Should the Cornish have a legal right to exist as a national minority? YES/NO
620 votes | 0 comments
Is a constitution for everyone necessary?
281 votes | 0 comments
Do you agree with the Cornish Stannary Parliament's policy of removing English Heritage signs?
1,063 votes | 2 comments
Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User|
Lost your password?
The Cornish national minority and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities - Part III.
Tuesday, February 20 2007 @ 10:29 AM GMT|
Contributed by: Admin
|Mr Hanno Hartig,|
Head of Media, Equality & Minorities Department,
Directorate General of Human Rights,
Council of Europe,
F-67075 Strasbourg – Cedex,
Dear Mr Hartig,
The Cornish national minority and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities - Part III.
With reference to my previous communication of 5th February 2007 detailing background points in support of an allegation of the violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) Article 7 by the government of the United Kingdom being Part I, dated 18th January and Part II dated 5th February 2007.
Submitted herewith is an outline of the legal argument in respect of proposed reasons for the decision of the government of the United Kingdom to exclude the Cornish from the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in its Second Report to the Council of Europe.
1. The decision of the government of the United Kingdom to exclude the Cornish from the Framework Convention is considered to represent a violation of Article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
No punishment without law
No one shall be held guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time it was committed…..
2. In the Case of Berkeley v. Secretary of State for the Environment  2AC 603 AL, the House of Lords ruled “individuals may rely on the Directive before a court of a Member State……….” . This clearly indicates that their Lordships considered a Directive to be the definitive position of the law.
Directive 2000/43/EC, The Race Directive, is considered to be only incompletely transposed into domestic law by Statutory Instrument (S.I) 2003/1626 necessitating complete reliance upon the Directive.
S.I. 2003/1626 lists various amendments to the Race Relations Act 1976, (RRA) an Act which is deemed to be the basis upon which the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has established a “RRA formula” as the process by which the Cornish are required to win a court case in order to qualify for inclusion within the terms of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. (FCPNM). The Second Draft Report of the DCLG makes no reference to the amendments to the RRA undertaken in compliance with The Race Directive, Directive 2003/43/EC, which may significantly impact upon the “RRA formula”.
Questions submitted to the DCLG dated 8th January 2007 have not yet been answered. They included the question:- “Has the ‘RRA formula’ been approved by the European Commission who have competence for equality and discrimination under the E.U. Treaty, Article 13?
Directive 2000/43/EC at Article 2 para. 4, provides: “An instruction to discriminate against persons on grounds of racial or ethnic origin shall be deemed to be discrimination within the meaning of para.1”.
Directive 2000/43/EC at Article 3 para.1, provides: “Within the limits of the powers conferred upon the Community, this Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to:- (matters
of interest to the present case) (f) “social advantages; (g) education; (h) access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public including housing”.
3. The Race Relations Act 1976, (as amended), at section 30, provides:
“It is unlawful for a person:-
(a) who has authority over another person; or
(b) in accordance with whose wishes that other person is accustomed to act,
to instruct him to do any act which is unlawful by virtue of Part II or III
(or s.76 or 76ZA), to procure or attempt to procure the doing by him of
any such act.
The Race Relations Act 1976, (as amended), at section 31, provides:
(1) “It is unlawful to induce, or attempt to induce, a person to do any act which contravenes Part II or III (or s.76 or 76ZA).
(2) An attempted inducement is not prevented from falling within subsection (1)
because it is not made directly to the person in question, if it is made in such
a way that he is likely to hear of it”.
(Part 1:- Discrimination to which the Act applies. Part II:- Discrimination in the Employment field. Part III:- Discrimination in other fields – Goods, facilities, services and premises). (“premises” specifically refers to “letting” which is not the all inclusive “access to housing” of The Race Directive Article 3 (1h) which would cover new housing).
4. The National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, section 102 (3) states:-
“Crown land means land an interest in which –
(a) belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown,
(b) belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster,
(c) belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall, or
(d) belongs to a government department or is held in trust for Her Majesty
for the purposes of a government department”
and at section 54 -
(5) “Nothing in this part affects Her Majesty in her private capacity”.
Tamar Bridge Act 1998, section 41 – “Crown rights”, (includes) – “Nothing should affect prejudicially any right, power, privilege, authority or exemption or in any manner interfere with any land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall”. (Part II, 4.1).
Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 38 (3). “Her Majesty in her private capacity includes the Duke of Cornwall”. (Part 1, A9).(Part.II, 4.2).
5. Since the “Crown land which belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown” is under the management of either of the Crown Estate Commissions, who have no holdings in Cornwall (Crown Estate letter dated 7th January 2005) or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who also have no holdings in Cornwall, then, in practice, Her Majesty in her private capacity, with all her immunities, refers essentially to the Duke of Cornwall, the heir to the throne the manager (Part II, 6.12) of the Duchy of Cornwall Estate. (Part II, 6.10). The Duchy of Cornwall Estate is, therefore, a state aided estate (Part 1, A12 to A24; Part II, 6.11) and an estate in which the public has an interest (Part 1, para.A10) and not a private estate as officially claimed. (Part 1, A28). Clearly, a private status secures exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Part 1, A22+A25) and avoids revealing public information by ignoring a ruling of the highest court in the land, a Trial at Bar. (Part 1, A10).
6. The Duchy of Cornwall has refused to reveal the date on which Tintagel Castle was transferred from the Duchy of Cornwall Estate to English Heritage, the state funded cultural preservation body. (Part II, 5.18). There is no state funded British Heritage which would appear to expose a policy intended to bring about the reclassification of British heritage as English heritage by law. (Part II, 1.7). The record suggests that laws and provisions likely to restrict the privileges of the Duke (including Magna Charta, Part1, A8) are ignored, while those which extend his rights (Part 1, A8+A9; Part II, 4.7+5.13) are defended by the system on the principle of “instruction” and “inducement” to discriminate either directly or indirectly.
7. It is contended, that the confluence of extensive and exclusive legislative support for the Duke of Cornwall as the largest landowner in Cornwall (Part 1, A11) compared with the negligible legislative and constitutional support available in the English legal system for Cornish people as the Celtic minority of Cornwall, constitutes a basic denial of human rights. Especially, within a system which tolerates an unwritten constitution; (Part 1, A16) the confinement of the activities of the public body, the Crown Estate, to that area of the United Kingdom which excludes Cornwall; (Part 1, A14); royal prerogatives (Part 11, 4.6+4.7) and the absence of a statutory guarantee of the widely acclaimed international principle of: “The right to equality before the law for all persons”. (Directive 2000/43/EC, para.3, text at Part II, 2.7); (Part II, 2.2+2.3).
8. Diametrically apposed to the principle of equality before the law, the Duke of Cornwall has been given the legal right to “control or otherwise intervene in proceedings affecting his rights property or profits”. (Part 1, A13). This provision is considered to be a direct violation of Article 6 ECHR. (Part II, 5.14). With Cornwall the beneficiary of European Union Objective One funding on account of low GDP and a Celtic background, the separation of Cornwall from the public benefits provided under the Crown Estate Act 1961, e.g., affordable housing, arouses concern. There is evidence that the Duke is permitted to invest income from Cornwall anywhere in the world whereas the Crown Estate is confined to the whole of the United Kingdom except Cornwall. The separation of Cornwall from the Crown Estate is not a separation based on respect for cultural diversity. The evidence indicates that it is rather a legacy from the feudal system, retained to maintain English racial, cultural and economic supremacy. The state’s continuing support for this imbalanced institutionalised separation is an example which demonstrates that the rule of law can be abused for racial advantage. The suspicion is aroused that this abuse of the rule of law, entrenched in the English feudal system, was taken up by South Africa to promote the now widely condemned apartheid. A parallel feature of apartheid was the fact that the abuse of the rule of law enabled the criminalisation of the few who dared to protest.
9. It is contended that the references given in paragraphs 1 to 8 above, are relevant to each and every one of the allegations raised with supporting legislative, legal and other documentary references in Parts I and II submitted to the Council of Europe on 5th February 2007. The source of the “instructions to discriminate” and “inducements to discriminate” are to be deduced from the privileged legal position of the Duke of Cornwall operating on behalf of his Duchy of Cornwall Estate in Cornwall. (Part 1, A13).
10. Therefore, it is contended that there is at all levels of the legal and administrative system of the United Kingdom an accepted habitual practice of bias and discrimination against persons claiming a Cornish nationality in order to retain secrecy in respect of the policies and possessions of a public body, the Duchy of Cornwall estate, designated as private to avoid public scrutiny. Those accepting “instructions” and/or “inducements” , it is contended, are “persons acting in an official capacity”. This habit is considered to be a violation of Article 13 ECHR. Article 13 is not included in the Human Rights Act 1998.
11. This alleged legal and administrative practice of the United Kingdom appears to be designed to protect the interests of the incumbent Duke of Cornwall and the maximisation of his income in Cornwall. The Duke of Cornwall is heir to the throne. This Cornish (Kernow in the Cornish language) source of income for the Duke has historically “induced” popular support for the English authorities (currently retained by the United Kingdom authorities) since, it absolves members of the English national majority from the payment of taxation to support the heir apparent.
(Part II, 5.30).
12. Any challenge to the property portfolio or the source of the heir apparent’s state aided income, being the subject of an injunction in the House of Commons, (Part II, 5.17) is not reported in the media or accepted as a serious matter for investigation or dialogue by officials even in respect of persons claiming to be victims of such policies. The powers and immunities for profit provided for the Duchy of Cornwall Estate are being concealed from public view by its being incorrectly claimed as a private estate. (Part 1, A28). This official pronouncement, or Order in Council, which implies an “instruction” or “inducement” to harness support, is challenged with reference to supporting evidence in Parts 1 and II submitted to the Council of Europe on 5th February 2007.
13. Consequently, it is contended, that those seeking to establish their right to exist as a member of the Cornish national minority are being prejudiced through the turbulent historic and economic association (Part 1, A3 to A9) with the Duke of Cornwall’s unique right to exercise “the King’s writ and summons of exchequer” in Cornwall only. (Part II, 5.16). Such a provision “induces” absolute power. (Part II, 5.31+5.32). It is just one of many important aspects of Cornish, Celtic and British history (Part 1.A2+A3) which has been effectively censored on behalf of the English national majority.
14. Cornish who promote their native traditions (Part 1, A8+A9) are dismissed as “nationalists” for exposing, what is often received as an iconoclastic approach to British history. Those associated with the Cornish Celtic minority are denied the right to an effective remedy otherwise obtainable through the English legal and administrative system. (Part 1, A10); (Part II, 4.13+4.14 & 5.22+5.33).
15 The legal and administrative system of the United Kingdom has permitted the “instruction” and “inducement” of “persons acting in an official capacity” to discriminate on racial grounds. Such a system “induces” intolerance and racial supremacy (Part II, 4.5 to 4.9) leading to the assumed right to impose, at whim, policies of unjustifiable collective punishment supported by ineffective access to justice (Part 1, A13) for the victims of the undeclared and unpublished criminal offence of asserting membership of the Cornish national minority. Officially, the history of Cornwall and the Duchy of Cornwall remains censored, hidden and generally suppressed in a state of official denial by being excluded by the government from its English schools history curriculum. (Part 1, A25).
16. Clearly, there are cases of an “instruction” not to instruct. This is quite evident in the case of the promotion of the Englishman George Stephenson as the inventor of the steam locomotive in place of the Cornishman, Richard Trevithick. This inexcusable racist education policy of pandering to the English nationalist ego has been promoted in English schools for two hundred years. The conversion of a Cornish achievement into a sustained act of English national self-deception has been unbelievably possible when it is considered that ‘Trevithick’ is acknowledged as the inventor by the Encyclopedia Britannica; The Reader’s Digest Library of Modern Knowledge, Man the Inventor and in ‘Computer Power and Human Reason’ by Joseph Weizenbaum, Professor of Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976.
17. Human reason does not appear to prevail in the case of British people being led into a state of denial by the English education system with regard to the varied history of the Cornish, Cornwall and the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall. The adoption of secrecy and suppression as a policy would appear to be the mechanism employed by which to avoid requiring the public of the United Kingdom to accept responsibility for the provision of an income for the heir to the throne. (Part II, 5.30). As a consequence, this frame of mind has “induced” itself into believing that the Cornish, having been deprived of salient features of their identity, are not worthy (Part II, 4.7) to have the right to exist as a national minority or to be included within the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
18. It is contended that the legal and administrative system of the United Kingdom is in violation of Articles 6, 7, 8, 9,10,13, 14 and 17 of the European Convention of Human Rights
Your consideration of these matters would be greatly appreciated.
List of questions to DCLG dated 15th December 2006.
DCLG answers to questions of 15th December dated 5th January 2007.
Clarification of DCLG answers of 5th January sought 8th January 2007 –
(no response to date).
Trackback URL for this entry: http://cornishstannaryparliament.co.uk//resources//trackback.php?id=20070220102949549
No trackback comments for this entry.