Well despite repeated claims they intend to resolve this, there appears to be intransigence on the part of Northern Cypriot authorities to ensure homosexual sex is decriminalised.
Perhaps European Court action might act as an incentive for them to expedite this.
I don’t think any body recognises them except the Turkish republic . . . .So why should they take any notice of what the European Court says ! They might move to decriminalise if the EU states were to recognise them . . . . But I don’t think those nationalistic and frankly less than homo friendly greek politians will allow this !
These tiresome references to the British Colonial laws, as we had also in the case of India a few months ago, need to be left out. If these laws are on the statute books it is because the independent states, in this case Cyprus, decided to keep them. Britain had nothing to do with it.
I agree. British colonialism was often appalling but countries holding on to this law are doing it for their own convenience.
Look what they do in Brazil:
Look what they do in brazil
Northern Cyprus should decriminalise homosexuality and if and when they do, the next question is should the International Community recognise Northern Cyprus as a territory?
Prior to the Turkish invasion which took advantage of the military coup in Greece in 1974, Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived cheek-to-jowl in many areas and intercommunal violence was rife. The Turkish invasion led to the northern 38% of the island being occuppied and while ehtnic Greeks were expelled from the north, ethnic Turks were forced out of the south. Since the partition of the Island there has been relative peace as the communities were forced apart. Reunification of the island will only lead to a return to the violence of the past. Cyprus is not the only divided island in Europe – Ireland is also divided but in that case there were no forced resettlement of Catholics to the South and Protestants to the North after partition in 1921. It will be interesting to see what fellow correspondents have to say.
One of the odder quirks of history is that multiracial, multiethnic and/or multireligious societies can work well, indeed thrive sometimes, under a common overlord, eg India under the Mughals and the British, Yugoslavia under Tito, Bohemia under the Hapsburgs, and indeed so many parts of the Ottoman Empire; it’s when a measure of independence is either given or, worse, promised that things so often seem to fall apart.
Is the Punjab better off after one of the bloodiest partitions in history? I couldn’t possibly tell.
Don’t forget Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Although he did suppress the Kurds in the north and the Marsh-Arabs in the south, intercommunal relations were a lot better then than they are now. Saddam Hussein even had a Catholic as his Deputy Prime Minister (Tariq Aziz). Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of Saddam’s Iraq was that he didn’t appear to have an issue with gays although homosexuality while legal was and still is taboo. In fact gays in post-Saddam Iraq fare far worse now than before.
Indeed, though of course this particular example is not without its, erm, ambiguities (mind you, Tito was hardly a saint).
Northern Cyprus is lying through it’s teeth. It has no desire to ever repeal its sodomy law.
Turkey under an Islamic party also has no interest in overturning this law.
It is more interested in an alliance with Iran than the EU.
Only under court pressure is there any
chance this will change.