Introduction

There is an arrogant and external perception that there is neither a Cornish Nation nor Cornish Culture and that the de facto status of administrative county allied to other aspects of imperial English domination imposes the belief that the Cornish have been 'English' since the time of Egbert of Wessex, circa 838 AD and that Cornwall is, as a consequence, part of England. Because of the nature of the domination, and deception, this is a view also being afforded some credibility by the gullible members of the Cornish People. What, however, cannot be denied is the persistent expression of a Cornish will which consistently exposes the existence of a created Cornish Paradox and which serves to denounce the propaganda of domination for what it is.

The ratification of the Council of Europe's "Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities" by the United Kingdom Government in January 1998 - albeit a watered-down version to suit the individual prejudices of the State Governments - now provides a focus for the Cornish to debate their grievances, within a European context, as one of the historic National Minorities of Europe and to demand the right not only to be Cornish but also the right to be seen to be Cornish within the geographical maps of Britain, Europe and the World.

The existence of the Cornish Paradox sees the Cornish saying one thing about themselves but the English saying something quite the opposite, and, arrogantly, advising us that we are wrong about our knowledge of ourselves. There has been a need to examine the reasons why such a situation could come into being and to pursue whatever actions may be deemed necessary in order to restore what is our inalienable right. The Cornish have always presented their case through the normal democratic channels despite the growing knowledge and awareness that these so-called democratic processes, with regard to the Cornish at least, are nothing but a contrived bureaucratic sham to hide yet another official English fait accompli.

It is an insult that the Cornish are expected to submit their arguments in order to achieve what a sensitive Administration should have provided in terms of an ongoing political accommodation of the Cornish people. It has been intolerable when having done so on a number of occasions to be aware that implementation of official policies to deny and destroy our existence seem, as a consequence, to be accelerating. The Cornish people have existed, and do exist, and it is the opinion of this organisation that any moves to deny or destroy that existence must be equated to genocide. This is a charge presented to all elected members of the House of Commons in January 1991 and to many other official bodies where it has been necessary to make submissions on behalf of the Rights of the Cornish people.

In constructing the said Framework Convention it was clear that it seemed impossible to obtain any consensus on a definition of what the term 'national minority' meant. This, however, must be seen within the context of a reluctance on the part of some States to even participate in adopting the Convention and that there was a fear as to what the Convention might mean in practice. In fact the concept of rights for national minorities was initially felt, by some to be a "Pandora's box which should not be opened". So said Rapporteur: Mr Rudolf Bindig, Germany, Socialist Group (Doc. 7922 23rd September 1997) in an Opinion on the Protection of national minorities.

What is also clear, irrespective of any legal definition of the term, is its context of use by historians and others world-wide not least its implied meaning within Europe itself. There is, for instance, no lack of information about 'national minorities' if one explores the Internet. One such item of particular interest to the Cornish Case is the following [my use of bold text]:

"National minorities in Quebec and New Zealand" (abstract) Minority nationalities have become a topic of debate in all the social sciences and in philosophy as well. There is an affinity between "naturalist" philosophers and the treatment of minority problems by universal rules of procedural justice. Likewise, there is an affinity between phenomenologist philosophy and rules guiding majority as well as minority nationalities to profound recognition of the worth of each other's cultures. The article analyses briefly how this debate is reflected in the relation between Francophone, Anglophone and Indians in Canada. How are the different categories of citizens perceived? What concepts of minority nationalities are held by these citizens? To what extent do they engage in what Charles Taylor calls "the politics of recognition"? These Canadian contructions are compared to the movement towards "self-determination" and "sovereignty" current among the Maori of New Zealand today. A good part of this movement has to do with the legal, territorial, political and ideological recognition that should be given to the Maori as a nation. The New Zealand case is interesting because it seems to have attacked the problem of giving recognition to profound levels of diversity. The article describes how this operates on an informal as well as formal level. Éric Schwimmer, 5980 Durocher, Outremont, Québec H2V 3Y4

The concept of 'national minorities' has been widely debated within Europe since 1949 and finally culminating in a definition which was contained in RECOMMENDATION 1201 (1993)1 on an additional protocol on the rights of national minorities to the 'European Convention on Human Rights'. This was presented for consideration at the Vienna Summit in October 1993 but the Heads of State and Government rejected the additional protocol and initiated the process which culminated in the current Framework Convention.

A Report by Rapporteur: Mr Henning Gjellerod, Denmark, Socialist Group on the Protection of national minorities Doc. 7899, 8th September 1997 contained this explanatory text on the Recommendation:

Too often, protection of minorities remains an issue of foreign, rather than domestic, policy. II. Explanatory memorandum by the Rapporteur 1. The protection of national minorities continues to be a crucial issue for peace and stability in Europe. It remains an Assembly priority and no less than five texts - Recommendation 1201 (1993), Resolution 1049(1994), Recommendation 1255 (1995), Recommendations 1285 and 1300 (1996) - have been adopted in the last four years. Assembly Recommendation 1201 12. In February 1993, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Recommendation 1201, which directly addresses the difficult issue of minority rights. The appendix to this Recommendation contains the Text of the proposal for an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 1 offers one of the first international attempts at defining the term "national minority": "National Minorities: a. reside on the territory of that state and are citizens thereof, b. maintain long-standing, 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 and e. are motivated by a concern to preserve together that which constitutes their common identity, including their culture, their religion or their language." 13. Although this definition can be interpreted in many different ways, the article is an impartial attempt at providing commonly acceptable criteria for a common European definition of the complex term "minority". 14. Article 11 emphasises the rights of persons belonging to minorities to autonomy within the boundaries of their respective states. The article reads as follows: "In the regions where they are in a majority the persons belonging to a national minority shall have the right to have at their disposal appropriate local or autonomous authorities or to have a special status, matching the specific historical and territorial situation and in accordance with the domestic legislation of the State." 15. This Article provoked some strong reactions. Treaties on good neighbourliness and friendly co-operation between Hungary and Slovakia and Hungary and Romania - concluded in the framework of the Pact on Stability (see chapter III below ) - both refer to Recommendation 1201, but explicitly exclude Article 11, either in the agreement itself or in a declaration when ratifying. Due to these controversies, an interpretation of Article 11 was requested from the Commission for Democracy through Law ("Venice Commission"). 16. Nevertheless, the Assembly decided that it would continue to consider the draft protocol in Recommendation 1201 as a reference text and that it would expect member States to base their legislation and policies in respect of minorities on it. Consequently, the respect of the principles of the protocol has been included as a commitment in Assembly opinions on the admission of new member States.

Immediately preceding the above explanatory note was another aspect of the Council of Europe's concern for the protection of European minorities with regard to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

9. The first attempt at strengthening the protection of European minorities was the adoption of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. This Charter was adopted by the Committee of Ministers in November 1992 with the aim to protect the languages spoken by these minorities. It encourages States to protect the status of regional and minority languages, but it does not confer any specific rights on those who speak them.

Thus showing that the concern within Europe is not simply about individual Race Relations but the more profound protection of a regional, alias minority nation, identity. The Cornish on matters of history, geography and culture can satisfy any of the criteria required to establish their own perception of a national identity. The failure of the English Establishment to recognise this is no fault of the Cornish people unless it is to be construed that tolerant and peaceful coexistence should somehow deprive us of our rights. It is the absence of the Framework Convention which has denied us the platform to demand our rights. It is successive Governments which have denied to us the means to protect our identity and who over the past hundred years, but particularly the past thirty years, have implemented policies guaranteed to destroy us as a people. Policies repugnant to both the principles of the Framework Convention and to Cornish Rights.

The process which sees a re-emergence of the Cornish identity is not something which is peculiar to the Cornish people but is part of an inexorable development world-wide and is the reason why Scotland and Wales are to get their own form of devolved assemblies. It is a process which is a rejection of the Imperial States and their coercive policies of assimilation. Because of her size, Cornwall is the last to be taken seriously but the Cornish Case is, possibly, unique within the British Isles in that the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall, once we get past the official propaganda, enshrines Cornwall's non-English Identity which has been officially ignored.

The Cornish are only now getting the confidence to research and argue for the Cornish truth, within an environment which has sought to hide that truth from them and which is hostile to the debate over their inalienable right to recognition and political accommodation. We have been made statistically invisible but we demand the right to be seen and accorded the protection offered by the Framework Convention.

Also included: "Cornish Milestones"!

Also included: "Cornish Paradox"!

Also included: "Duchy of Cornwall"!

Conclusion

We reject the superficial way in which the Home Office has applied a racial equality connotation to what is intended by the Council of Europe to reflect the identity of national minorities within the States. A national identity which must stand in its own right for the purposes of the said Framework Convention. It would seem that the correct thing to do is first to examine what constitutes a definition of 'National Minority' and, in the absence of any recognition for Recommendation 1201(1993) 1, then to define it.

This organisation contends that the existence of the Cornish people as a national group based on historical, territorial and linguistic attributes is incontrovertible. There should be no requirement for the Cornish to prove their existence simply because the State has arrogantly chosen to ignore it! The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337 enshrined and established the existence of the Cornish Nation-State (correct meaning) forever and in the absence of any overt, or declared, aggression against the Cornish people, this status must be officially recognised.

The abrogation of the responsibility to govern the Duchy by successive Dukes of Cornwall and a supposed, legal(?), transfer of this power to Parliament should not, and could not, deny the Cornish the right to their history and identity or deprive them of their Cornish legitimacy. It is our hope that the Cornish, as one of the historic indigenous nationalities of Britain and Europe will now be recognised and protected by the UK Government in accordance with the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and all other principles of civil and human rights.

It is clear that there is an understanding that the term racial equates solely to the colour of a person's skin and this belief appears to be the principal focus of any racial issues. The Cornish, along with all the other indigenous peoples - of Britain and Europe, have evolved as multi-racial, multi-ethnic groups and it is not equitable to afford legitimacy to the Welsh, Scottish, Irish or English but deny this right to the Cornish people. This organisation sincerely hopes that justice will be seen to be done. We contend, also, that a complete moratorium should be placed upon all those policies which may be shown to be repugnant to Cornish Rights during which time an independent European Commission examines the Cornish Case.