Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Unless vast majority of TCs support the will of GC communities vast majority, you can't consider it as the common will of vast majority of Cypriots.

So the 100% of GCs + 100% Armenians + 100% Latins + 100% Marnonites + 49% of TCs = 90% of Cypriots it is not a vast majority of Cypriots????

Majority = 50% + 1 vote from all Cypriots.
Vast majority depends on what you believe is "vast". Most said that the 76% "no" in the referendum was "vast". But as I showed you it is possible to have a super vast majority without even having a majority of TCs.

And the minority rights should be granted to the manorities.

So except from the number difference, what is the difference between TCs and Maronites? (apart from what the TCs gained after 1960 using the power of Turkey).

[Piratis]

So the 100% of GCs + 100% Armenians + 100% Latins + 100% Marnonites + 49% of TCs = 90% of Cypriots it is not a vast majority of Cypriots????

By the way, according to the above, if most of the settlers stay, it is possible that even the 100% of true Cypriots will not be a "vast enought" majority!!!!

[MicAtCyp]

I still however remain unsure on what basis you accept we have such rights. The rights are more than the rights of the minority (as per the UN declerations) but less than the (total) rights of self determination. For me I expressed this as a right to self determination (for TC and GC) but with an acceptance of the need for limits and compromise on both sides. If it is to be expressed as some kind of 'third category' (more than a minority and less than a people) then my concern is based arounf there being no internationaly recognised status for such a 'third category'.

I will answer you honestly Erol. It came out of my mind neither by thinking of minority neither of community neither of a people neither of benevolence neither of anything. It came out by putting myself into your shoes, and by deep thinking. Please do the same from your side for our concerns and rights.

Perhaps Cypriots (TC and GC togeather) could ask the UN to formulate and recognise this 'third category' to help a Cyprus solution, but not recognised anywehere else (like the UN) is not sufficent to allay my fears / concerns. . . . .

Regarding your suggestion to apply to the UN to clarify as from which status these rights got accepted I have no objection whatsoever if that would help ease your fears and concerns. However please think about it. You and me might be mature enough to accept what the UN will say, are you sure the majority of the ordinary people are mature enough?
My personal opinion on the matter of fears/concerns is the same as that of Piratis. Any solution must pass through a referendum. Passing through a referendum is a proof the GCs and the TCs do like it and have no reason to decline from it.
I may also add another important reason. We suffered from our mistakes you suffered from your mistakes. Do you think there is ANY possibility to do the same mistakes either us or you?

[erolz]

The way to do this is simple: Respect international laws International laws are made to protect people. In the past both communities did not respect them and as a result we all suffered.
A correct constitution will enhance these international laws and adjust them to serve the uniqueness of our island but should not be contradictory to any international law. This way our laws and our constitution will be an additional protection for all Cypriots. And since they will be compatible will EU and international laws nobody will be able to remove the 100% legal protections you will have.

You argue that the consitution must be in accordance to international law then talk of 'enhacing and adjusting these laws (which would be the basis of TC protections). This is a contradiction. The enhancments and adjustments' by their very nature and necessity will place limits on what you consider to be a 'Cypriot' (GC dominated) right to self determination which is not an 'adjusted and enhanced' right. We had such 100% legal protections before and they did not protect our rights. If anything you offer less protection than we had before by your insistance that the only recognised category that TC can be in is as a minority. This is not solution. This is just a demand for capitulation, without compromise under a (pretty ineffectual imo) guise of reasonableness.

If we have to accept a status of minority under international law - as you insist - then any 'adjustments and enhancments' to our rights are simply not worth the paper they are written on as shown by history and your postion today. They are simply an 'unassailable bastion' from which GC can gain total control of Cyprus at some later stage. Not good enough for me I am afraid

There are international laws about minorities, about individual rights, about democracy, about freedoms of religion, speech, movement etc. I really can't see how you can be harmed by being a citizen of an EU country that respects the 100% of all these.

I can not be harmed by such laws. I can be harmed by your interpretation of these laws and rights. By your denial that TC have any of the rights of a people. By your insistance that we are just a minority and nothing more in Cyprus. That is what can harm the TC community / people in cyprus.

Now somebody can think: "hey, I am bored of all these idiots around me. I just want to grab a chunk of land, declare it independent and be the king". Maybe this sounds better than the international laws, but is well ... illegal.

Somebody can also think "I want unrestricted and total control for my community in Cyprus. If I say this now I will get now where. First I must remove the miltary presense that blocks my aspirations. I can not do this by force because I am unable. I must therefore do it by 'guile'. If I offer concessions to secure this removal (and secure me against future intervention) that are not compatible with international law, such as insiting that TC are a minority but offering them unique and exceptional rights then I can easily remove those rights later - based on the fact that they are excetional and unique and neither compatible with the rights of the minority or the absoloute and total right to Cypriot self determination (meaning GC) and by arguinbg they were only granted under duress"

Sound unlikely to you? Well look at history and tell me how unlikely this senario is.

So make your dreams about your future and the future of your community within a legal framework, because the laws will not change to serve any illegal dreams you might have.

Exactly what I am trying to do. Yet you refuse to accept any right of TC as a people. You insist that we are a minority. Under such conditions and barring the creation of a legal definition and statsu and rights of an entity that is 'more than a minority' and 'less than the absoloute rights of a people' there IS NO leagal basis for a solution in interantional law. I have no illegal dreams. I have a dream of a united Cyprus where GC accept TC as 'equal' in terms of their respective community rights and where they do not demand we accept a status of minority and effective subjecgation to the GC community. Where there is real mutal respect for and between the two communites. You offer no 'respect' for the TC community in your insistance that in law we are nothing more than a minority. Your offer of 'special protections' and 'adjustments and ehnacments' to this international law in a consitution are not a replacment for this they are merely giving something to get something that reserve a future right to take back was given without lossing what was recieved. Sorry but thats not acceptable to me

[Piratis]

I talk with facts and with laws. You might have whatever suspicions you want. I am telling you that you are wrong to suspect us in that way, but I can't get in your mind and change your belief.
If I kill you, and then I give the excuse that I did it because I suspected you wanted to kill me, is an excuse that will not stand in a court.

The facts and the laws are there. We are ready for a decent compromise. But by insisting that you will continue not respecting the international laws because of "suspicions" will not make your actions more legal.

Within these laws we can find legal ways to ease any fears that you have. The EU, the constitution, transitional periods etc, are some of these ways.
If this is not "good enough" for you, then as I said many times the solution will be given as usual, by the complex maths of balance of power.

In the end, if this balance of power "favors" you, the best you can achieve after several years is to have a mediocre semi-recognized state, a huge military base (outside of the EU of course). Is this what you want? If/when that time comes maybe you will realize that even being a simple minority within a democratic EU state would be much better than that. And now you can get so much more than that, and you are throwing it in the trash because of suspicions. Are you sure what you do is something your children would be grateful?

[erolz]

I talk with facts and with laws. You might have whatever suspicions you want.

You talk with YOUR interpretation of the law as if YOUR interpretation is a FACT. Thats not quite the same as above.

I am telling you that you are wrong to suspect us in that way, but I can't get in your mind and change your belief.

If this was 1960 then maybe my suspicion would not be so high. We have been here before and experieince has taught me that GC can and have agreed to compromises on the basis of securing a specific objectives and that once secured they can them remove the compromises made. If this makes me overly suspicious now then I am sorry but that the way I am. Once bitten twice shy.

If I kill you, and then I give the excuse that I did it because I suspected you wanted to kill me, is an excuse that will not stand in a court.

I am not a lawyer but i believe that a defense for killing someone can be made on the basis of 'self defence' if there is sufficent proof that the killer really believed that if they did not kill the victim their own life was in real danger.

The facts and the laws are there. We are ready for a decent compromise. But by insisting that you will continue not respecting the international laws because of "suspicions" will not make your actions more legal.

You are ready for a decent compromise provided you get to interpret what the law means. If interpretation of law was not necessary there would be no need for judges, solicitors, appeal courts ect.

Within these laws we can find legal ways to ease any fears that you have. The EU, the constitution, transitional periods etc, are some of these ways.

and I have repeatedly tried to explain why your proposed solutions do not address my concerns and fears. Your repsonse is to repeat that these are the solution. Thus we go no where.

If this is not "good enough" for you, then as I said many times the solution will be given as usual, by the complex maths of balance of power.

So accept your interpretations of the law and your solution based on these interpretation, regardless of my concersn or power and force will have to solve the problems. Is that a threat or a promise?

In the end, if this balance of power "favors" you, the best you can achieve after several years is to have a mediocre semi-recognized state, a huge military base (outside of the EU of course). Is this what you want? If/when that time comes maybe you will realize that even being a simple minority within a democratic EU state would be much better than that. And now you can get so much more than that, and you are throwing it in the trash because of suspicions. Are you sure what you do is something your children would be grateful?

I have no children. I think there are enough unwanted children in the world all ready and that until these are accounted for creating more is selfish and unnessary.

The EU offers no 'greatness' to me. I have lived in the EU. As far as I am concerned the EU offers no grand vision beyond increasing (and increasingly pointless) consumption and production that is fundamentaly destructive to the wordl we live in and to the very 'spirit of man' and is totaly unbalanced in its nature and a reflection of the 20 centuary not the 21st. Maybe the time will come when you and Cypriots in general come to realise that the EU has no magic answers to the 'condition of life' and actualy being a part of it stops development of newer and better ways of living and life rahter than promtes them. Who know?

[Piratis]

It is not just my interpretation. Anyways. Interpret it any way you want. If you want you can interpret it in a way that will say that "TRNC" is legal, the invasion was legal, the occupation is legal, TCs are "peoples" and anything you want. Whatever makes you happy. I am not here to convince you.

I am not a lawyer but i believe that a defense for killing someone can be made on the basis of 'self defence' if there is sufficent proof that the killer really believed that if they did not kill the victim their own life was in real danger.

We are not threatening you. Even if the other person was a serial killer that served his sentence you have no right to kill him just based on suspicions because of his past. You are still guilty and you still serve the full sentence just like you would if you killed a virgin.

The EU offers no 'greatness' to me.

Apparently this is not an opinion many in your side share.

[erolz]

[/quote]Apparently this is not an opinion many in your side share.[/'quote]

Apparently not but then being in a minority of opinon has never been a problem for me. I do not see any inhernet 'wisdom' or 'rightness' in majority opinons just because of there numbers, as you appear to do. For me history has shown repeatedly that 'majority views' can often be unwise, unfair and wrong - from as far back as the majority that voted the death sentance on socrates and earlier all the way to the present day.

I accpet democracy as one system for resolving differences but do not regard as an 'ultimate truth' than 'is never wrong' or the only way of settling issue. I also accept that as a system it has its weaknesses and flaws as well as some benefits.

I have much sympathy for the views of thinkers like Alexis de Tocqueville (http://www.tocqueville.org/chap1.htm)

"A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is stlyed a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liavble to the same reproach? Men do not change thier characters by uniting with each other, nor does their patience in the presense of obstacles increase with their strenght. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them"

Now Alexis dw Tocqueville (author of 'Democracy in America') is someone I would gladly take a 'lecture on democracy' from - whether I end up agreeing with his view or not. You on the other hand .....

[erolz]

I will answer you honestly Erol. It came out of my mind neither by thinking of minority neither of community neither of a people neither of benevolence neither of anything. It came out by putting myself into your shoes, and by deep thinking. Please do the same from your side for our concerns and rights.

I do try and do this. Perhaps I do not do it very well but I do try. It is not made easier by 'absoloutist' statments and feeling a need to have to counter these but I try none the less.

Regarding your suggestion to apply to the UN to clarify as from which status these rights got accepted I have no objection whatsoever if that would help ease your fears and concerns. However please think about it. You and me might be mature enough to accept what the UN will say, are you sure the majority of the ordinary people are mature enough?

I really could not comment on the maturity of the ordinary people (of cyprus) or not beyond a belief than on average I am probably no more or less mature than anyone else as I see it.

My personal opinion on the matter of fears/concerns is the same as that of Piratis. Any solution must pass through a referendum. Passing through a referendum is a proof the GCs and the TCs do like it and have no reason to decline from it.

My suggestion of trying to get an agreed definition and recognition of a status in the UN or some similar international body would not be instead of a refferendum but as an 'additional' protection to the implied 'consent' of a refferendum. For me this implied consent that comes from a referendum is not alone sufficent in the Cyprus issue to guarnantee no future probelms or change of heart - given the realites of the pressures on that agreement (turkish miltasry force in Cyprus and real and actual material loss by GC vs real and actual sanctions on the TRNC). So for me the process would be to get the UN to create and recognise this 'third cataegory' and then try and use this definition of a third catgeroy to create an 'agreed' settlement in Cyprus. Thus at least if there is a future 'change of heart' and breakdown we can point to this recognised category (and the acceptance of the refferendum that GC and TC were of this category) as a basis on which we 'claim' certain rights. Rather than have to rely on the fact of 'exceptional' consitions in the agreed consitituion that could all to easily be dismissed as 'non standard' and 'agreed under duress'

I may also add another important reason. We suffered from our mistakes you suffered from your mistakes. Do you think there is ANY possibility to do the same mistakes either us or you?

I wish that I could honestly say I believe this to be true but unfortunately I can not. Maybe I am overly cynical but I repeatedly see both indivduals and groups make the same mistakes over and over again I cannot place any serious degree of faith that Cypriots will not repeat the mistakes of the past simply because we made them once. I can hope it (and do hope it) but that is not the same as believeing it is impossible or even unlikely.

Anyway appologies in advance but I have already been 'drawn into' this whiole discussion to a degree that other aspects of my life are suffering as a conseqeunce. I will have to take a break. If I leave anyone 'hanging' for an answer then I appologise. I will be back. Maybe in a couple of days or maybe a week but I will be back.

[Piratis]

Apparently not but then being in a minority of opinon has never been a problem for me. I do not see any inhernet 'wisdom' or 'rightness' in majority opinons just because of there numbers, as you appear to do.

I never said that the majority is always right. Do you really think that I have never supported a minority opinion??
The difference between me and you my friend is that I am democrat and I respect the will of the majority even when I disagree, while you are not a democrat and this is why you have no problem to act, even in an illegal way, against the will of the majority.