivation is not rooted in hatred of a race) and are acceptable.

So how would you "justify" the restriction of people from part of their island because they happen to be of a particular national background, without this being regarded by anyone (including them) as racist and segregating?

Like the restrictions on USA citizens to not be ablee to freely live work or settle in the Native Indian Nations within the USA. That is a restrition on USA citizens to their total freedoms within their own 'country' based on race. Native Indian americans can live on their reservations or in the rest of the USA. The non natvie americans can not. I do not see this as racist (quite the reverse it is an attempt to correct previous racism) and I do nto think the american people see this protected status for this group as racist or an infringment of their human rights.

From the little I know ther American Indians who are also the indigenous people of their country, were also the victims of ethnic cleansing just like the GCs were. But at least even you say that the Indians can settle anywhere in their country US. The Cypriots cannot do even that in their own country.

…….If I though the TC desire for some limits on GC (and their own) total rights to live and work anywhere in Cyprus were based in hatred and not on valid reasons of necessity then I would condem them as strongly as I have condemed Piratis racists comments - which are clearly rooted in hatred of a race.

So what are these "valid reasons" that call for permanent restrictions in Cyprus (even if these are disguised as temporary)?

You have more Euro Mp's per amount of population than larger countries (and more so than TC would have vs GC), more EU commisioners per amount of population (and vastly more so that TC would have vs GC in Cyprus) and more memebers of the council (again vastly more so). Yet you are not sure the RoC is disproprtionately represented within the EU (according to the 'simple' defintion of what democracy is - as to be used in Cyprus)? I am sorry but with respect I find your reasoning here weak and just 'sopistry'.

The fact is that being a newcomer in the EU, Cyprus never had much to do with establishing the numbers of Euro MP's or commissioners for each state. It is also a fact that effective representation in the EU requires such staff numbers that a small country may not be able to afford or recruit easily. So how can you be "over represented" when you cannot be effectively represented? Again erolz, you chose to ignore the practical aspects of a situation, yet it is these that really matter.

If you wish to argue that represntation diproportionate to numerical numbers is unacceptable in Cyprus between TC and GC, as a mtter of democratic principal, then you must accept the same is true of in the EU with regard to RoC and larger members - and even more so. This is the incosistency I seek to highlight and counter here. For the record I do not think that any system that has such disproprtionate representation is fundamentaly unfair, unacceptable or undemocratic - either in Cyprus between TC and GC or within the EU.

Such an argument would perhaps be valid if EU membership also meant abolishing the statehood of each member, but this is not he case. So, who is complaining in Europe about the over representation of smaller states, how are the smaller states taking over the EU and how are the rights of other fellow EU citizens being affected?

So you argument is not that anything other than majority rule is unacceptable, unfair and undemocratic. You argument is that it would be so in Cyprus because TC have shown their 'irresponsible' use of such disproprtionate representation in the past? If so this is a very different position to the impression I got from previous post of yours.

Like I said, it all depends on how the rights of others are affected by over representation. Leaving aside any responsibilities of the GC leadership, it is my opinion that the TC leadership has not always made wise and responsible use of its privileges as these were defined in the 1960 Constitution. When Cyprus starts abusing its position in the EU at the expense of other members, then its "over representation" will also be a problem.

My point exactly. So if anything other than 'majority rule' (as you define it in Cyprus) is undemoractic then the EU is undemocratic and by a greater degree. The disproprtionate to their numbers reresentation the TC desire in Cyprus (for valid non hatred/ racist based reason imo) is much less than that enjoyed by the RoC today within EU. Yet one is undemocratic and the other is not? (because you dont have as many comittee members - which again I think it you work out vs your population size you will still have more per head of population than lartger states)

Again the same over repeated "over representation" argument. Please take a minute to explain to us erolz how have these smaller states (including Cyprus) managed to impose their desires regarding the level of their representatives in a particular EU body over the larger states, how is this affecting the rights and liberties of other EU citizens and how are they complaining about it? After all the EU is neither the product of signing agreements at gunpoint back in 1960, nor the outcome of an invasion and an ethnic cleansing in 1974. Instead, it is the willing and conscious effort of several European countries to cooperate in a number of different areas. If you do not like it you simply stay out of it.

And if you felt that the restrictions on GC were not 'opressing' you but a necessary (quite possibly) temporary measure, based not on hatred of GC, but on a need to find a way for us to renuite that is realisitc and acceptable to all and takes into account our history - there would not be a problem and it would not be undemocratic. So it's up to you!

Restricting the number and timing for the return of GC refugees into a few thousands and for as long as 18 years was not designed as a temporary or even reuniting measure. Instead it was devised to discourage GCs from returning ever to their ancestral homelands. In 18 years time, those GCs who were chased out of the north as children in 1974 will be in their mid 50's or 60's and in no position to start over again.

I have never said the EU is undemocratic. I have said if you are going to insist that anytthin in Cyprus that means representation of the TC community greater than is numerical proportion is undemocratic then you also have to say the Eu is undemocratic.

What I said was that in the case of Cyprus, the over representation of the TCs did cause an additional point of friction between the 2 communities. It was also up to the TCs to use this over representation and their privileges wisely and just manner. But Denktash and Ankara had other plans.

O.

[Othellos]

Othello,
I’ ve been watching your posts, and may I just say that each and everyone is nothing less than a masterpiece of dialectic, square logic, and documentation. Congratulations my friend!

Thank you, MicAtCyp.

O.