From: gavrila@imhfhp16.epfl.ch (Spyros Gavrilakis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: Stating relegion on IDs
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:02:39 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <1992Dec24.193345.29313@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
 gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis) writes:


> Since when stating your religion, *if you want*, in the IDs is

If the declaration is volontary there is no argument.
The newspaper article stated that it were to be obligatory
and you seemed to have said that this could be justified
on security grounds. Sorry, if I misunderstood you, but still,
I do not think I did.


> Spyros, we are talking about causing friction with the EC, as your
> suggestion was about; If a country wants to block any further
> evolution of it, is not friction? The whole Europe is upset
> with them, because of their extreme anti-German fears, and you want
> to reduce this into a legalistic argument?

Not quite. The Danish referendum showed that the politicians were
out of touch with their electorate ; a thing that turned out to
be also true for other countries with highly-informed electorates.
The split was between the citizens and their "representatives"
who went around preparing treaties not to the liking of those
they were supposed to represent. There was no difference and no
friction on this issue between countries.

> In any case, I'm sure
> that the EC law is not opposite to stating religion in the IDs.
> Otherwise anybody can object to it by making an appeal to the EC courts.

The court in Strasbourg (I think) can only adjudicate on matters
relevant to the treaty of Rome. I am not aware of any civil
rights movement in Greece either.

> (Actually Danmark even though in papers is one of the most
> democratic states, in practice its citizens are one of the most
> racists and xenophobic in Europe- several reports and personal
> witnesses prove this).

Very difficult to condemn on this evidence of their being racists.
It may be that the Danes feel more free to express themselves than in
countries supposedly more tolerant.


> You've got to be kidding me; They accepted us in the WEU after
> making Turkey an associated member, and specifically changing
> the article 5 such as to not give any WEU right to intervene
> in conflicts between members and assoc. members. Thus making
> our entrence into the WEU wrt to Turkey (practically the only security
> threat for Greece) a totally useless agreement.

No, I am not kidding. The WEU is a different (and earlier) treaty
than the treaty of Rome that Greece signed. The WEU owes its
existence to fears of the "evil empire". Greece was never
invited to joined the WEU but forced its way in - she threatened
to not ratify the Maastricht treaty (some friction there). If i
remember correctly, Greece was rebuffed in previous attempts to join
the WEU. I cannot see how Greece can lay claim to the support
of the other WEU members in its disputes with Turkey. Clearly,
members of WEU are not willing to take sides.


> As far as a "generous economic support", I hope that you don't
> believe it. No intelligent person can ever believe that a country
> is giving alms to an other country. The direct financial support
> of the EC in Greece comes as a realization that the extra benefits
> from a common market will go all in the stronger countries if you
> leave only the forces of the free market to work. In the battle
> for a more balanced share of the *enlargement of the EC GNP*
> because of integrated markets comes all this "support".
> All the countries will benefit from the EC, but how much each
> of them, it's a matter of bargaining.

I would not try to prop up my pride with this old-wife's story : the
supposedly ulterior motives of the donor countries. Judging by the
newspaper reports over the past few years I am willing to bet that
most EC countries would be willing to be permenantly excluded from
the Greek market in return for stopping the financial aid to Greece.
Greece has no significant natural resources - exept (un)civil servants-
and produces little by the way of added-value goods. It is not
a market averybody is dying to get into.


>>Greece is not one of them. Since you have put so much effort arguing
>>about history (with A.T. Fear) your point 3 is quite unexpected.

>I cann't follow the argument. Could you please elaborate?

You Gregory, like all Greeks would say that  Greece's claim as
a single nation is based on history rather than relegion.
Have I got u wrong?

> So what? Is this an argument or just a statement reenforcing my arguments.
> In any case Turkey is not a powerfull country. Without
> any infrastructure, any tradition of modern enterprise,
> and with almost no natuaral resources, it's by default
> a third world country. With respect the West restraining
> it, it's exactly the other way around: because it's useful
> only as a military base for the West, they have protected
> her from being further dissolved into the constituent ethnic
> lines, so far.

As far as Greece is concerned Turkey is militarily strong - the
strongest in the region. I do not care how many tvs/1000 of the
population they have if the shooting starts. Also, many members
of NATO think of Turkey as a more valuable and constant ally than
Greece.

> In principle all the greek citizens can take any public office
> and have the same freedoms. But I don't think that giving
> to Mr Sadic the title of the General in Command of the greek
> armed forces is possible; the same for an agent of the secret
> police. IDs can help to find out this very easily in the very
> beginning before further complications. And as I may remind
> you, the ID can be inspected only by people who are legally
> authorized. Not everybody can ask for it; otherwise commits
> a violation of civil rights. (In more casual uses of IDs, one
> can use other related documents; eg driver's licence).

I am sure that all people who reach sentitive positions have
been vetted throughout their careers and thus the IDS in this
instant are otiose.
It is any relegious discrimination of the state that needs to be
curtailed. Thus, stating religion on IDs in civil documents
should be avoided.


>>Gr
>
>>PS: The most "strange" appplication form seen so far was that from the
>>    "Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center". Not only citizenship and religion
>>     were asked, but also nationality...!
> I'm not sure that we understand the same thing from your words here.
> Do you suggest that philosophical beliefs do make a difference
> wrt choosing employees?

Whoops, sorry. I thought you meant the patients. Still the fact
that this particular set up asks for whatever, does not prove
a thing.

> All these are compromised. When I came in the US in 1989, I had
> to sign a paper which made me to *publicly deny* that I never was
> As you can see security reasons override some
> human rights in some occasions. That's my whole argument. And EC
> does accept this argument too in many similar cases.

The relation between stating relegion on the IDs and state
security remains unproven.

> Gr

>PS: If you want my philosophical beliefs (very-very long term goals)
 >I can express them. But these are totally irrelevant to the every
 >day life politics (where the succesful compromises is the desired
 >goal).

It would be worthwhile if you use very plain language. Since this is
going to be very time consuming let's leave it 4 another time.

 >Did you know that in the US, last summer Congress passed legislation
 >whic REQUIRES from all the telephone companies to produce ONLY
 >TAPPABLE telecommunication systems because of security reasons?
 >(To make all the communications accessible to FBI and CIA inquiries).
 >And on top of this; the law requires the extra cost for operating
 >this kind of communications (about one billion dollars a year) should
 >be charged to the users ...:-).

Yes, I have heard of this. But you have been warned not to say
anything sensitive down the phone line.



Happy new year,
sg

Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek