Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

So then you accept political equality not on the basis of ethnicity but on the basis of Constituent state citizenship, which is partially based on ethnicity.

What matters to me is can the GC community force something on the TC community aginst the will of the TC community (like ENOSIS to take and exterem example). As long as there is a component state with equal status to other component states that is numericaly dominatated by TC this 'concern' is met - at least as far as I am concerned.

That is a definite outcome. Since the TC community will control by majority the TCCS and the TCCS will have political equality with the GCCS then nothing can be forced on the TC community because to do such a thing it will require at least 40% of the TCs to agree.

If you agree with this then I also agree with it and thus we solved 90% of the problem

Hmmmm. So property issues and settler issues are less than 10% of the problem then? Seems a bit optimistic to me

In my opinion Yes! Because this is the most crucial issue. Mind you Insan and Turkcyp do not share your approach. They want absolute community (ethnic or racial) political equality, irrespective of internal citizenship status. In other words any percentage of GCs that will live within TCCS, will be excluded and disregarded from any decision making participation within the TCCS, but instead will be residents without political rights through the TCCS but only through the GCCS.

If we could agree on this then I am 100% sure we can agree on the rest.

[erolz]

This is not that easy as you say. AS you know in federations federal goverment always has a say over constituent states. What you are suggesting lack the protection mechanims for TCs in the federal level. Therefore laws can be set at the federal level that goes against the majority of TCs wishes.

The way Kifeas is proposing his federal state is that every citizen of any constituent state has all the equal rights regardless of their ethnicity. Let' say that there are 20% GCs in TCCS state. And these people chooise 1/5 of TCCS state federal senators and MPs. Afther this point it would be very easy for the federal senate to pass a law that would be againts the majority of TCs wishes and desires.

OK I understood this differently. I understood that at the federal level decisions would require seperate consent of each of the component states. Thus if say ENOSIS was proposed at the federal level lets say the GCCS vote in favour but the TCCS did not then enosis would not happen.

If what Kiefas is suggesting is that the decision on enosis would require simply 50% +1 of federal senators from either component state, then no this does not meet my requirements.

Boy this stuff gets complicated Thanks for your help with improving my understanding Turkcyp.

[MicAtCyp]

but you can not claim a RIGHT to kill in the name of liberation, because no such RIGHT exists.

the idea that resorting to violence by GC in the 50's was not only justifed and necessary but a RIGHT of the GC people. It was not a RIGHT.

Erol is that your own view or what? If yes how can you be so absolute?
Are you saying that you have no right to kill, when someone violates your human rights? I think you are wrong. Lets take for example the right to LIVE and EXIST. If someone comes to take that right away from you (i. e to kill you) are you claiming that you cannot Kill? . Of course you can. It's called SELF DEFENSE.

It is true that the UN charter for human rights just describes those rights without describing in what ways a human can restore his human rights if someone violates them. Natural justice however says that the oppressed has every right to fight to get his human rights back using the same methods as the oppressor. Nobody can deny him the option to go through an armed struggle if what deprives him his rights is an armed regime.
What gave the British control over the population? Wasn’t their armed policemen and their armed soldiers? How else could anyone fight them to get his human rights back?

Lets take another example. The human right to work (or refuse to work) . Someone comes and demands that all males of all the villages from Nicosia to Larnaca should go and work for 6 months to build a road connecting Nicosia with Larnaca. (this is a real example of slavery that DID occur during the British era many many times) . The work would be without pay and without any right to object. Are you telling me that the enslaved person has no right to object? How will he object - by passive resistence you say i. e refuse to work. He gets whipped. He still refuses. He gets more whipped. He still refuses. In the end he is whipped so much that he is about to die. Are you telling me he has no right to kill in SELF DEFENSE?

In summary all violations of human rights do give the option to the oppressed to react and in most cases the ONLY reaction one can do is KILL in self defense.

P. S. And I will tell you another example. The British even demanded from the Greek Cypriots to spare their lives during WWII, fighting for them at various fronts. Many Cypriots refused. Guess what the British did? They said if you fight together with us we will then give you ENOSIS. The GCs did participate did get killed but in the end they got nothing. . . .Why should the GCs fight together with the British and lose their lives? all they had to lose is one oppressor over another! (British Vs the Germans). My own Grandfather was hit by a bomb at Suez and until the day he died there were small fractions of that bomb under his skin on his shoulder.
How can anyone react to sparing his life against someone who does not even keep his promises?

[turkcyp]

In my opinion Yes! Because this is the most crucial issue. Mind you Insan and Turkcyp do not share your approach. They want absolute community (ethnic or racial) political equality, irrespective of internal citizenship status. In other words any percentage of GCs that will live within TCCS, will be excluded and disregarded from any decision making participation within the TCCS, but instead will be residents without political rights through the TCCS but only through the GCCS.

If we could agree on this then I am 100% sure we can agree on the rest.

This is either a deliberate lie or you really do not understand what you are reading in our proposals.

Both me and Insan proposes a system that every GC that settlers in TCCS state will have full participation in TCCS political structures and also they will be participating congressional elections in (not senatorial elections and presidential) through TCCS but will be using these rights in GCCS….

You can hardly call this without political rights.

Please do not distort my remarks. No political rights would be like all TCs that are currently living in RoC and all GCs that are currently living in TRNC.

[Piratis]

There is equality between people within their component state, then there is equality of component states within the federated state. This is how federation works.

So in a few words a TC is equal to a TC and a GC is equal to a GC, but a TC and a GC are not equal.

I am looking at a world map now, the only place I see the word "federation", with huge letters is the Russian Federation.
Having a federation is not your right, is a compromise from our part, but we never agreed that we would agree on any kind of federation you dream about, right? If you want to talk about a type of federation that will make the citizens of this country unequal, then I agree that we should stop talking about federation.

Political Equality of communities = inequality of citizens = racial discrimination

Equality of states does not mean inequality of citizens though, because citizens are free to become residents of any state they wish.

Therefore a federation is OK, political equality of communities (the way you realize it) is not.

[Kifeas]

This is either a deliberate lie or you really do not understand what you are reading in our proposals.

Both me and Insan proposes a system that every GC that settlers in TCCS state will have full participation in TCCS political structures and also they will be participating congressional elections in (not senatorial elections and presidential) through TCCS but will be using these rights in GCCS….

You can hardly call this without political rights.

Please do not distort my remarks. No political rights would be like all TCs that are currently living in RoC and all GCs that are currently living in TRNC.

The whole discussion with Erolz revolves around the composition of the senate of the federal state. i.e. Political equality of Constituent states versus political equality of Communities on the federal level. Therefore, although the mentioning of the world federal senate in above posting was omitted, it was mutually understood throughout all our postings in the thread that this is what we are talking about. Erolz, am I my making a mistake here???

In my opinion Yes! Because this is the most crucial issue. Mind you Insan and Turkcyp do not share your approach. They want absolute community (ethnic or racial) political equality, irrespective of internal citizenship status. In other words any percentage of GCs that will live within TCCS, will be excluded and disregarded from any decision making participation on the senate level within the TCCS, but instead will be residents without political rights through the TCCS but only through the GCCS.

If we could agree on this then I am 100% sure we can agree on the rest.

The word in red is an addition to my posting, which was accidentally omitted.
Not deliberately!!!!

[Kifeas]

Turkcyp,
The whole issue of political equality is practically related with the Federal state's Senate. Therefore when one talks about this subject of political equality, he automatically refers to the senate and it is not always necessary to mention it. If one knows what subject is being discussed.

[Piratis]

Kifeas, why do you bother with technicalities when it is clear that we disagree on the principles?

You can make a very complex proposal and Erolz or Turkcyp misunderstand it and say they agree. However if your proposal doesn't give to them as a community an effective 50% power (not 49.9999%) when they realize what you are talking about they will reject it.
So whats the point of this?

We disagree on the principle and thats it. What TCs want is not just guarantees, protection, participation etc. they want unlimited 50% power, and we do not agree.

Why bother with details when we do not agree on the principle? its a waste of time.

[erolz]

Erol is that your own view or what? If yes how can you be so absolute?
Are you saying that you have no right to kill, when someone violates your human rights? I think you are wrong. Lets take for example the right to LIVE and EXIST. If someone comes to take that right away from you (i. e to kill you) are you claiming that you cannot Kill? . Of course you can. It's called SELF DEFENSE.

You never have a RIGHT to use violence. The use of violence can be JUSTIFED but it is not a RIGHT. Can you not see that difference? I did not say that no human should ever kill. I am simply pointing out that you never have a right to kill. You can kill and that killing can be justifed (as self defense or other justifications such as the _only_ to gain your rights) and it can be unjustifed but it is never a RIGHT.

According to your view TC (with the aid of Turkey) had a RIGHT to kill GC and force them from their homes - because they had previously denied TC their rights? This kind of approach leads no where in my opinion

It is true that the UN charter for human rights just describes those rights without describing in what ways a human can restore his human rights if someone violates them. Natural justice however says that the oppressed has every right to fight to get his human rights back using the same methods as the oppressor.

The UN charter lists the specific rights of indiduals and peoples (groups of indivduals). No where does it specify a right to use violence. The fact is as far as human rights go there is no RIGHT to use violence. Natural justice is a very different thing from RIGHTS.

Nobody can deny him the option to go through an armed struggle if what deprives him his rights is an armed regime.

I do not deny anyone this option I simply point out that this option is not a right and it can be deemed either justifed or not.

What gave the British control over the population? Wasn’t their armed policemen and their armed soldiers? How else could anyone fight them to get his human rights back?

Britain did not gain control of CVyprus through force of arms. They gained it through treaty initally. They later annexed it but that also did not involve use of arms. There are many many ways Cypriots (GC and TC jointly or seperately) could have fought British rule in Cyprus without resorting to violence. Who knows what sort of Cyprus would exist today if we had all chosen non violenent means to end British rule and to persue our aims for Cyprus?

In summary all violations of human rights do give the option to the oppressed to react and in most cases the ONLY reaction one can do is KILL in self defense.

Like TC (with aid of Turkey) reacted in 74?

Oppression can justify a resort to violence - it does not make the resort to violence a right.

[Kifeas]

turkcyp wrote:

This is not that easy as you say. AS you know in federations federal goverment always has a say over constituent states. What you are suggesting lack the protection mechanims for TCs in the federal level. Therefore laws can be set at the federal level that goes against the majority of TCs wishes.

The way Kifeas is proposing his federal state is that every citizen of any constituent state has all the equal rights regardless of their ethnicity. Let' say that there are 20% GCs in TCCS state. And these people chooise 1/5 of TCCS state federal senators and MPs. Afther this point it would be very easy for the federal senate to pass a law that would be againts the majority of TCs wishes and desires.

OK I understood this differently. I understood that at the federal level decisions would require seperate consent of each of the component states. Thus if say ENOSIS was proposed at the federal level lets say the GCCS vote in favour but the TCCS did not then enosis would not happen.

If what Kiefas is suggesting is that the decision on enosis would require simply 50% +1 of federal senators from either component state, then no this does not meet my requirements.

really erolz?? and now you think you understood it? No you didn't!