British tourists Essay Example

British tourists Essay Example British tourists Essay British tourists Essay Considering the reports detailed above there seems little indication that matters will improve in either the immediate or relatively long term future. Because of its geographical position between Europe, the Near East and Africa Cyprus has always been and will always be in the midst of some very diverse influences, from those of the ancient Phoenicians and Assyrians onwards. Nowadays these influences are in the main those of Greece and Turkey and so of orthodox Christianity and Islam, but also of different political systems, in particular in the new 21st century this includes both the United Nations and the European community.The occupants of the island have adapted and co-operated with various external forces in the past and, if they wish to live at peace, and at the same time retain their own cultural identity as Cypriots, whether of Greek or Turkish origin and at the same time achieve economic success then some compromises must be made. It seems obvious perhaps to those not closely involved that there ought to be an end to the present divide if the island is to achieve its greatest potential.The Turkish Cypriot parliament is now long established. Surely it is time that this fact were officially recognized, both by islanders on both sides and by concerned outsiders such as the European Parliament. This would then at least enable both sides to communicate and cooperate as the equals they ought to be. The difficulty seems to be in convincing the islanders, and perhaps particularly the Greek Cypriot members of the community of this truth.As well as arable products such as citrus fruits of various kinds, vegetables, barley, grapes, olives, and olive oil and poultry, pork, lamb and dairy products such as cheese covering. Farming such products takes only about 11% of the island however as much of it is mountainous and of course there are large urban settlements, especially near the coasts. There is also tourism, and the sale of homes to retired people from other countries, as the island has a year round pleasant climate.This is one aspect that is negatively affected by the current situation and the occasional flare ups of violence. Few will want to invest in a place which is likely to become the center of conflict. On April 12th 2009 however the only aggressive behavior reported by the Cyprus News was the action of time-share touts who resort to hassling guests and tourists, even inside high class hotels along the Paphos waterfront , so desperate are they to ensure new business.They are venturing into the hotels and harassing guests, it’s become out of hand, according to Nassos Hadjigeorgiou, tourist manager for the island’s Paphos regional board of tourism. So bad is the harassment that some visitors have left and vowed not to return according to the report in the Cyprus News. Tourism is important to the island economy and ought to be encouraged. The problem is not with either tourism or the time share industry, but with the ways in which they are being promoted.So serious is the situation, even this early in the year that an emergency meeting for discussion of the situation was held at Paphos Town hall. As well as Mr Hadjigeorgiou, also in attendance were Themis Philipides, President of the Paphos branch of the Cyprus Hotels Association, also the assistant Divisional Police Commander, the town’s mayor and members of other concerned official bodies. It was reported that all the companies involved, who had already been asked to cease this aggressive means of trying to gain business, were British owned and aimed their methods at British tourists.Because of the general financial downturn this target audience was less likely than in earlier times to have the financial means to take up offers or were reluctant to do so and the salesmen were getting increasingly desperate for sales. Visitors are being advised to report any incidents to the local police. As well as visitors with their money to spend there are also a variety of natural resources as listed in the CIA World Factbook Cypriot page.Copper, pyrites, asbestos, gypsum, timber, salt, marble, clay earth pigment’, some of these having been exploited since the earliest times – Cyprus taking its name from Copper, but nowadays known locally as Kypriaki Dimokratia or Kibris Cumhuriyeti. Industrial products include food and beverage processing, the production of cement and gypsum, the refurbishment and repair of ships in coastal towns, but also the creation of textiles, as well as light chemicals and metal products together with clay products, wood, paper and stone although 71% of the employed population work in service industries.A portion of these industries and resources are of course in the north and so are unable to be traded at their full potential as the area’s government is not offici ally recognized by the European Union, even though a group of members of the European Parliament are in negotiation with the leadership there, but meanwhile the two sides do not even share national holidays Independence Day, 1 October ( 1960) is celebrated by Greek Cypriots but Turkish Cypriots in the north hold to 15 November (1983) as their Independence Day

Good News Club v. Milford Central School (1998)

Good News Club v. Milford Central School (1998) Can the government make public facilities available for non-religious groups while excluding religious groups - or at least those religious groups which want to use the facilities to evangelize, especially among young children? Fast Facts: Good News Club v. Milford Central School Case Argued: February 28, 2001Decision Issued:Â  June 11, 2001Petitioner: Good News ClubRespondent:Â   Milford Central SchoolKey Question: By excluding the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school, did Milford Central School violate the First Amendment right to free speech, and if a violation did occur, was it justified by the district’s concern the Clubs activities might violate the Establishment Clause?Majority Decision: Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Breyer, Scalia, and O’ConnorDissenting: Justices Stevens, Souter, and GinsburgRuling: The school district’s restriction did violate the Clubs free speech rights, and that no Establishment Clause concerns could justify such a violation. Background Information In August of 1992, the Milford Central School District adopted a policy allowing district residents to use school facilities for holding social, civic and recreational meetings and entertainment events and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community, provided that such uses shall be nonexclusive and shall be open to the general public, and otherwise conformed to state laws. The policy expressly prohibited the use of school facilities for religious purposes and required that applicants certify that their proposed use complies with the policy: School premises shall not be used by any individual or organization for religious purposes. Those individuals and/or organizations wishing to use school facilities and/or grounds under this policy shall indicate on a Certificate Regarding Use of School Premises form provided by the District that any intended use of school premises is in accordance with this policy. The Good News Club is a community-based Christian youth organization open to children between the ages of six and twelve. The purported purpose of the Club is to instruct children in moral values from a Christian perspective. It is affiliated with an organization known as Child Evangelism Fellowship, which is dedicated to converting even the youngest children to their brand of conservative Christianity. The local Good News chapter in Milford requested use of school facilities for meetings, but was denied. After they appealed and requested a review, Superintendent McGruder and counsel determined that... ...the kinds of activities proposed to be engaged in by the Good News Club are not a discussion of secular subjects such as child rearing, development of character and development of morals from a religious perspective, but were in fact the equivalent of religious instruction itself. Court Decision The Second District Court upheld the schools refusal to allow the club to meet. The Good News Clubs sole argument was that the First Amendment dictates that the Club cannot constitutionally be excluded from use of the Milford Central School facilities. The Court, however, found in both law and precedence that restrictions on speech in a limited public forum will withstand First Amendment challenge if they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral. According to the Club, it was unreasonable for the school to argue that anyone might be confused to think that their presence and mission were endorsed by the school itself, but the Court rejected this argument, stating: In Bronx Household of Faith, we stated that it is a proper state function to decide the extent to which church and school should be separated in the context of the use of school premises. ...The activities of the Club clearly and intentionally communicate Christian beliefs by teaching and by prayer, and we think it eminently reasonable that the Milford school would not want to communicate to students of other faiths that they were less welcome than students who adhere to the Clubs teachings. This is especially so in view of the fact that those who attend the school are young and impressionable. As to the question of viewpoint neutrality, the Court rejected the argument that the Club was simply presenting moral instruction from a Christian viewpoint and that it should therefore be treated like others clubs which present moral instruction from other viewpoints. The Club offered examples of such organizations which are allowed to meet: Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and 4-H, but the Court did not agree that the groups were sufficiently similar. According to the Courts judgement, the activities of the Good News Club did not involve merely a religious perspective on the secular subject of morality. Instead, the Club meetings offered children an opportunity to pray with adults, to recite biblical verse, and to declare themselves saved. The Club argued that these practices were necessary because its viewpoint is that a relationship with God is necessary to make moral values meaningful. But, even if this were accepted, it was clear from the conduct of the meetings that the Good News Club went far beyond merely stating its viewpoint. On the contrary, the Club focused on teaching children how to cultivate their relationship with God through Jesus Christ: Under even the most restrictive and archaic definitions of religion, such subject matter is quintessentially religious. The Supreme Court reversed the above decision, finding that by allowing any other groups to meet at the same time, the school created a limited public forum. Because of this, the school is not permitted to exclude certain groups based upon their content or viewpoints: When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the schools limited public forum on the ground that the club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment. Significance The Supreme Courts decision in this case ensured that when a school opens its doors to student and community groups, those doors must remain open even when those groups are religious in nature and that the government will not discriminate against religion. However, the Court provided no guidance to help school administrators in ensuring that students do not feel pressured to join religious groups and that students do not get the impression that religious groups are somehow endorsed by the state. The schools original decision to ask such a group to meet later seems, in light of that genuine interest, a reasonable precaution.