Supplement No. 1 to The national identity of Cornwall and the Cornish

8.00  - British government refusal to recognise the Cornish as a Celtic people.

8.01  - The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
8.02  - England's gift to the world - Magna Carta.
8.03  - Magna Carta was far from unique.
8.04  - The loss of multi-national consensus in the adversarial tradition.
8.05  - Creating a conforming society.
8.06  - Practical gifts for the advocate of human rights.
8.07  - The rights and liberties of the Duke of Cornwall, Prince Charles.
8.08  - The constitutional permanence of the Duchy of Cornwall charters.
8.09  - The advantages for the national majority of an unwritten constitution.
8.10  - The gift of absolute power for the English national majority of Britain.
8.11  - Economic and cultural discrimination against the Cornish.
8.12  - English spin doctors out of control.
8.13  - The proposed elimination of Cornwall as a Celtic nation.

For the attention of; The Minorities Unit, Directorate of Human Rights, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.

8.00   - British government refusal to recognise the Cornish as a Celtic people.

8.01   - Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

In its submission to the Council of Europe of February 1999 the British government failed to recognise the Cornish as a minority Celtic people and the Cornish people have therefore been excluded from the provisions of the "Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities" which would be highly desirable for the protection and promotion of Cornwall's cultural heritage.

Why has the British government refused to recognise the Cornish as a national minority Celtic people of Britain?

8.02   - England's gift to the world - Magna Carta.

"The Times" law supplement of 27th June 2000 carries an article under the heading "England's gift to the world - Magna Carta".   The sub-title explains, "As the American Bar prepares to pay its respects to Magna Carta, Neil Addison assesses 785 years of legal history".   Fully aware of the role of Magna Carta in the development of jurisprudence as an area of great national sensitivity, it is nevertheless necessary to be detached and objective about its conception and to put it into context and perspective to arrive at the truth.   Investigation reveals that the assertion of "England's gift" borders on the insular and is in conflict with both academic research, the elapse of 785 years before a Human Rights Act and section 5.07 of our original submission, headed "No Magna Carta for Cornwall".

8.03   - Magna Carta was far from unique.

The expert on the period and origins of Magna Carta is J.C.Holt, Professor of Medieval History, University of Cambridge, who reveals in his book "Magna Carta", published by Cambridge University Press, 1992, second edition, page 25, without any fear of treading on hallowed ground, the conclusion that, "Magna Carta was far from unique".

This is not intended to be a criticism of the legal profession.   It is our sincere hope that our modest effort will serve as a salutary reminder of just how easy it is to fall victim to the popularisation of history for national advantage.

Professor Holt's translation of the original Latin includes a reference to "on the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church", etc.   Professor Holt further traces the history of Papal involvement in the development of "rights" enshrined in a Charter throughout the whole of Europe in the eleventh century.   Clearly, the publicists for the legal world of London have chosen to "omit" any "foreign" or theological influence and proudly take all the credit.

Taking the credit by stealth in this manner follows the pattern adopted by the government funded English Heritage, in charge of pre-English Cornish Celtic monuments, in attempting to convert the Celtic Arthur and Tintagel castle in Cornwall into an English icon for the rest of the world to admire.

Even the currency has been recruited, with the five pound note depicting an image of a steam locomotive beside George Stephenson which is intended to be sufficient authority for the uninitiated to believe that he, and not the Cornishman, Richard Trevithick, was the inventor of the steam locomotive.   If such creative history had been attempted by the Cornish it would have been quickly and properly condemned as "cheating" and certainly, "nationalist".

8.04   - The loss of multi-national consensus in the adversarial tradition.

The expectation of continuing a series of deliberate historic "omissions" across the professional establishment clearly reflects the absence of a multi-national influence to develop objectivity and consensus.

The cause may lie with the Anglo-Saxon tradition of "adversarial" parliamentary debates and court proceedings which is confrontational par excellence.   It is a passionate and dramatic method for promoting ones own case at the expense of the actual or imagined "opposition" often, regardless of the facts.

In such competitive circumstances there is clearly the possibility of bias against certain unpopular brands which carry the description "Celtic" and are seen as a challenge to England's perception of its own importance in the world.   This tradition of the English legal and political professions has become entrenched as inviolate after centuries of discrimination as in the case of parliamentary Acts forbidding the use of indigenous Celtic languages and regulations and propaganda designed to criminalize any form of non-conformity.

It is therefore to be regretted that there are cases where the legal profession cannot rise above the constraints of its own conventions to become a sober judge rather than one of the participating parties committed to winning the case in hand in the belief that deeply ingrained national prejudices are acceptable historical baggage that can be used to make law both popular and uncompromising to suit Anglo-Saxon cultural tastes.

8.05   - Creating a conforming society

Henry VIII (1509-1547) created a conforming society by indulging in murder and plunder to establish the state Church of England without any regard for the provisions of Magna Carta.   The official imposition of English values upon Cornwall through thousand of executions was pursued under cover of a self-righteous 'national duty' and still continues to this day in a highly sophisticated form, presented as "a gift that cannot be refused".

Cornwall is being overwhelmed by policies underscored with an insistence on conformity to the detriment of the principles of a multi-cultural society and as a cover up for the unpalatable historical facts.   Cross refer the constitutional discrimination contained within the unrepealed Bill of Rights 1689 which includes the one sided right for Protestants only to carry arms.   The Bill of Rights has a pedigree as a show piece dramatised out of all proportion to its human rights significance for the man in the street.   It is part of the grand design to glorify the unity of greater England, the "one nation" political slogan which is leading to the end of a multi-cultural Britain.

Against the background of promotion for "the Magna Carta gift", "God's gift of the Church of England" (the Cornish were Celtic Christians before the English arrived as pagans in Britain) and an "adversarial" culture attempting to divide the world into 'us and them' seen respectively as 'good and bad', Cornwall struggles to achieve a fair hearing for its case to be recognised as an indigenous national minority of Britain, for which nation, there are only and nothing but British passports, not, as some have been led to believe, English passports.

8.06   - Practical gifts for the advocate of human rights.

In the implementation of human rights for an indigenous national minority, the insular orientation of the English political and legal system is compounded by its failure to advocate adoption of good human rights from other parts of Europe, whatever their religious preferences.   For example, there are clauses in the constitution of Schleswig-Holstein which protect the electoral and cultural rights of a "tiny" Danish minority.   Consideration might also focus upon the Swedish constitution as a modern method of limiting the abuse of power by persons acting in an official capacity, especially, the imposition of a human rights duty on political fundamentalists serving on the legislature.

Article 15, of the Swedish constitution (1989) states; "No Act of law or other statutory instrument may entail the discrimination of any citizen because he belongs to a minority on grounds of race, skin colour, or ethnic origin".   These are rights available to all without pleading for favours only to be denied one's non-majority identity.

Further afield, the Canadian Constitutional Act 1982 Schedule B, Equality Rights, Article 15, is very clear about the responsibilities expected of persons acting in an official capacity.   "(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.   (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those listed in (1)".

8.07   - The rights and liberties of the Duke of Cornwall, Prince Charles.

Of overriding concern is the fact that the institution of the Duchy of Cornwall, legally, an estate unknown to the common law, was established as the government of Cornwall with its powers curtailed only by the Cornish Stannary Parliament.   It is currently limiting itself to securing an income from feudal privileges for the heir to the throne, currently Prince Charles.   As Duke of Cornwall the Prince has received extra-ordinary gifts in the form of liberties, rights and privileges in Cornwall conferred by and supported by the Crown, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary (who traditionally do not challenge royal charters).

The support of the British state for the privileges of the Dukes of Cornwall has led it to ignore the principle of equality before and under the law for the Cornish as a people of Celtic national origin and this policy has rendered Magna Carta inapplicable to Cornwall.

The main Duchy of Cornwall charter of 1337 contains clauses asserting its status as permanently valid with its provisions predetermined as "in perpetuity". This provision of the Duchy charter has been rigorously maintained as non-amendable, although supported by provisions in over 100 statutes, whereas, Article I of Magna Carta, which asserts, "This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity" has been ignored rather than reinforced.

8.08   - Constitutional permanence for the Duchy of Cornwall charters.

Is it to protect the birth-right of the Dukes of Cornwall that only the Duchy charters can be described as "England's gift" of an exclusively permanent and inheritable Charter with the status of a constitutional right made inviolate and unchallengeable by a royal injunction of silence imposed on members of the House of Commons who claim to be a "sovereign" parliament? (Letter from the House of Commons Library to Andrew George M.P., 16th June 1997). (Refer, section 5.14, "The present inequality of royal charters")

The second and third royal Duchy of Cornwall charters of 1337 and 1338 both contain the clause, "all fees are not to be given to any save the Dukes of that Duchy and the King now grants to the said Duke and his successors shall have return of all the King's writs and of summons of the Exchequer".

The summons of Exchequer reveals the extensive regal powers of the Dukes of Cornwall which include the regulation of taxes in "that Duchy" meaning exercising the office of the government of Cornwall.   This fact has been further confirmed in a book "Kernow bys Vyken" (Cornwall for ever) launched on 29th June 2000 by Prince Charles as Duke of Cornwall.   The Duke's speech on the day expressed the hope that the "the book would encourage interest by Cornish children in their "country".   This has been reported as "county" by the local press.   It causes confusion when people at the top make the right statements but the media and officials carry on regardless.

87,000 copies of "Kernow bys Vyken" are available from national lottery funds for all pupils in Cornish schools.   The script is biased towards the status quo although some facts supporting the Cornish Celtic identity (p.113), Cornish independence (p.125), the Cornish Stannary Parliament (p.19), and Duchy government (p.129) previously excluded from English books about Cornwall, are included.   There are, unfortunately, no plans to institute examinations in Cornish history and the Cornish language to obtain a recognised GCSE certificate.

Furthermore, the uniqueness of Cornwall as a semi-autonomous region can be deduced from Plowden's Commentaries of 1761 on the Case of Mines of 1568 where he quotes the Judges, page 334, as affirming, "If the King grants a man return of all manner of writs, yet he shall not have return of summons of the Exchequer, for this touches the King himself and is not between party and party".

Despite these assertions, the summons of Exchequer was exceptionally granted to the Dukes of Cornwall in order to govern Cornwall.   Since 1752, when the incumbent Duke of Cornwall was seriously challenged by the Cornish Stannary Parliament, it has no longer been convened by royal or ducal writ. Research reveals a system by which Cornwall was administered by the Dukes of Cornwall separately from the England part of Britain.

The situation is confusing, perhaps deliberately so, to prevent research and investigation and make public access complex and difficult not only to access the historical facts, but ultimately access to practical and effective human rights is widely discouraged.

While 'Celtic' roots are officially suppressed to prevent expressions of the Cornish national identity, likewise the 'Germanic' roots of the English are not publicised even to help reduce the frequent expressions of anti-German racism often incited by the media.   "England's finest take on Jerry today", from "The Times Weekend", 17th June 2000 p.21. the day of the football match between England and Germany at Euro 2000. ('Jerry' was a wartime description of the German enemy)

Not surprisingly, culture and heritage are not promoted as overall British rather than the present concentration upon "the English brand" (letter from the 'English Tourist Council' dated 8th June 2000) as if it were the only cultural expression to qualify for official promotion in Cornwall and around the world.   The intensive propaganda means that Cornwall as British not English is totally ignored.

8.09   - The advantages for the national majority of an unwritten constitution The English legal and political system has also proved adept and efficient at promoting as a national duty the extensive birth-rights and privileges in Cornwall for generations of English Dukes of Cornwall as heirs to the throne.   These are contrary to the spirit, and often the letter, of the provisions of Magna Carta and include the right to; intestate estates, bona vacantia, treasure trove, gold and silver deposits, waste land, foreshore, rivers and estuaries, mines, mineral rights, rights of common, castles, advowsons, etc whether in possession or reputed or claimed to be parcel of the Duchy of Cornwall, the organisation which collects the rents and dues for the Prince. (Section 5.11, [29])   The whole of the Isles of Scilly is claimed although the Duchy has admitted that they were not included in, but "omitted" from, the three Duchy Charters.

The English tradition of an "unwritten constitution" has provided, since the creation of the Dukedom in 1337, 663 years of royal privilege and political use of the royal prerogative for the extraction of taxes, which, protected by taboos suitable for sacred relics, has not, until recently, been seriously challenged.

Pleas for common law, prescription and customary rights can easily be brushed aside on the grounds of being "against the public interest", meaning, whatever is deemed to be detrimental to the interests of the English national majority of Britain.   The situation for the Cornishman as a Celt is the absence of the principle of equality before the law in support of freedom of cultural expression.

To maintain the national pride of England, the official position of no equality before the law for the Cornish as a Celtic minority is 'omitted' from official documents and English media reports as well as general Celtic information likely to be helpful to the Cornish cause.   Media organisations are uninfluenced by the 'good faith' principles of Magna Carta.

The protection for the rights and liberties, language and culture of the Cornish indigenous national minority of Britain has therefore not been achieved by Magna Carta.   Consequently, the failure of Magna Carta in Cornwall makes it incompatible with assertions of a justifiable world reputation in human rights.

Magna Carta has never been "England's gift" to Cornwall.

The Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, wrote in "The Times" of 12th February 2000 "we can comfortably be Scottish and British or Cornish and British". No mention of English.   This we too accept, but the government's civil servants are being paid huge salaries to impose English nationality on to the Cornish, obviously as government policy behind the scenes.   This too causes confusion where the people at the top occasionally say the right thing but the officials, and often the media, are commissioned to do the dirty work.

A recent example of an official policy of "one nation" for the assimilation of Celtic Cornwall into the Anglo-Saxon England part of Britain, is revealed by the Chairman of the South West of England Rural Development Agency in response to our letter of 21st June 2000 after reminding him that our Celtic heritage was even recognised in the BBC Books series, "The Story of English", Faber & Faber, 1992, where it is affirmed;

"The Welsh, together with the Irish, Scots and the Cornish are the true Britons".

The csp question was; "Would you please let us have up-to-date information on separate funding for Cornish culture and heritage under European Objective One funding?"   The Answer on 12th July 2000 from Sir Michael Lickiss was as follows;

"I can assure you that we are not busy suppressing anyone's identity, it is our job to promote the SW as a whole. I am not willing or able to respond to the points about English Heritage and as the RDA only came into existence in April 1999 I do not feel in a position nor am I willing to respond to the historical perspective on the cultural issues you have raised".

The Cornish can have no confidence in Sir Michael's refusal, not only to accept the Cornish as Celts different to the Anglo-Saxon population in the South West of England, but also his failure to comment on the human rights implications referred to in the csp letter.   It is evident that there is something unnatural happening since civil servant reaction to enquiries on the subject of Cornwall reveals a failure to offer advice as to a more productive course of action as would be the case for enquiries on other topics.

Pending research of the period 1215 to 1337, there never has been a Magna Carta for Cornwall, a fact which, perversely, also points in the direction of separate administrative features commensurate with a separate identity to that of the England part of Britain.

There has as yet been no sign of academic or media research into the question;   "Was Cornwall created a Duchy in 1337 on Papal 'advice' as a means of protecting the existence of the Cornish as an indigenous national minority?"   This question can be more positively affirmed with confidence in relation to the Cornish Royal Charter of Pardon of 1508.

8.10   - The gift of absolute power for the English national majority of Britain.

Although Magna Carta could be described as a written constitution, there is no body of case law or precedents relating to its clauses.   Even where it is claimed that some provisions of Magna Carta have been replaced by other, even superior, statutes, these have not been of any advantage in the recovery of cultural property from the Crown or the right of an indigenous national minority to retain a proportion of its own taxation to preserve its own culture, language and heritage sites.   Such features would be accommodated into the framework of any effective constitutional document or arrangement such as the provisions of legal, political and cultural protection in the Canadian constitution for the internationally accepted rights of indigenous peoples and the non-Anglo-Saxon French minority.

On the other hand, politicians, bureaucrats and educationalists inform us that Britain has been "well served" through its tradition of an "unwritten" constitution, which means that the Parliament at Westminster, dominated by the English national and cultural majority of Britain, is "sovereign" and can therefore change or repeal any law at any time, including Magna Carta, as long as new laws were generally made popular with the English national majority.

There is no explanation as to why the concept "sovereignty" for Westminster was obviously unknown to King Henry VII when he signed the Charter of Pardon of 1508 granting to the Cornish people a provision for the veto of Westminster Acts, royal proclamations and Duchy ordinances, confirmed by Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones in 1977.

The constitutional significance of this 'Great Charter' for the Cornish before the advent of the state Church of England is completely 'omitted' from the human rights debate by the state institutions of the English national majority.

After centuries of absolute power, English legal institutions appear to have no inclination to take cognisance of the assertion of the multi-national European Court of Human Rights in Artico v. Italy, Case No. A37 para 33, 1980, which stated, "The Convention (of human rights) was intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective".   Clearly, a Magna Carta without teeth is without inspiration and destined to fall within the category of "theoretical and illusory" for the Cornish.(Cross refer section 5.04 [4])

Politically, rather than socially convenient conventions, however, often of unknown origin, form the constitutional basis upon which Parliamentary sovereignty, an unwritten constitution and unchallengeable royal prerogatives, place the gift of absolute power in the hands of the political parties of the English national majority of Britain who represent a biased "Supreme Court" in cultural and racial affairs.

Such conventions cover "England's gift" of unedited party political television broadcasts on ITV and BBC free of charge for English political parties active in Cornwall, with the right to indulge in anti-Cornish propaganda, which, on protest, can be designated as objective reporting and free speech with no guarantee of an unedited right of reply.

The government funded English Tourist Council is designed to take-over Cornwall as part of the South West of England rather than there being a Cornish Tourist Council provided with separate funding to promote local employment and relevant priorities as a Celtic region of Britain.   Again, this creates the erroneous belief that Cornwall is culturally part of England rather than an historic Celtic region of Britain.   The widespread abuse of power is evident in that Cornwall is compulsorily included in the English "Westcountry" or "South West" by both government departments and media monopolies without consultation with the Cornish people.

The facts indicate that the policy for promoting a multi-cultural Britain by the English national majority of Britain is in fact fraudulent because in practice it is telling the Cornish national minority, "Regardless of your British passports, you are English like it or lump it"

8.11   - Economic and cultural discrimination against the Cornish national minority

On 15th May 2000 the Cornish Stannary Parliament despatched an invoice to the chief officer of the Duchy of Cornwall, The Lord Warden of The Stannaries, based on verifiable methods of calculation accepted in reputable circles.   This invoice is a demand for refund of a £20 billion overcharge in taxation on tin production from 1337- 1837 calculated according to production figures and historic wealth calculation methods by Harvard University U.S.A., 1908, and The Sunday Times Rich List, March 2000, respectively.   A Cornish speaking Celtic Cornwall was charged at over twice the rate levied on the adjacent Anglo-Saxon county of Devon.   Devon is an English county which, in recent times, has had many Cornish service jobs transferred to it on the dubious grounds of economic efficiency. (Police and Ambulance, with Fire Brigade services and magistrates courts threatened)

In the absence of a 'written constitution', there is no official duty or desire for dialogue or Magna Carta style 'good faith' as is attested in the imposition on Cornish Celts, as if they were English, of such government bodies as; English Heritage, English Nature, English Partnerships, part of an unelected English region, an English county and an English flag on Cornish churches, (all not even British).

The latest ploy in England's undeclared psychological warfare against the Cornish is for English Heritage to promote Celtic music at the Cornish sites it now controls as if it were all part of an English tradition and the Cornish were incapable of funding and promoting their own heritage and culture.

The overcharge invoice, although reported with crucial omissions by the media, is an example of a long standing policy of institutionalised racial bias through economic and cultural discrimination by agencies of the English national majority of Britain against the Cornish national minority.   In a modern context this is supported by the fact that for decades, Cornwall has had one of the lowest GDP ratings in Europe.

If Magna Carta were a human rights document applicable to all British subjects, with the Crown courts and Westminster completely free from royal influence, (See reference to Trial at Bar section 5.10 [27]) an adjustment of the overcharged tax on tin and/or recovery of the debt would have been made, on the basis of rights contained within Magna Carta Article 52, many centuries ago.

Based on the assumption that the Crown is as subject to the law as anyone else, Article 52 of Magna Carta declares; "To any man we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties or rights without the lawful judgement of his equals we will at once restore these".   Cornish equals would have been Cornish speaking.

What "Crown" court can today uphold "equality" as fixed "in perpetuity"?

The English constitutional, educational and legal systems do however permit permanent political and cultural discrimination in favour of the English national majority of Britain through adequate funding for its culture, heritage and teaching of the English language worldwide.   This obscures the deficiency by "omission" of any cultural and human rights equality for the Cornish as an indigenous national minority of Britain by planning an under-funded Cornish culture budget.

The tin and copper mining sites and buildings of Cornwall are designated to become "World Heritage Sites" but already prime sites with a preservation order have been demolished while others are threatened with demolition on account of Cornish local authorities being kept short of the necessary funds or operating authority to make decisions reflecting the cultural aspirations of the indigenous Cornish.   Funding is urgently required to establish the South Crofty site between Camborne and Redruth as a Cornish Mining Heritage Centre to attract enthusiasts from around the world especially expatriate Cornish people.

The facts given above reveal the relentless promotion of English institutions in Cornwall as a compulsory gift paid for out of Cornish taxes both ancient and modern.   Plans for the distribution of European Objective One funding in respect of promoting our Cornish cultural heritage have not been published to date.

It is time for the British government to act impartially in the distribution of funds and for English institutions to analyse their compulsive habit of defending their privileges and feudal reputation inherited from long deceased monarchs without regard for the serious damage this is doing to their professional integrity.

8.12   - English spin doctors out of control.

A number of serious English newspapers have carried articles deploring the deception employed by the American film industry, Hollywood, in taking heroic events from English history and, by casting American actors, converting the story into an expression of American national pride.   The reaction from the Americans is as indifferent to the English complaints as are the English themselves to the complaints of the Cornish about the English cultural hijacking of our Cornish heritage.   There were no complaints from would-be English historians concerning the Hollywood film involving the hijack of the Celtic Arthur as; "The once and future King of England".

Perhaps the Church of England has advised a re-interpretation of the bible to read; "Do unto others as you have been done unto" in place of St. Matthew chapter 7 verse 12.   This is the inevitable conclusion from the application of Christian principles for national advantage broadcast within the context of a television programme on the seven deadly sins, beginning with the first, and most deadly, 'Pride'. A

t 10.30 pm on Friday 7th July 2000, Carlton Television broadcast a programme entitled, "The most deadly sin of Pride" with commentaries, in particular, on national pride.   The subjects chosen were Cornish rugby supporters, Cornish Bards, Cornish Gipsies and French Can-Can dancers. The film shown depicted each of these subjects both in a modern colour setting as well as edited cuttings from archival black and white footage of 1930's style economic depression scenes, including one with Hitler on a pedestal.

The programme, however, provides more revealing conclusions about English prejudice than any insight into Cornish pride.   The credits include the "Imperial War Museum" but there is nothing by way of advisors from professional organisations such as the British Psychological Society or the principal of a Theological College to inspire confidence in the objectivity of the presentation.

The clever juxtapositioning of text and visual displays of the Cornish, Gipsies, French Can Can dancers and Hitler on the semi-religious topic of the "most deadly sin of pride" broadcast to a Cornish audience (Cornwall) and an English audience (counties of Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Avon etc, in the England part of Britain) must raise questions regarding the psychological and social stability of spin doctors and their future role in world affairs.   The subjects chosen by a profit orientated popularity conscious English media company clearly begs the question of motive for its unwritten intention of identifying exclusively with the English national majority of Britain?

Refusal to recognise the Cornish is set against the background of free party political broadcasts provided by state and private television companies only for English political parties currently operating in Cornwall. (See 8.05 re constitution of Schlegwig-Holstein)

The stark difference between the infrequent reasonable statements made by Prince Charles in his reference to Cornwall as a "country", and Mr Tony Blair's reference to "Cornish and British" on the one hand and the freedom of the press to act as judge, jury and cultural executioner on the other, raises further questions as to what is possible where there is no written constitution.   In order to avoid any breach of the discipline of public accountability by "persons acting in an official capacity", (ECHR Article 13, but omitted from the Human Rights Act 1998) the possibility of an unwritten sub-contract being conveyed to the media to undertake the duties of character assassination of Cornish nationalists as a national duty on behalf of the English national majority of Britain, ought, in view of the information presented in this Supplement, to be thoroughly investigated.

The truth is difficult to establish but the possibility remains strong making it essential that the media and political parties are answerable under human rights law for acting as agents provocateur in racial affairs.

Does the programme on 'Pride', in concentrating on exposing pride in non-English subjects, and omitting English pride, help to generate hatred against other nations and races, since, the English history they have learnt in school is almost entirely restricted to glorious exploits against foreign competitors during the reign of devoted Kings and Queens of England (not Britain), has already laid the foundation for an unhealthy belief in national superiority, innocence and racial purity?

"The real truth about the history of the Empire is not palatable to English people, the facts conflict with what they have learnt in history lessons at school and in every assumption underlying popular fiction.   These reasons make it almost impossible for English people to understand or accept the truth about their country's past".   A portrait of English Racism, by Anne Dummett, Penguin Books, 1973.   This exposes the ongoing deficiencies of the English education system.

The programme is deliberately anti-Cornish in that it does not seek to draw conclusions favourable to the Cornish by comparing the recent well known peaceful visit of 40,000 Cornish rugby fans to London with the violence perpetrated in Brussels by a similarly large contingent of English football fans during Euro 2000.   This fact has also not been taken into consideration by the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, in his expose of English xenophobia, "The Times" 17th July 2000.   His continuing refusal to recognise the Cornish as a Celtic people, however, questions his ability to understand and be objective about English attitudes of imperialism and racial superiority towards smaller nations.

The black and white film clips of the 1930's shown in the Carlton TV programme are perilously close in style to anti-Semitic films produced by Hitler's master of deception, and Minister of Propaganda, Goebbels.

Pride in exaggerated claims of "England's gift to the world, Magna Carta" (sections 8.02 & 8.03) without regard to the finer points of accuracy, is repeated ad infinitum until it is taken as normal and legitimate, whereas, pride in the modest sporting and privately funded cultural achievements of the Cornish is seen by the English media as an opportunity for ridicule to further stimulate the English national ego through self-righteous condemnation of the Cornish as "nationalists" and "racists" to be dismissed with the contempt normally reserved for Hitler, for whom, it is to be deplored, there were supporters among the titled people of England, Sir Oswald Mosley and the Duke of Windsor after abdicating as King in 1936.

Is this really "freedom of expression" or a licence to incite racial hatred by a press and media, uncontrolled by multi-national principles and legally enforceable constraints?

A deliberate 'omission' from the Carlton programme 'Pride' is the English national preoccupation with 'titles' which would serve well as a legitimate subject for an analysis of the sin of pride.   This ritualistic expression of pride is being hidden from view in order to maximise English national pride by associating the deadly sin of pride with the non-English world.   This also helps to hide the absence of balance.

There are the typically English Queens and Kings, Princes and Princesses, Dukes and Duchesses, Lords and Ladies along with Sirs and Knights of the Garter all with 'Coats of Arms' who gather attired in garments for the occasion at such venues as 'Ascot'.   There they attract those excluded from this chosen few who eagerly desire to join this elite and proud band of state authorised segregationists as a short cut to fame and fortune.

Such displays of pomp and prejudice under cover of 'honours' are the bread and butter of ever larger TV monopolies. Programme editors are there to edit out any character defects that titled subjects might have and would hardly accuse such benefactors of the deadly sin of pride.

This whole incident raises further concern about equality before the law at the epicentre of a hate campaign facilitated by a system that can 'omit' Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights from domestic legislation. Does Carlton Television PLC fall within the provision of Article 13 for "violations committed by persons acting in an official capacity"?

Carlton TV is licensed to operate by the government apparently without rules to prevent the dissemination of racial abuse and hatred against national and other minorities, like the gipsies who, untutored in the art of verbal self-defence under scrutiny by camera, are placed at a severe disadvantage against such contrived accusations by highly motivated professionals with the job description 'promote the England takeover of British culture with the aid of the state religion as authority to dismiss criticism as treacherous blasphemy'.

Are licences sold by the government to private television companies on condition that the principles of human rights are observed?   Is Article 10 ECHR, "freedom of expression", intended to guarantee a right to an unedited reply for those subjected to gratuitous racist accusations and innuendo by the media?

There is also the "Spectator" of 24th June 2000 with an article entitled "Cornish loathing" by Petronella Wyatt.   Once again, this reveals that Karl Marx got it all wrong when he asserted, "The workers must control the means of production".   Political candidates for the title of "master spin doctor" know full well that it is control of the machinery of state propaganda, preferably publicised as 'independent' and 'private', that is the decisive factor in achieving popularity.

The article almost defies description in its tasteless racial hatred.   It runs, "The Cornish loathe everything but sloth. They heartily dislike the English whom they regard as foreigners.   The Cornish have no desire to work possessing less ambition to better themselves than a rich woman's poodle, the rich woman being the E.U. which keeps them going by way of outrageous farm subsidies".

In stark contrast to the inhabitants, Wyatt asserts; "I love Cornwall (because) it must be the only seaside destination in Western Europe which has avoided Disneyfication".   We must reject all these slurs as a general characteristic of the Cornish people especially the accusation 'dislike' of the English, which looks like fishing for compliments.   There are of course good and bad everywhere.   However, we do wish our neighbours were not so often too proud to listen to what other people have to say and think that education begins and ends in an exclusive academic establishment.

The Cornish cannot be expected to believe that human rights condones English spin doctors, protected by media, judicial and parliamentary privilege, treating them like patients in an operating theatre, effectively silenced under the anaesthetic of legal loopholes which prevent interference with the doctor's modus operandi. Yet, even more loopholes would appear to be developing.

"The Times" of 29th June 2000, p.22, under an article entitled, 'The law lords are already fighting Strasbourg over the Human Rights Act'.   The Act, it is affirmed, "was intended to usher in an era of civilised behaviour by the State and its agents", but procedural disputes now centre around, "intervention into the independence of the legal system" and "the immunity of barristers".

We do not believe that our approach can be dismissed as an isolated opinion of a minority since, even thinking and concerned English citizens, as represented by Charter 88 (advocates of constitutional reform) are attacking the system as "unacceptable executive dictatorship" and "it has humiliated and disrespected the people themselves". "The Times" 21st June 2000, p.14.

What is more, English people agree with our proposition when the shoe is on the other foot.   A report in "The Times" of 11th July 2000, 'Comment' by Michael Gove, p.16, is particularly to the point; "Even more revealing of how modern American film culture has become debased (is) by its growing lack of regard for different national cultures".   We need only, delete; "American film culture", and insert; "English journalist culture", to expose 'a self-deluding national pass-time' of attempting to ridicule and destroy our Cornish culture and heritage as 'inferior'.  "The Times" article concludes; "Commercial dinosaurs, in search of market share, are trampling on smaller creatures who might otherwise evolve into something superior.   Soon our distinctive culture will have had it".

8.13   - The proposed elimination of Cornwall as a Celtic nation.

Bludgeoned by black propaganda and ridicule into believing in their own inferiority, Cornish people are being pushed into accepting either internal or external English control over their economy, resources and cultural heritage because that is the only opportunity they see offered by the government, English political parties and the mass media.

When the English media recognise the separate identity of the Cornish and incite their fellow countrymen to racial hatred against Cornish people, complaints made to the police or Race Relations Commission by the individual Cornishman are met with rejection on the grounds that the Cornish are not officially recognised as a separate national group.   This "non-recognition policy" effectively excludes the Cornish from presenting a case to the European Court of Human Rights since, it is impossible to conform to the requirements of Article 26 ECHR for "exhausting all domestic remedies".

The English dominated British authorities, jealously protecting the benefits of their own pro-English world-wide propaganda service, seem determined to concede nothing and prevent the occurrence of any official record showing the Cornish as a separate Celtic people with their own administrative and legal institutions.   The advocates of power politics within the framework of an unwritten constitution offer no explanation as to why separate historical and linguistic development should serve as the principle for the political separation and consequent sub-division of the United Kingdom into England, Scotland and Wales without extending the same principle to the indigenous Cornish national minority of the Duchy of Cornwall.

The identity of the Cornish has also been suppressed in order to cover up the failure of the English education system in Cornwall to teach about the history and current affairs of the constitutional institution known as the Duchy of Cornwall. (The Charter of the Duchy of Cornwall of 1337, 11Edw3; was published, By Authority; Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Revised edition, 1st February 1978, Ref: AB29:10:1; under the heading, "Statutes in Force", "Constitutional Law 10")

Is official government and police recognition of the Cornish withheld on the grounds that the English have been taught to consider the Cornish an inferior people in order to cover-up the misdeeds of long deceased monarchs.

Is it not true that if England can claim to have given Magna Carta to the world then the Cornish can, with justification, claim to have paid for its promotion by being cheated of its actual and assumed provisions?

Centuries of self-deception regarding the language and Celtic heritage of the Cornish indigenous national minority has become ingrained in the English system to the extent that an admission presents the difficulty of swallowing one's pride.   We are convinced, however, that it would enhance mutual respect if English people could break with their proud imperial past to recognise the Cornish Celtic dimension as a valuable part of our multi-cultural British heritage.

Even independent observers agree, the English national majority have a duty to put there own house in order and recognise the Cornish as an indigenous national minority of Britain by acting in accordance with international human rights law.   Since, it cannot be the fate of the Cornish national minority to be a victim with no legal means of redress because the private sector of the English national majority are free to incite racial hatred against the Cornish in the sure knowledge of no interference by persons acting in an official capacity who say they do not recognise the existence of the Cornish as a Celtic indigenous national minority.

With the greatest respect for the impartiality of a multi-national human rights institution, we remain confident that the Council of Europe can champion the truth whatever the political or institutional difficulties.

Were political interference ever attempted, there would then appear to be no future for human rights in Europe and its principles would be corrupted through intimidation by the experts placed in control of powerful national propaganda machines.

Compiled by the

Cornish Stannary Parliament,

Stannary Information Office
GB-Kernow TR14 OJG
Tel; 01209-710938
17th July 2000

Are you lost?   Go to Main Index and Home Page