Talk:Muslim minority of Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Muslim minority of Greece appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 September 2006.

[edit] Apparent contradiction

The intro states that the Muslim minority is "the only [one] against which the state delivers special minority treatment", but later states "The minority enjoys full equality with the Greek majority, and prohibition against discrimination and freedom of religion are provided for" in the constitution. Then there are several issues like the muftis, as well as the population transfer issue billed in the DYK item. Questions:

• There aren't any other minority groups, e.g. non-Greek Macedonians, who have discrimination? (by the state or otherwise, it would help to clarify)
• Similarly, all non-Greek minorities are Muslim, or not?
• If guarantees are provided for ... what is the special treatment? Is this intended to be an abstraction for something like the autonomous community rights in other European states, or is it a euphemism for discrimination?
• If there are grievances against the protections, at least note this when saying the protections are constitutional but not always practical (a common problem).

As it is this seems confusing. --Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

An attempt to answer to your questions:

• There are no other ethnic minorities in Greece. The Greek population and the demography of Greece was shaped during the 20th century, after the Balkan Wars, and the population exchange with Bulgaria, during which slavophones with no greek seld-identification migratted to Bulgaria, and greek-speaking populations with greek seld-identification migratted from Bulgaria (mainly the then Eastern Rumelia) to Greece; The population exchange of 1923 with Turkey left Greece without turkish-identifing population, while at the same time 1,5 million Greeks from Anatolia came in the country. Lastly, after the WWII, the Cam Albanians were expelled, cause of their collaboration with the Axis. so, there are no other minority groups in Greece. those who u call as an example non-Greek Macedonians are a modern issue (as modern as the '90s), they number less than 7,000 people (that many were those who voted for their party in the last elections), they have their political party (as i just said) and also magazines published in their language. so, i can't see how they are possibly "disciminated"
• All not-Greek minorities are muslims (i explained why and how above), but all muslims are not non-Greeks. a percentange of the muslim minority identifies as 'Muslim Greeks', not to mention that another percentange identifies as simply 'Muslim' without any ethnic self-identification.
• The sentence "the only [one] against which the state delivers special minority treatment" is false since "The minority enjoys full equality with the Greek majority, and prohibition against discrimination and freedom of religion are provided for". I am not perfectly aware of the autonomous community rights in other European states, but the muslim minority in Greece has full rights, schools in their mother tangue, religious freedom, same taxes as the Christian population, members in the Greek parliament, local mayors and officials, religious schools and full property rights.
• The protections are constitutional and have not been violated. Greece has fully respected the Treaty of Lausanne, and this is why in the Western Thrace the muslim minority has more than doubled in numbers, enjoys EU privillages, has higher income that the muslims in the neighbouring countries, their muftis have more privillages than the muftis in Turkey and, in general, there has not been any sort of civil unrest in the area for many decades now.

I will remove the tag and the sentence "the only [one] against which the state delivers special minority treatment" from the intro, if that's ok. Hectorian 10:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specifically on Article 19

Any plans for tackling the situation of Article 19 victims? Or is the approach leveraged according to the pressure applied? If that is the case, it is rather problematic for people situated in Turkey to demonstrate by shouting "we want our Greek citizenship!" :)Cretanforever

I suppose the emergence of a solution is directly dependent on the performance of the Turkish authorities regarding the grievances of the victims of the Istanbul Pogrom et al. --Tzekai 18:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is the Greek government are using these Greek people as pawns in their war with Turkey? Nil Einne 18:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's the other way round. --Tzekai 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. These people are Greeks who had their citizenship unfairly revoked by Greece not Turkey. Whatever Turkey may or may not have done wrong to other people is irrelevant. Greek-Turks who had their rights violated by Turkey surely deserve some sort of redress from Turkey but this is not and should not be related to the rights of Greeks who had their citizenship revoked by Greece. My point is therefore that if Greece is refusing to redress these Greeks who had their rights violated because they're trying to convince Turkey to redress the Turks who had their rights violated by Turkey, then they're using them as pawns. Turkey may very well be doing the same thing but again, that isn't what we're discussing and is largely irrelevant. Nil Einne 18:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the politics world... Greece revoked the citizeship of Muslims from western thrace who left the region for many years, and only after Turkey revoked the citizenships, took the properties, wiolated the Article 14 of the Treaty of Lausanne (according to which the greek minority in Imvros and Tenedos were granted autonomy) and launched the Istanbul pogrom. even if the act of the then greek government was a response to the turkish acts, Greece has not been criticized of doing that by foreign organizations and countries. on the contrary, it was Turkey who was criticized. btw, no matter what kind of ideas will be presented here, it is an undisputable fact that Greece respected the treaty of Lausanne (and this is why the muslim minory has grown by more than 200%) and that Turkey did not respect the trety at all (that's why the greek minority in Turkey has reduced by -99,6%)... so, when criticizing the attitude of Greece towards its muslim minority, always criticize the attitude of Turkey towards its greek orthodox minority. both cases are so much linked, that any attempt to see them seperately is useless... Hectorian 18:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why I had put "Specifically on Article 19" in the title. In any case, after 20 years into the club, it's the EU's problem by now:) (EEC and then EC and then EU, I know:) Cretanforever

Greece had that law since 1955, before joined the EU, and no one asked them to cancel it before joining. --Tzekai 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

(although it is unclear whether issues such as inheritance law are religious matters).

Please remember NPOV and no original reesearch. We can't provide commentary on the opinions of HRW indepently. On the other hand, if someone within Greece from a notable and reliable source has made such suggestions, we can probably include their comments Nil Einne 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I want another users opinion on this. I still believe the above sentence doesn't currently merit inclusion. Unless the government has specifically stated or otherwise impliedthat they don't believe inheritance laws are religious matters it's not up to us to point out that inheritance laws may not be religious matters. We have already stated that the government says that it's necessary because it involves inheritances matters and family law. If the user, thinks inheritance laws are not religious matters, then they should come to this indepedently and not with us nudging them in that direction. However this whole thing may be a storm in a teacup. I can't read Greek so can't read the citation. If the goverment has implied they don't believe inheritance laws (or judicial matters) are religious matters then all we need to do is modify the statement and it's all fine. Nil Einne

I must add that I also find it a bit problematic; it should be "but the Greek government states...". Anyways, it needs to be sourced. But in general I find the article very good. Great work, Tzekai! :-)--Aldux 18:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is accurate to note the issue of some civil and judicial authority among Islamic clerics in Greece. The Greek state relations to the minority has to include this. The reasons for the Greek state response to the "offical minority" are several, including predicatable and historic responses that are common worldwide, some specific to the Balkans, some specific to issues of Moslem clerics and Sharia and politial Islam. Without commenting on legitimacy of perspectives and reasons for the response, let's at least list them: a) state security -- deriving from a group which include persons or structures which to one degree or another, self-associate or assciated with or are patronizeed by, what the Greek state sees as an atagonistic and threatening Turkish state; b) issues of reciprocity assertions and denial by both states when it comes to the corresponding Turkish citizens of Greek descent or identity in Turkey; c) conflicts in frames of definition of rights created as minority defining regimes in many post Ottoman states have moved from (the very different) Millet regime, to the Lausanne regime, to the current mix of Helsinki Accord, EU, and IGO judicial, and human rights advocacy NGO regimes and environments; and d) conflicts with secular legal systems and sharia (in this case "sharia lite").

"a" and "b" have been common to post-empire nation state relations worldwide.

the variety of regimes in "c", especially the several post millet regimes, are important because they are all technically en force, often contradictory, involve competing centers of power and advocacy, and are evolving. The complications in sociology, identity, domestic and inter-state politics, legal juristiction are myriad.

The different regimes are also often "cherry picked" by parties to support various points of view. If one looks at the legal complaints and the responses they are all over map. They cite history for one framing assertion, then Lausanne, some pre-Lausanne laws arguably superseded by Lausanne, and modern international regimes and constructs which have completly different starting points than the older regimes.

Beyond the regimes, there are historic facts from which frames of reference derive which are at times emphasized by parties and at times dismissed. E.g., I think one probably Greek commentor above made the point about the size of the minorities. As to minorities the Lausanne treaty is a reciprocal entitlement. This creates both problems with Lausanne at variance with new EU regimes, as well as the glaring fact that the reciprocity has not been honored and that a fairly solid assertion can be made that the Greek state has treated its minority much better as evidenced by the huge changes in relative numbers over time.

Point "d" offers (finally) an observation on the specific question above. The Greek state may or may not be overemphasizing the degree of civil/judicial role of the Mufti's beyond relgious authority, but the role remains a fact and part of the picture. For that reason not only should the statement remain, but it needs to be clarified. In the EU, matters of inheritence law, as well as several areas of other family law where the Greek Mufti's have exert a judicial role, are in the secular state judicial system. Assigning it to religious authority as a matter of right, or at all, creates an issue of interest to the state and broader polity. Astic 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)