Letter to Directorate General of Human Rights.

   
Dear Mr Hartig,

The Cornish national minority and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

I submitted an objection on 19th January 2007 against the decision by the Department for Communities and Local Government to exclude the Cornish from the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in its Draft Second Report to the Council of Europe. A copy of the Draft was received by me on 9th December 2006 with an accompanying letter stating that responses were to be submitted by 20th January 2007.

With the intervening Christmas and New Year holidays it was not possible to do more than submit to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) an outline of a case to answer under Article 7 of the European Convention of Human rights. (ECHR).

I am therefore now submitting to the Council of Europe further substantiating evidence, copy to DCLG. Here, the document of 19th January 2007 is referenced as
“A” plus paragraph number from 1 to 35, e.g., A35.


9 Coombe Park,
Bal Lake,
Camborne,
Cornwall
GB-TR14 0JG




5th February 2007

Mr Hanno Hartig,
Head of Media, Equality & Minorities Department,
Directorate General of Human Rights,
Council of Europe,
F-67075 Strasbourg – Cedex,
France.

Dear Mr Hartig,

The Cornish national minority and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

I submitted an objection on 19th January 2007 against the decision by the Department for Communities and Local Government to exclude the Cornish from the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in its Draft Second Report to the Council of Europe. A copy of the Draft was received by me on 9th December 2006 with an accompanying letter stating that responses were to be submitted by 20th January 2007.

With the intervening Christmas and New Year holidays it was not possible to do more than submit to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) an outline of a case to answer under Article 7 of the European Convention of Human rights. (ECHR).

I am therefore now submitting to the Council of Europe further substantiating evidence, copy to DCLG. Here, the document of 19th January 2007 is referenced as
“A” plus paragraph number from 1 to 35, e.g., A35.

1. Identifying state policies

2. The right to equality before the law for all persons

3. Treaty obligations

4. The law

5. The Crime

6. The Punishment
1. Identifying state policies

1.1. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 1201 (1993) as a Draft Protocol for the Convention on Human Rights, Article 1:-

“the expression ‘national minority’ refers to a group of persons in a state who:
a. reside on the territory of that state and are citizens thereof; b. maintain longstanding, firm and lasting ties with that state; c. display distinctive ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics; d. are sufficiently representative, although smaller in number than the rest of the population of that state or of a region of that state; e. are motivated by a concern to preserve together that which constitutes their common identity, including their culture, their traditions, their religion or their language.”

It is a sincerely held belief that the Cornish do fulfil these conditions and therefore qualify as a national minority.

1.2. From the Declarations contained in their respective instruments of ratification of the Framework Convention (FCPNM) the governments representing their respective racial majorities in the following countries made reference to their known indigenous ethnic or national minorities. Austria; Denmark; Estonia; Germany; Latvia; Poland; Slovenia; Switzerland and Macedonia

1.3. It is contended that a refusal to recognise the indigenous Cornish as a qualifying national minority by the government of the UK, its decisions, as the representatives of the English national majority, should be examined as evidence of the potential abuse of power. Consideration should be given to relevance of the statement made by the U.K. Mission to the U.N. at Geneva on 29th June 1996:- “The UK confirms that national minority groups and other ethnic groups within the territory of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories do not fall within the scope of indigenous peoples to which this declaration applies”. The example of the classification of the Chagos people as “temporary workers”, a policy condemned by the House of Lords 3rd November 2000, Case No. Co/3775/98 is also informative of U.K.attitudes. It is contended that the government of the United Kingdom is exposed as indifferent to the interests of genuine indigenous people without justifiable reason.

1.4. Since the Cornish pre-date the arrival of the English in Britain by several centuries, the representatives of the English national majority must be fully aware of the fact that the Cornish are nevertheless, an indigenous British people and not English owing to the history surrounding the historic association of the Stannaries of Cornwall (the tin mining industry) with the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall known as the Prince of Wales. This long association is reflected in the fact that the Prince of Wales’ wife has been given the title of the Duchess of Cornwall.

1.5. Professor Patrick Thornberry of Keele University, Staffordshire, U.K., provided a summary of proceedings at the Council of Europe’s conference in Russia in 2006, with special focus on minority education.



The professor observed:- “categories should remain open and flexible”. Cornish comment:- There are circumstances in which such discretion may legitimately arouse the suspicion of bias and discrimination in the decisions of a member state especially where the absence of a written constitution limits the ability of the individual to locate the grounds for an effective remedy. Professor Thornberry also observed: “We should however recall that education can also be misused, and can be a vehicle in certain circumstances of social engineering, towards the elimination of minority communities, as well as uplifting communities. History provides negative as well as positive examples”.

1.6. The history of the Dukes of Cornwall heirs to the throne and their Duchy of Cornwall estate, which claim ownership of the Cornish minerals organisation known anciently under the name of ‘the Stannaries’, is a negative example. It is censored from history lessons in state schools.

1.7. Many aspects of British and Cornish history are in Britain either suppressed or taken as English. Even the pre-England Stonehenge is signposted as English Heritage. The suspicion is aroused that there is, as suggested by Professor Thornberry in general terms, specific “social engineering” for the “elimination” of the Cornish identity and Celtic history. Paradoxically, this is occurring even though Cornwall became inseparable from the uncertain origins of the Duchy of Cornwall estate associated with the Heir to the Throne. The Duke of Cornwall now exercises unique rights under various Acts of Parliament which have the direct and indirect result of suppressing the Cornish identity, culture and traditions. Examples of the Acts concerned are listed in the submission to the DCLG dated19th January 2007. A copy is now submitted with this document.

1.8. The Stannaries are managed by the heir to the throne to obtain an income for himself, an arrangement, initiated to relieve the English national majority of the burden of paying taxation to provide the heir apparent with an income. The state provides extensive dedicated legislative support to ensure the success of the estate. It is sometimes claimed by the state as private and sometimes claimed by academics as formerly constitutional and currently commercial. “The existence of the Duchy of Cornwall was once of constitutional significance, but is now essentially a commercial organisation”. “The Cornish Question” by Mark Sandford, The Constitution Unit, University College London, 2002. (Page 38, note 37). (ISBN 1 903903 14 9). No date, reason, proof , evidence or constitutional amendment is tendered by the author in support of his observation. In the same paragraph, in respect of the Stannaries, Sandford further observes: “The Parliament and law have never been formally repealed….” (4.8 + 5.11).

1.9. “The government has no plans to amend the constitutional position of the Duchy of Cornwall”. (Letter from the Government Office for the South West, dated 30th June 2006). “The Cornish estates (of the Duchy) in particular contain a considerable number of old mines and mine workings”. “The Duchy of Cornwall is run on commercial lines in accordance with the requirements of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts”. (1863-1982). www.defra.gov.uk July 2006). (DEFRA = Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs). (6.10). The Duchy of Cornwall is not a registered company.

1.10. From the close historic association between Cornwall and the heir to the throne it can be reasonably concluded that the Cornish are not being recognised as a national minority by the British government because of the permitted influence on state policy of the wishes of the Heir to the Throne. The heir, as Duke of Cornwall, would appear to be exercising royal immunity on behalf of the English national majority to impose a policy of “history denial” regardless of human rights law and “The right to equality before the law for all persons”. (Directive 2000/43/EC, para.3), (2.7).

1.11. As part of Her Majesty in Her private capacity (which is presumably of a personal nature rather than commercial) (Crown Proceedings Act 1947, Section 38 (3)), the Duke’s management policies for the state aided property known as the Duchy of Cornwall Estate, are being officially designated as private apparently to secure protection from public investigation under exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, sections 35; 36 and 37. This places the estate above and beyond any form of effective democratic scrutiny. (5.7; 5.8 and 5.9).

1.12. On the 15th December 2006, the undersigned submitted six questions to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) relevant to its Draft Second Report which again unbelievably excludes the Cornish from the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities . (FCPNM).

1.13. Question one:- “Please send me a copy of the Department’s definition of “the RRA formula” as stated at para 17 on page 9 of the Draft? (The RRA formula is the method by which the DCLG has determined that the Cornish should establish their credentials as suitable for inclusion within the provisions of the Framework Convention).

1.14. On 5th January 2007 the DCLG sent answers.

DCLG answer to question one:- “The RRA formula” referred in paragraph 17 of the Draft report is the one set out in paragraph 15 of the report, i.e. any group defined by reference to “colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins”. This definition is taken from section 3 (1) of the Race Relations Act 1976”.

1.15. The DCLG reference to the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) regulations 2003 does not include its Statutory Instrument (SI) number of 2003/1626. An amendment to an Act is not a consistent policy in respect of the incorporation of Directives. The inclusion of the SI number would facilitate an otherwise difficult search through the hundreds of statutory instruments made in 2003.

1.16. The Directive is entitled:- “Implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin”. It has become known as “The Race Directive” The Cornish are of British and Celtic ethnic origin whereas the English are of Germanic ethnic origin.






1.17. Although the Race Relations Act is intended to protect any group defined by “national origins”, the Department (DCLG) makes the assertion that the U.K. government does not recognise national minorities. This does not ring true when the government has recognised the Cornish Celtic language without making a public statement on the result of its research, if any, into the “national origins” of the Cornish Celtic language. (para 17 of the DCLG Draft Second Report). By which process of enquiry, an impartial investigator must, sooner rather than later, recognise the existence of the Cornish national minority.

1.18. Further clarification was requested from the DCLG on 8th January 2007 in which the undersigned stated, “Unfortunately, I consider your answers to be incomplete”. (no answer to date).

1.19. Query on DCLG answer of 5th January 2007 to original question one dated 15th December 2006. Query sent to DCLG 8th January 2007: “The reason for requesting a “copy” of “the RRA formula” was to obtain information as to its scope and whether it has been approved by the European Commission who have competence for equality and discrimination under E.U.Treaty, Article 13”? (no answer to date).

1.20. It is noted that the signatory of the response from the DCLG, Mr Ian Naysmith, wrote to the undersigned on 26th January 2005, at that time from the Home Office, in response to a Freedom of Information request in respect of the FCPNM. Acknowledging the request for: “information including any reference to the history of Cornwall and the Stannaries”, I was informed that, “after careful consideration it has been determined that this information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 35, 1 (a), (b), (c), (d) of the Freedom of Information Act”. (A25).

1.21. “The history of Cornwall and the Stannaries” has apparently been classified as a state secret. (A26). It is however available at www.cornishstannaryparliament.org


2. The right to equality before the law for all persons

2.1. There is no constitutional or statutory right to equality before the law in United Kingdom law. This vacuum has the effect of providing a licence for the English national majority to award themselves automatic rights and freedoms which all to often translate into the deprivation of rights and freedoms for the Cornish national minority.

2.2. “There is no statutory guarantee of equality before the law in U.K. law”. Professor Francesca Klug, Human Rights Centre, London School of Economics, 6th July 2006.

2.3. A provision for equality before the law is to be found in the overwhelming majority of the Constitutions of Europe.


The example of the Constitution of the Monarchy of Sweden……………….


The example of the Constitution of the Monarchy of Sweden is particularly impressive: Chapter 1, Article 9, affirms:- “Courts, public authorities and others performing functions within the public administration shall observe in their work the equality of all persons before the law and shall maintain objectivity and impartiality”.

2.4. Original question two of 15th December 2006 to DCLG:- “The Race Relations Act 1976 was amended by European Community Directive 2000/43/EC, which came into force on 19th July 2003. Is the right to equality before the law, as stated at para. 3 of the aforementioned Directive, applied in all the administrative decisions of the Department”?

2.5. DCLG answer to original question two of 15th December 2006 on 5th January 2006:- “The U.K. government and its EU partners agreed the Race Directive in 2000. All 15 countries that were member states at the time were required to adopt the provisions necessary in their national laws to comply with the Directive by 19th July 2003. UK domestic law already largely complied with the Directive, and in some respects went further, but some amendments were still required. These were brought in by the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) regulations 2003.

The reference to “equality before the law” that you mention in your fax comes from what is commonly known as the “recitals” to the Directive, rather than its operative articles, which start at Chapter 1. In the recitals, the Council of the European Union (i.e. the member states) recall the background to the Directive and provide further explanatory information concerning the Directive that follows”.

2.6. A query on the incomplete DCLG answer to question two was sent on 8th January 2007 to the DCLG:- “The question was:- Is the right to equality before the law applied in all the administrative practices of the Department”? (no response to date).

2.7. The recital (3) of Directive 2000/43/EC states:-

“The right to equality before the law and the protection against discrimination for all persons constitutes a universal right recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination and the United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law”.

2.8. The Directive would appear to be a statement of Customary International law.

“As such it is not necessary for a country to sign a treaty for customary international law to apply”. (Amnesty International on customary international law).

Clearly, the recital is based on the assumption that “The right to equality before the law for all persons” is a general principle of Community and international law ratified by contracting states of which the United Kingdom is one.



2.9. Consequently, the individual has the right to know the reason why the United Kingdom government has not transposed “The right to equality before the law for all persons” into domestic law and why it has not notified the Council of Europe and the European Commission by lodging a formal declaration, reservation, repudiation or official notice of derogation.

2.10. In order to permit the individual to establish the extent of his/her rights, he or she should be put in possession of the full details of all the relevant domestic references applicable to the transposition into domestic law of EU Directives. This would require all official documents to quote the exact statutory location in U.K. law of any relevant provisions of each and every Directive with convenient cross referencing.

2.11. Such a referencing policy would include all the references in respect of Race Directive 2000/43/EC which promotes: “The right to equality before the law for all persons”. If the DCLG answer to question two, given above, had included the courtesy of referencing quotations it would have greatly assisted the individual in determining his/her rights in respect of such unreferenced propositions as: “already largely complied with” and those that: “in some respects went further” and others considered as: “some amendments were still needed”.

3. Treaty obligations

3.1. Under the Race Directive 2000/43/EC the DCLG stipulates a requirement for:- “Race equality impact assessment” - “Initial assessment or screening” - “All policy proposals should be screened for their likely effects on racial equality”. (Department for Communities and Local Government - Racial Equality in Housing, para. 4.15, May 2006).

3.2. Since the Directive also deals with such matters as “social advantages” (which would include the availability of the provisions of the Framework Convention (FCPNM) ), the case for a “Race Equality Impact Assessment” in respect of the Cornish in relation to the FCPNM, would, under DCLG rules, require the publication of the reason for or against such a screening.

3.3. There is the further matter of concern that EU Directives are not being transposed completely into UK domestic law as confirmed in the circular of the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to all Chief Planning Officers dated 30th June 2006. The DCLG circular states, in relation to adverse decisions handed down by the European Court of Justice, that:- “Direct effect means that in the absence of national legislation that gives effect in a Member State to the obligations the Directive imposes on them, individuals have the right to rely on, and the Courts take into consideration, the provisions and obligations of the Directive”. “Individuals could rely on the Directive against a local planning authority”.






3.4. A holistic approach to “The right to equality before the law for all persons” might well involve the implications of environmental Directive 2003/04/EC (Article 2f) which concerns itself with “conditions of human life” and “cultural sites”. A positive approach to Treaty obligations would also embrace Directive 2003/35/EC covering “public participation and access to justice”.

The broader view of Treaty obligations would undoubtedly raise questions about the rights and “conditions of life” of the Cornish within their “cultural” environment.

3.5. By failing to integrate its policies the DCLG has also failed to help individuals rely on the EU Race Directive 2000/43/EC as an amendment to its “RRA formula”. It is hoped that the Council of Europe will be able to support the inclusion of the Europe wide principle of: “The right to equality before the law for all persons”, contained in the Directive, as being relevant to considering the inclusion of the indigenous Cornish national minority within the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on the grounds that the Cornish also fall within the definition of “all persons”.

3.6. The DCLG definition of “the RRA formula” as given in its answer one of 5th January 2007 above, is therefore, it is contended, seriously incomplete.


4. The law

4.1. The Duke of Cornwall, heir to the British throne, is apparently not bound by customary international law such as “The right to equality before the law for all persons”. Even if he did not so wish, he has been provided with a comprehensive “Crown Rights” provision that: “Nothing should affect prejudicially any right “privilege, power, privilege, authority or exemption or in any manner interfere with any land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall ” (Tamar Bridge Act 1998, s. 41). This impressive list of advantages should be sufficient to protect the interests of the Duke and Duchy of Cornwall with impunity and without consideration of the right of the Cornish to exist in “association with a national minority” (Article 14 ECHR and Protocol 12).

4.2. Under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 40 (2g) the Duke of Cornwall, the Heir to the Throne, has “the right to control or otherwise intervene in proceedings affecting his rights, property or profits”. And, section 38 (3) “the Duke of Cornwall is part of Her Majesty in her private capacity”. There are special exemptions for Duchy administration of bona vacantia in Cornwall under the Supreme Court Act 1981, section120.

4.3. The Duke of Cornwall, Heir to the Throne, would appear to be authorised to exercise the function of an unofficial Court. He has given judgement against the Human Rights Act 1998. (The Times, 2nd March 2006).

4.4. Question number six of 15th December 2006 to DCLG:- “Does the concept Crown, as in the oath of allegiance to the ‘Crown’ taken by Ministers, Judges and M.P.’s, include the heir to the throne who is born Duke of Cornwall?
4.5. DCLG answer of 5th January 2007:- “Oaths of allegiance to the Crown take different forms. The oath taken by Ministers and MPS is that “….I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to HM Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law”. The oath taken by Judges is that : “I [NAME] do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth in the office of {OFFICE SPECIFIED} and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will”.

4.6. The oath of allegiance should be understood in relation to the royal prerogative.

“The Definition and nature of the Prerogative” is given in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed; Vol.8; published 1974; Constitutional Law, para.889. “Meaning of Royal Prerogative”.

“The Royal prerogative may be defined as being that pre-eminence which the Sovereign enjoys over and above all other persons by virtue of the common law, but out of its ordinary course, in right of her regal dignity, and comprehends all the special dignities, liberties, privileges, powers and royalties allowed by the common law to the Crown of England”.

4.7. Halsbury’s para. 896, affirms: “The sovereign can do no wrong”:……no remedy lies against the Sovereign in person either in civil or criminal matters, for the prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exerted to their prejudice”. However, it would appear that with regard to: “the benefit of the people” the contrary is intended at Halsbury’s para.1076, “Priority of Crown right”: “Where the Crown’s right and that of a subject meet at one and the same time, that of the Crown is in general preferred, the rule being detur digniori”. (detur digniori = “let it be given to the worthier”.

If “the worthier” applies to the Heir to the Throne, then it would appear to be an affirmation of the precedence of the Duke of Cornwall in relation to the Cornish. This form of precedence also applies to land. The Land Registration Act 2002 s.79, asserts: “Her Majesty may grant an estate in fee simple absolute in possession out of the demesne land to Herself”.

4.8. Since the heir and successor, the Duke of Cornwall is part of Her Majesty in Her private capacity, [Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 38 (3)] the oaths of allegiance taken by the executive, legislature of judiciary do not appear to be completely independent and impartial as far as the “worthier” interests of the heir, the Duke of Cornwall are concerned in relation to the lives of Cornish people and their future. This “worthier” precedent may extend to the Stannaries (covering the whole of Cornwall) historically designated as “demesne land” which, the Duke might be inclined to “grant to Himself”. This is an official attempt to transfer into private ownership by Act of Parliament that which “has never been taken into public ownership”. (HM Treasury letter of 26th July 2006). (A28). This may mean that the historic claims to land made under Charter are not on a solid legal foundation. The exact interpretation and intent of English law (Scotland has a separate legal system) is therefore, obscure, and not clear and ascertainable in its practical application as far as Cornish people are concerned. (1.8 + 5.11)

4.9. The English legal system represents a singular deterrent for those who would challenge the involvement of the heir, the Duke of Cornwall, in the conduct of affairs of state that affect their lives. Obscure and undeclared legal rules amount to the denial of legality against which there is no known means of defence.

4.10. The attention to detail is necessary for the realisation of the legitimate expectations of the individual through self-reliance, when considering the ‘Anti-discrimination & relations with Civil Society’, European Commission publication 15/03/2005:-

“If you feel you have suffered discrimination, you will need to familiarise yourself with the provisions and procedures of your national legal system …….Knowledge of your national legal system is imperative as the national courts are the primary level of recourse for cases pertaining to the Racial Equality Directive”.

4.11. “Individuals may rely upon the Directive before a court of a Member State to obtain from the national authorities the setting aside of the national measures incompatible with those provisions”. (House of Lords, The Berkeley Case, [2001]2 AC 603, HL, para.7, 06/07/2000).

4.12. “A national Court which is called upon, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of Community law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provisions by legislative or other constitutional means”. (European Court of Justice, Simmenthal Case, 106/77; Summary, para.4, 09/03/1978).

4.13. Following a referral to the Office for Judicial Complaints on 13th November 2006 in respect of a case lodged with the Truro Crown Court on 2nd October 2006 the Court, on 2nd January 2007, declared itself to be not competent to hear a case of racial discrimination, under section 57 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended by the Race Directive 2000/43/EC), against the Cornish on the part of government departments, with the request that the Court give “direct effect” to “The right to equality before the law for all persons” as promulgated by Race Directive 2000/43/EC. The Court further ruled: “Permission to appeal refused”. (Case number:- 6TR02285).

4.14. This case, initiated by Seneth an Stenegow Kernow who were represented by the undersigned, may be cited as an attempt to comply with “the RRA formula” but frustrated by a subtle combination of: the unknown impact of exemptions under section 120 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the application of rights under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, sections 38 (3) and 40 (2g) and the possibility of discretionary departures from established law and principles.






5. The Crime

5.1. To avoid the humiliation of being rendered impotent under the “the worthier” assertions of the Crown and Duke of Cornwall, (Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed; Vol.8; published 1974; Constitutional Law, para.1076, “Priority of Crown right”) (4.7) in relation to the Duchy of Cornwall estate, (parts of the estate outside Cornwall, in Anglo-Saxon England, are taken to be the result of investments from the English double-tax profits on Cornish tin production - A5+A6+A7) a number of persons who profess Cornish Celtic ethnicity have committed the following crimes:-

5.2. Publicly demanding:- “The right to equality before the law for all persons” as a statutory guarantee to add strength and credibility to the rule of law.

5.3. Utterly refusing:- English racial identity, English ethnicity or English nationality.

5.4. Strongly professing:- Cornish racial identity, an indigenous British and Celtic Cornish ethnicity and Cornish nationality to accomplish individual rights in association with a national minority. (A3+A4+A28).

5.5. Deploring:- the deletion of declarations of “Cornish” ethnicity on official documents and their subsequent replacement with “English” or “Other” in official records and the enforced requirement of a declaration of “English” in order to obtain Adult Education funding.

5.6. Supporting:- Cornwall County Council in its complaints of being forced to discontinue recording data on Cornish ethnicity under threat of reduced government funding. (6.6).

5.7. Censuring:- official attempts to present the state aided Duchy of Cornwall estate as a private estate, and thereby claim exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, contrary to the ruling that it is a public body by Lord Chief Justice Tenderden in the 1828 Trial at Bar case of Rowe v. Brenton. (A10).

5.8. Revealing:- that the foreshore of Cornwall has been claimed as “part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall”. (The Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858). (A11+A28).

5.9. Recalling:- the courage of Sir Charles Dilke, the constitutionalist, who on 18th March 1872, stated in Parliament, “There is not likely to be made today any attempt to contend that the Duchy of Cornwall is the private property of the Prince of Wales”.

5.10. Insisting:- that Duchy property is Crown property: “Crown property means a property the relevant interest in which belongs to His Majesty in right of the Crown or to the Duchy of Cornwall, or belongs to a Government Department”. (The Finance Act 1949, section 44). (A10).





5.11. Exposing:- as manipulation of the law (1.8 + 4.8) involving the planned transfer of land (i.e., land classified in 1086AD as Crown land or demesne land) as in the proposed transfer-to-self of alleged public land by the Monarch or by the Duke to the alleged private Duchy of Cornwall Estate. (Land Registration Act 2002, section 79 and “the Duke as part of Her Majesty in her private capacity”. (Crown Proceedings Act 1947, Section 38 (3)). This legislation calls into question the previously assumed right of the Crown, i.e. The Monarch, that:- “The Crown is the only absolute owner of land in England and Wales”. (Land Registration Act 2002, Explanatory notes, Background, Origins of the Act, para.4). (A23+A30).

5.12. Obtaining:- HM Treasury letter of 26th July 2006 which states: “It (the Duchy of Cornwall) remains private because it has never been taken into public ownership by purchase, under statute or otherwise”. Deploring as a dereliction of duty to the Cornish people the unwarranted precedence given to making the Duchy of Cornwall estate profitable as required by statutory “duty” with regard to present and future Dukes. (1.8 + 4.8 + A28).

5.13. Disputing the right:- taken by the state to exercise the abuse of power in granting provisions of unfair competition to enhance the income of the Duchy of Cornwall estate as revealed by the privileges, immunities and exemptions made available in; The Crown Proceedings Act 1947, sections 38 (3), and 40 (2g), (A13); The Limitation Act 1980, sections 37 and 38, (A16); The Supreme Court Act1981, section 120, (A17); The Cornwall County Council Act 1984, section 51, (A19); The Companies Act 1985, sections 654 to 656; The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 293 to 302, (A20); The Treasure Act 1996; Tamar Bridge Act 1998, section 41, (A21); The Competition Act 1998, sections 60 and 73; The Freedom of Information Act 2000 sections 35; 36 and 37, (A22); The Land Registration Act 2002, sections 79 and 84, (A23); The National Heritage Act 2002; The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, section 172; The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 84 and 111 and Part 8, (A24): The Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863 to 1982. (A12+A18); The Royal Prerogative and The Oath of Allegiance
(A30) on the grounds that they are not in the public interest.

5.14. Arguing against:- the provision for the Duke of Cornwall of “the right (of the Crown which includes the Duke of Cornwall under section 38(3)) to control or otherwise intervene in proceedings affecting its rights, property or profits”
(Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 40 (2g)) on the grounds that the provision should be repealed as being contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6, “The right to a fair trial”.

5.15. Expecting:- answers and reasons for the modern grant of various legislative privileges, powers, rights and exemptions and claims to privacy and secrecy for the Duke and Duchy of Cornwall. (A34) This executive sponsored action would appear to be an official admission that the original and similar provisions of the Duchy of Cornwall Charters of 1337 have been recognised as being of doubtful legal validity (The Prince’s Case and Case of the Stannaries – Lord Coke 1606) since they are otherwise in no need of duplication. (A8 + A9 + 1.8 + 4.8).


5.16. Contesting:- the modern provisions for the Duchy of Cornwall by Acts of Parliament as attempt to obscure the impact on Cornwall of the unrepealed charter grant to the Dukes of: “the King’s writ and summons of exchequer” exercised by the Dukes of Cornwall or the Monarch throughout Cornwall only over a period of several centuries. (A7). A veritable barrier against a legal challenge. These absolute governmental powers are themselves believed to be in conflict with Magna Charta of 1215, Article 52 and of 1297, Article 29. (A8+A9). The government of the United Kingdom would appear to prefer the criminalisation of the Cornish national minority, and the suppression of the history of Cornwall and the Stannaries, rather than undertake a comprehensive investigation into the legacy of mistakes of autocratic policies rather than attempting to extend their influence.

5.17. Unable:- to remain silent regarding the refusal of the Secretary to the Duchy of Cornwall to reveal a list of Duchy properties to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in February 2006. Also, distributing the letter from the House of Commons Library revealing an injunction to prevent questions on the role of the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall. (Letter to Andrew George M.P. of 16.06.1997 in response to a request by the undersigned).

5.18. Criticising:- the Duchy of Cornwall’s refusal to reveal the date of the transfer of Tintagel Castle from the Duchy of Cornwall to English Heritage. (Duchy of Cornwall letter dated 22nd February 2005).

5.19. Countering:- the propaganda attempting to hijack the description “Duchy” which historically applied to Cornwall itself. (The Prince’s Case, 1606).

5.20. Objecting:- at a recent Public Inquiry at St.Austell to the construction of 511 holiday flats (or second homes) on foreshore claimed as the property of the Duchy of Cornwall.

5.21. Attending:- a recent Public Inquiry at Camborne to object to official planning for second homes in Cornwall – Cornwall having already the highest concentration in the UK. Also objecting to official failures to apply E.U. Environmental Directives 2003/35/EC and 2003/04/EC and those covering “housing” and “social benefits”. (Directive 2000/43/EC).

5.22. Participating in:- the removal of English Heritage signs from Cornish heritage monuments, a number of which are claimed as the property of the Duchy of Cornwall estate. Posting each act of removal on a web site and accumulating eighteen signs over a period of months in 2001. Being available to assist as a defence witness (the undersigned) at the Truro Crown Court on 18th January 2002 to prove that the sites involved were protected by Cornish intellectual property rights. The Court proceedings did not commence after the Court granted the Crown Prosecution Service a Public Interest Immunity Certificate. Although the defence solicitor confirmed a not guilty verdict, those involved are generally presumed to be guilty as charged of theft and conspiracy. It has not been possible to obtain a Court case number.

5.23. Writing:- to the Department of Education about its negative policy towards the registration of Cornish pupils as Cornish and the absence of the Cornish, the Stannaries and the Duchy of Cornwall from the history curriculum. (A31).
5.24. Protesting:- about the absence of automatic proportionate funding for Cornish culture. (A29).

5.25. Complaining:- to the Office for National statistics regarding its negative policy towards the Cornish in the content of the Census form of 2001 and 2011. (A27).

5.26. Swearing:- in Cornish regarding delays and low funding in the promotion and standardisation of the Cornish language. (Bram an gath).

5.27. Establishing:- an indisputable case of institutionalised racial discrimination against Cornish people in the administration of Crown land as established by William the Conqueror in 1086, as revealed in the otherwise inexplicable differences between the profit motive of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863 to 1982 exercised in Cornwall and the corporate and public responsibilities demanded by the state in the management of the Crown Estate under the Crown Estate Act 1961 in the remaining part of the United Kingdom. (A14+A15).

5.28. Failing:- to ignore the fact that unlike the establishment of Commissioners to manage the Crown Estate, the Duchy estate is managed by the Duke of Cornwall. The process of “privatisation” over a period of time has involved the personal prerogatives of the Duke being absorbed into the management rights and powers of the Duchy of Cornwall estate to expand profitability in private for the benefit of the Heir to the Throne and the English national majority.

5.29. Working to prevent:- the transference of Cornish wealth to the Duke of Cornwall now coincides with Cornwall’s position as the recipient of European Union Objective One funding awarded on account of its Celtic history and low GDP. This situation in itself may be officially regarded as sufficient reason to suppress the Celtic identity of the Cornish.

5.30. Ignoring:- historical royal taboos by agreeing that:- “What is invidious about the position of the Duchy (of Cornwall) is its compromising of the original principle of English constitutional law, that the Monarch should be dependent on Parliament for finance”. (Who Owns Britain, Kevin Cahill, Canongate, Edinburgh, 2002, p. 91).

5.31. Investigating:- the history of the Duchy of Cornwall double-tax levied on Cornish tin production (compared to that of Devon) up to the year 1838 by government application of the English custom (4 Coke Inst.33,c.1600; “for aliens for goods double”) of charging “foreigners” goods at double the normal level of tax. Objecting to the current retention and acquisition of assets to obtain income to continue a policy of avoiding the imposition of a general tax on the English national majority in order to provide an income for the Heir to the Throne. (A6).

5.32. Examining:- the abuse of official secrecy through Public Interest Immunity Certificates; declarations of not in the public interest and claiming exemptions from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and extensively applying the Official Secrets Act. Under these headings there are instances where retired civil servants can be deprived of their civil rights if they ignore being threatened with the termination of their pension rights by indulging in the public utterance of anti-establishment remarks.

5.33. Seeking to prove:- at the High Court in London and giving evidence summarised by the Judge in the official transcript as: “a sincerely held belief that there is discrimination against the citizens of Cornwall in that the Prince of Wales, in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall, has various privileges by comparison with ordinary subjects of the Crown. The Judge then makes reference to Mr Murley’s “massive research into the position of the Duchy and the Stannaries, but I cannot embark on them in the present case”. (High Court Case No.CO/2464/2005 – submitted in April 2006 to the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR Case No. 8268/06). The case involved the historic and customary right to recover tin claimed as the property of the Duchy of Cornwall, on the grounds of prior ownership, involving a site included in plans for the construction of a highway. “I cannot embark on them in this case” may refer to the fact that in planning matters “no act or omission done by or on behalf of the Crown (includes the Duke of Cornwall) constitutes an offence under this Act”. (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s84). (A24).

5.34. Condemning:- the absence of a set of principles made public in a written Constitution and the exclusion from U.K. statutes of the principle of “The right to equality before the law for all persons”. Questioning the unavailability of law to permit the autochthonous Cornish to legitimately expect, as of right, proportionately equal funding for Cornish culture, language and traditions compared with the automatic funding available for the culture, language and traditions of the English national majority.

5.35. Helping:- persons who profess Cornish Celtic ethnicity and are being subjected to biased and discriminatory official policies to the point where they have, it is contended, been adjudged, without being given the opportunity to submit a public defence to an independent and impartial Court, to have committed the crime of refusing to accept English nationality, the privileges of the Duchy of Cornwall Estate and the politically controlled English interpretation of history. It is a crime for which there is no remedy in English law. (A32+A33).


6. The Punishment (or penalty)

6.1. The punishment comprises the imposition of Government policies of suppression leading to the “crimes” identified in section 5 above by persons professing a Celtic ethnicity in association with a national minority

6.2. The rule of law theoretically prevents state officials from acting upon whim but, unchecked by: “The right to equality before the law for all persons” absolute royal power and influence can destroy the theory. The oath of allegiance to the Crown by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the administration ensures that loyalty can be demanded even if it includes the imposition of a generational collective punishment of victimisation and intimidation upon those deemed to be disloyal British subjects after having been reduced to the level of suspected or actual criminals in their efforts to secure from the representatives of the English national majority the recognition of the Cornish national minority otherwise generally accepted around the world.

6.3. E-mail from Glenn Caplin (01872-322671) of Cornwall County Council to Tom Wraith (020-7166-2192) of the Audit Commission, London, dated 04 July 2006:-

“We believe the data on Cornish ethnicity should form part of the analysis”.

6.4. E-mail from Tom Wraith of the Audit Commission, London, to Glenn Caplin of Cornwall County Council dated 25th August 2006.

“I know this is an important issue to you, and I therefore asked the DCLG to check your categories. They agreed that it would not be possible to reassign the data and they have said that the format is unacceptable”.

6.5. E-mail from Glenn Caplin of Cornwall County Council to Tom Wraith of the Audit Commission dated 25th August 2006:-

“I have spoken to our Leader and the relevant Portfolio Holder and they have authorised me to depart from our approved policy on this occasion. However, our Leader was very concerned that we have been forced to change our policy as a result of threats to qualify our PI scores and therefore jeopardise our CPA rating and he will be writing to the appropriate Minister to object”. “Under protest we will comply with your request”.

6.6. Note:- “PI” = Performance Indicator; and, “CPA” = Comprehensive Performance Indicator. The threat of the Audit Commission/DCLG is understood to indicate a reduction in rating the corollary of which is a reduction in state funding. This incident probably exposes an official indifference to the European Charter of Local Self-Government and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

6.7. It is noted that a reference to the statutory authority for the government’s decision is not revealed.

6.8. Following many submissions to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) it is still making excuses to avoid an accurate survey of the Cornish through the information obtained through the 2001 Census and the proposals for the 2011 Census. On the separate pupil registration (PLASC) the entry of “Cornish” is subsequently entered into the central computer as “English” or “other” or “White British”.

6.9. The British History Curriculum for schools under the English Education System does not specifically include the Celts and does not recognise that Britain was a Celtic country at the beginning of the present Christian era.

6.10. Although described as “the analogous landowner in Cornwall” by the Crown Estate in its letter of 7th January 2005, the state controlled Duchy of Cornwall Estate comprises arbitrarily selected Crown Land and is “run on commercial lines”. (1.9). It has no statutory obligation or corporate responsibility in Cornwall unlike the Crown Estate in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Crown Estate elsewhere in the United Kingdom. www.crownestate.gov.uk under the Crown Estate Act 1961, section 4 makes, “Grants for public or charitable purposes” which includes the provision of affordable housing.

6.11. Whereas, the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, section 8. reveals that it is the: “Duty of the Treasury to have regard to present and future interests of the Dukes of Cornwall”. Cornwall has the highest number of second homes in the United Kingdom which may or may not be constructed on Duchy land. The Duchy Secretary refused to reveal a list to Duchy of Cornwall properties to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in February 2006 with impunity. It would appear that the process has undeclared support from H.M. Treasury’s in conformity with its “duty” towards “the interests of present and future Dukes of Cornwall”. (A28 + A30).

6.12. This arrangement appears to reveal that local-tax (Council tax) payers in Cornwall may have been paying for services which are met by the Crown Estate in the remaining part of the United Kingdom and thereby constituting indirect discrimination or collective punishment against Cornish people because of their enforced association with the “rights, property and profits” (Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 40 (2g)) of the heir to the throne.


7. Conclusion

7.1. In the absence of a set of principles made public in a written constitution, the exclusion from U.K. statutes of the European principle of: “The right to equality before the law for all persons” and the question mark over EU “direct effect”, the administrative system of the United Kingdom under scrutiny reveals that there is no law to permit the autochthonous Cornish to legitimately expect, as of right, proportionately equal funding for their Celtic culture, language and traditions compared with the automatic funding made available for the culture, language and traditions of the English national majority. (Sections 2 and 3).

7.2. The English Courts do not appear to be completely independent and impartial as far as the interests of the Duke of Cornwall and the state aided Duchy of Cornwall estate are concerned in their relationship with the Cornish national minority. Obscure and undeclared administrative regulations amount to a denial of legality with no means of defence for those adversely affected. There is no constitutional provision for an effective remedy against decisions made by all those persons who may have the right to demand instant loyalty when exercising royal immunities and prerogatives directly or indirectly for reasons concealed as state secrets. In practice, English law is, therefore, not clear or ascertainable for Cornish people historically an instrument of royal and racial majority autocracy although, of pre-England Celtic ethnicity, the Cornish are currently in a position to claim unconditional government recognition of the right of association as a national minority under developing twentieth century human rights law. (Section 4).

7.3. It is contended that the evidence presented reveals that the English administrative system has failed to incorporate the European: “right to equality before the law for all persons” in order to promote English racial, cultural and economic supremacy, with the aid of granting unusual rights, powers and privileges to the Duke of Cornwall, the Heir to the Throne. This has had the direct and indirect impact of a well organised collective punishment imposed on the indigenous Cornish with the intent of eliminating the Celtic identity, culture and traditions of the Cornish national minority
from the cultural diversity fabric of the United Kingdom. (Section 6).
7.5. Consequently , in respect of the Cornish national minority, the policies of the government of the United Kingdom substantially suggest, it is contended, a violation of Article 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), “No punishment without law”. (Article 13 ECHR “an effective remedy for violations by persons acting in an official capacity” has been excluded from the Human Rights Act 1998). (As at April 2005 the government of the United Kingdom had not ratified Protocol 12 ECHR). (Section 5).

7.6. It is urgently submitted that the Draft Second Report of the United Kingdom in respect of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities compiled by the Department for Communities and Local Government is flagrantly incomplete. (Section 1).


Yours sincerely,




 

What's Related

Document Options

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://cornishstannaryparliament.co.uk//resources//trackback.php?id=20070205130604750

No trackback comments for this entry.
Letter to Directorate General of Human Rights. | 0 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
copyright CSP 2006 ..... Designed and hosted by FTI