EURAC DRAFT STUDY on the
COUNCIL OF EUROPE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES

SUGGESTIONS ON CONSULTATION COMMENTS FROM THE CORNISH

It has been circulating for some time on Cornish internet blog sites and chatrooms that the European Academy of Bolzano/Bozen (EURAC) has invited persons belonging to national minorities, non-governmental organisations and experts working in the field of minority protection to provide their input into a study on indicators for assessing the impact of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM). This consultation will feed into an evaluation process of the Framework Convention’s impact in its State Parties.

EURAC’s text continues, “The consultation process was launched in Strasbourg during the conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the FCNM’s entry into force held on 9-10 October 2008. The aim of the study is to identify indicators that would help to review the impact of the FCNM in the legislative and political environment as well as in the field of the judiciary. In order to produce as complete a study as possible, it is essential that those interested and, in particular, persons belonging to national minorities, comment on the text. Umbrella organisations and federations of associations of minorities are kindly invited to forward the message to their members.”

Although the above text makes it clear what those who wish to contribute to the consultation are being asked to do, some Cornish contributors appear to have misconstrued what is required of them and seem intent on simply making the case for Cornish inclusion within the FCNM to the authors of the draft EURAC study. As the writers of the study have not asked for excluded groups to make their case for inclusion to them, and in any event have no powers to compel state parties to alter their respective positions, this is an entirely inappropriate course of action which serves only to confuse the situation.

This short essay intends to clarify what is being suggested by the EURAC public announcement and also make some suggestions as to style and content should anyone wish to take part in the consultation exercise. In essence, the authors of the EURAC draft study are asking people/groups to comment on the text of their 98 page document entitled “Indicators for assessing the impact of the FCNM in its state parties” available HERE: FCNM Indicators Study_draft.pdf

The aim of this exercise is to help EURAC assess what, if any, impact the Convention has made on the situation of minorities in Europe. Of course, for the Cornish there is no impact, so our exclusion tells them nothing about how the Convention is impacting those UK communities that are supposedly benefiting from inclusion.

For those Cornish individuals and groups that do wish to comment point by point on the draft study in respect of UK implementation [particularly with regard to the Cornish situation], suitable areas of the draft study worth reading and commenting on include the following:

Section B. Political discourse indicators:

1. Government actions and practices:

Indicator B. Increased and improved dissemination efforts.

2. Public debates:

Indicator E. Increased attention to FC provision in parliamentary politics.

Indicator F. Increased attention to FC provisions in local politics.

Indicator I. Increased attention to FC provisions in public spaces.

Section C. Legislative Indicators:

1. Right to existence and recognition of minorities:

Indicator A. Status of FCNM in the domestic legal system.

Indicator B. Scope of application of the FCNM and definition of minorities.

Indicator C. Data Collection.

3. Right to identity and diversity:

Indicator F. Educational rights.

Section D. Judicial Indicators:

1. Courts structures and organisation:

Indicator A. Awareness raising about minority issues and and training on the FCNM.

Indicator C. Accessibility to the judiciary.

Indicator D. Coordinated efforts in dealing with discrimination or ethnically motivated incidents.

2. Judgements:

Indicator E. Direct applicability of the FCNM within the national system.

Indicator G. ‘Constructive’ use of the FCNM.

Indicator H. ‘Destructive’ use of the FCNM.

Those commenting on the draft study might wish to highlight the fact that the UK Government has admitted to signing the Convention for the wrong reasons [See my last book ‘Scat t'Larrups' p. 172]. Here we find that the UK Government signed the Convention not to fulfil Convention principles, but to, “underline its commitment to tackle racial discrimination”.

While taking measures to prevent racial discrimination is a noble cause, it is not the same as protecting the existence of endangered minorities. Combating discrimination involves taking actions to treat people equally, whereas protecting minorities involves generating different treatment in order to preserve characteristics possessed by the minority that distinguish them from the majority. There are, therefore, subtle differences between preventing discrimination, which in the UK is the function of Race Relations legislation, and the protection of minorities, which is the role and purpose of the FCNM.  Yet the UK Government chooses to misconstrue the function of the FCNM and merely interpret it as a vehicle to prevent racial discrimination. This is why the UK Government asserts that it already satisfies all the requirements of the FCNM [see below].

To clarify matters, the prevention of discrimination requires the elimination of imposed adverse distinctions, whereas the protection of minorities requires the establishment of safeguards to preserve distinctions voluntarily maintained. By misapplying the Convention, its potential to protect minorities in the UK is effectively neutered. This fundamental flaw is the principal reason why the Convention is having next to NO impact in the UK.

In the context of the draft EURAC study, and with particular regard to the relevant sections highlighted above, the authors of the study should also be informed that the UK Government does not know, and will not say, which groups are covered by the Convention [See Scat t'Larrups p.173 & p.297]. In essence, the UK Government is refusing to publish a list of Convention groups - appearing instead to prefer to keep inclusion vague and incoherent, which in turn generates apparent inconsistencies - particularly when assessing the position in respect of groups such as the Ulster-Scots, Irish Travellers, Gaels, Scottish Travellers and the Cornish.

In both UK compliance reports [1999 and 2007] we find that the Cornish are the only UK group singularly targeted and overtly excluded from the Convention for the stated reason that they are not a UK Race Relations Act case-law recognised group. However: a) the Irish Travellers were included as a Convention group in the first UK compliance report - which was published well before this group became a case-law recognised group; b) the non-case law recognised Scottish Travellers, which are stated in the second UK compliance report as being a non-case law recognised group, are nevertheless in that same paragraph deemed to be a Convention group; c) the non-case law recognised Gaels and Ulster-Scots have been treated in both UK compliance reports, and in UK Government correspondence with the Advisory Committee, as if they were case-law recognised, and hence Convention, groups.

Of course, in the case of the Ulster-Scots, the Government is playing a duplicitous game. By refusing to publish a definitive list of Convention groups, the Government can suggest to the Cornish that the non-case law recognised Ulster-Scots are not a Convention group whilst at the same time suggesting to the Ulster-Scots lobby that they are [See Scat t'Larrups p.231, 232, 217 and 218, for evidence of this policy in action]. This gives the non-case law recognised Ulster-Scots the satisfaction of seemingly obtaining parity of esteem and equality of status with the case-law recognised [and hence Convention included] Irish, who are their long-standing political/cultural rivals.

Unlike the situation of the Cornish, where the Government sends a clear and unambiguous message to decision takers/policy makers that the Cornish are to be deprived of Convention benefits, at no time in any of the UK Convention compliance reports do the Government state or even imply that the Ulster-Scots are not a Convention group - and should therefore also be deprived of Convention benefits.

As the Government are determined to keep the application of the Convention vague, and have consistently resisted all attempts to force them to name which groups are included and which groups are excluded, how will UK legislators, policy makers and service providers know which groups to award Convention rights and benefits to? Moreover, in the absence of case-by-case quantitative and qualitative benchmarking processes, how can the Council of Europe and other monitoring bodies assess the effectiveness of Convention implementation? [See Scat t'Larrups p.173 for further information]

It is noticeable that EURAC’s draft study makes special reference to data acquisition. The authors of the study raised this issue in conjunction with the Jan 2003 Committee of Ministers Resolution requesting that state parties supply statistical data on groups covered by the Convention - a request studiously ignored by the UK Government in its subsequent 2007 second compliance report. But how could the UK Government possibly satisfy this requirement when it stubbornly refuses to provide the Council of Europe with a definitive list of groups that are covered by the Convention?

EURAC’s draft study draws attention to the Advisory Committee’s statement that the Convention “should not be a source of arbitrary or unjust distinctions.” Any comment by us on this should draw attention to the fact that in the UK [particularly with regards to the application of the Convention to the Irish Travellers, Ulster-Scots, Gaels, Scottish Travellers and the Cornish], groups in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations are being treated differently and without proper justification. This deliberate policy undermines the principle, aims and spirit of the Convention.

Another point worthy of mention in any commentary is the fact that in 2007, the Government stated that the Convention “does not govern policy or lawmaking in the UK”, [See Scat t'Larrups p.294] and in any event, it already “fully meets the requirements of the Convention” [See Scat t'Larrups p.174], so sees no need to take any measures in respect of implementation. In other words, according to Government, the Convention [and the associated monitoring system] is redundant window dressing. As shown earlier, this ties in with the Gov stating that it signed the Convention merely to combat discrimination.

Commentators might also include reference to the fact the UK Government is of the opinion that the Convention, as applied in the UK, ”does not confer any benefit to those who are recognised under it” [See Scat t'Larrups p. 301 and p.303] and those falling under the protection of the Convention in the UK “do not stand to gain anything” from inclusion [See Scat t'Larrups p.301].  Once again, the actual purpose of the Convention is dismissed by the UK Government as something for others to implement.

There are of course many other areas for commentators to focus on. For example, the Government is relying on the Cornish inability to achieve case law recognition under UK law as a means to deprive them of the protection of international law. Aside from the fact that Government agencies have actively assisted other groups to gain the stipulated domestic legal recognition, and have consistently refused to do so for the Cornish, the Cornish inability to acquire case law recognition is, under international law, not permitted to act as a barrier to being recognised as a minority and treated as such. As long ago as 1947 the Creco-Bulgarian Communities judgement determined that the factual existence of minorities outweighs any artificially contrived domestic legal barrier: “The existence of communities is a question of fact, not a question of law”.

Although these are merely suggestive topics, any worthwhile commentary would conclude that the UK Government signed the Convention as a public relations exercise, and has no intention of properly honouring its numerous commitments under it.

If commentators wish in the course of their response to make a case for the Cornish, this should be done as briefly as possible, preferably by simply re-stating the many positive observations on this subject made by the UK Commission for Racial Equality and the Council of Europe Advisory Committee itself.

John Angarrack [author ‘Scat t'Larrups? - Resist and Survive' 2008]

Director, Cornwall 2000.

Feb 2009

Further reading: http://Cornishfightingfund.org

Those interested in submitting comments on the draft study are invited to convey their views and proposals to the authors [not later than 31 March 2009] at: fcnm.consultation@eurac.edu.

EHRC - Ask yourself these questions…

Is exclusion from the Convention affecting your lives?

Is unprecedented singling-out for this adverse treatment by the UK Government placing those Cornish people who merely wish to exhibit, celebrate, project and protect their identity into conflict with their own Government? If so, then this situation has been deliberately engineered.

Is refusal to include the Cornish in the Framework Convention intended to force Cornish people to conclude that as celebrating their identity is officially frowned upon, what would normally be natural expressions of Cornish identity are best avoided, kept secret, hidden from public view, not actively promoted and certainly discouraged among the young - particularly if they are to prosper in an English world. Is exclusion designed to foster the very spiral of ethnocide which the Convention is designed to prevent?

People should ask themselves if joining the club of cultural groups already included within the Convention would help the Cornish obtain recognition of their minority status, parity of esteem with other groups in similar circumstances and a measure of legal protection? If so, then perhaps this why the Cornish are being prevented from joining the club. Is the Government fearful that these sought after social qualities might provide the springboard from which Cornish people could begin to generate a new belief in themselves and a new sense of pride in their unique language, history and culture - thereby re-creating the very independently-minded community living in a defined territory that London has spent centuries trying to absorb. In other words, are the Cornish being excluded so that within their historic territory, cultural assimilation, economic asphyxiation, political neutering, administrative centralisation and constitutional gerrymandering can continue unchecked?

Would monitoring by external human rights organisations such as the Council of Europe help pressurise Government into ensuring that the Cornish obtained equal treatment when it came to issues such as statistical visibility, rights protection, educational opportunity, access to the media and maximising their administrative autonomy in ways that both respect and reflect the existing constitutional position of their historic territory?

Would inclusion help ensure that public authorities, funding agencies, decision-makers etc treated the Cornish with due deference and respect? In other words, would inclusion within the Convention send a message to the UK authorities that the Cornish people have arrived, and that their circumstances must to be properly considered, their needs addressed and their rights duly upheld?

If you agree with any of the above and would like to make your feeling know to the UK EHRC before we meet with its representative on Feb 10th, please direct your thoughts to Regional Manager Mr Qaiser Razzak at the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Contact details for Mr Razzak as follows
qaiser.razzak@equalityhumanrights.com
or contact by telephone on (0117) 900 1765.

Cornish community members and supporters raised at peak, just over £40,000 in pledges in only a few months, in a bid to raise enough money to take the UK Government to Court, no other minority cultural group has matched this amount of community support. read more

The fund has now closed as as we did not reach the target. Therefore pledges will not be called in and legal action will not be forthcoming.

The pledgebank reached at its peak just over £40,000, which was remarkable given the traditional low pay of Cornwall coupled with the lack of publicity and the credit crunch. It should also be said that no other minority cultural group has matched this amount of community support - as in all other cases legal recognition and rights have been aquired through legal action brought about via direct or indirect government funding. Only the Cornish have been left to fund their own case.

]]> http://www.cornishfightingfund.org/latest/?feed=rss2&p=127 http://www.cornishfightingfund.org/latest/?p=123 http://www.cornishfightingfund.org/latest/?p=123#comments Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:06:20 +0000 admin http://www.cornishfightingfund.org/latest/?p=123 This video presentation by FTI includes sound clips from the Laurence Reed Cornish debate BBC Radio Cornwall, photos and music.

Click to Listen….

Click to Listen

||

Cornish Debate - Live on the Laurence Reed show. Friday 12th Dec 2008

Panel guests - John Angarrack, Director of Cornwall 2000, Historian and author , Mebyon Kernow leader  Dick Cole and Professor Philip Payton Institute of Cornish Studies.

Click below to listen to part one of the show

||

Click below to listen to part two of the show

||

A legal battle is planned against the UK Govt by the Cornwall2000 pressure group to have the Cornish people included in the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM)…

Read Newsletter

This one’s here’s For The Boys - Played at Cornish Pirates Rugby matches - sometimes times sung live at the ground by the songs author  Graham Hart

Click to enlage, then click again to read.

Download Cornish Nation PDF Here

“A Campaign to gain recognition for Cornish people under the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) is in danger of failing due to a lack of funds.
Pressure group Cornwall 2000 believe that FCNM inclusion would strenghthen the Cornish identity and give parity of esteem an equality of status with other included groups such as Ulster-Scots, Welsh, Gaels and Irish Travellers.
Cornwall 2000 are accusing the Government of specifically excluding the Cornish from the Convention and they plan to mount a legal challenge. The pressure group hopes to raise enough money to cover the potential costs of taking the case for inclusuion to the European Court of Human Rights.
With a deadline of the end of December, Cornwall 2000 are seeking £100,000 in pledges through theit website www.cornishfightingfund.org. So far just over £30,000 has been pledged towards this so called “Cornish Fighting Fund.”
John Angarrack, director of Cornwall 2000 says “Unless we take this course of action their is no hope at all for the Cornish people. To avoid any charge of failing to put my money where my mouth is, in May of 2008 I made then first pledge in the sum of £5000.”

A NATIONAL newspaper website has attracted hundreds of comments after uploading a feature about the prospect of Cornish independence. HERE

For high quality video version

Watch HERE

Watch on You Tube Here

Shaz

Article on The Cornish Fighting Fund by Cornish World

In the right-hand corner of the home page of the Cornish Fighting Fund is the Duchy sheild, with a number of “flashing” bezants.

These bezants show the sum currently pledged to mount a legal challenge to ensure the right to have the unquie history of the Cornish taught in schools, to gain a degree of formal recognition for the Cornish, and to secure the end of the process of enforced assimilation.

The website explains clearly and inclusively how only the Cornish have been specifically excluded by the UK Government from protection within an international treaty talior-made for characteristic minorities like the Cornish. That treaty is the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and the Government’s Third Compliance Report is due early next year.

John Angarrack, who complied much of the content of the website, claims that that this is “most probably the last opportunity to mount a legal challenge to the Government’s unlawful behaviour. We must either prepare to meet that decision head on, or forever suffer the consequences”

The Cornish Fighting Fund is based on teamwork, and the confidence that - in the setting of international law -  and with the Council of Europe’s minority experts having already agreed that the Cornish should be included - the case for the Cornish is strong.

The website itself, designed by Cornish-based FTI, is really hansome.

As the pledge total mounts, the site has a very real relevance to all for whoom the Cornish identity is important.

Here is the text:

AIMS
A legal battle against the UK Gov by the Cornwall2000 pressure group to include Cornish people in the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) - to raise £100,000 in pledges to cover the potential costs incurred taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

FACTS
The Cornish fit all criteria for inclusion in the FCNM but the UK Gov have singled them out as the only group NOT to be included. Cornwall County Council, the UK Commission for Racial Equality and the Council of Europe itself have all strongly advised the UK Gov to include the Cornish, but to no avail. This reluctance is believed to be based on unresolved territorial issues and the ambiguous legal status of the Duchy of Cornwall. The Cornish seem to be the unwitting victims of the Governments desire to suppress these issues and maintain the status quo.

BENEFITS
Under protection from the FCNM the Cornish would gain official recognition as a minority group within the UK and treated the same as other included groups i.e. Ulster-Scots, Welsh, Gaels, Irish Travellers etc. Apart from providing the Cornish with parity of esteem and equality of status, the FCNM would strengthen the Cornish identity by, among other things, bringing to an end the suppression of Cornish history in schools.

EDUCATION
Whether Cornish or English, school children in the Duchy are forced to adhere to an English National Curriculum. This curriculum does not meet the Governments legal obligations regarding the provision of a pluralistic educational programme. It also fails to fulfil the educational needs of Cornish children - who are obliged to undergo forced assimilation. The FCNM has within it a provision to end forced assimilation of minorities, and this is one reason why Government are so determined to prevent the Cornish from coming under its protection.

With a deadline of the end of December we still need to raise approx £75,000 in pledges. You can do your bit for Cornwall by visiting the CFF website, studying the content and making a commitment to fight this current injustice that affects all children born or raised in Cornwall.

Click to enlarge

A number of residents in the Isles of Scilly are demanding the right to buy the the homes from the Duchy, the Prince’s landed estate, which is refusing because it is excluded from rules which allow tenants to buy the properties they live in from their landlords.

The fight centres on the 16th century walls of the Garrison on St Mary’s, the largest of the islands which are 28 miles south-west of Land’s End.

It could lead to one of the first court challenges to the authority of the Duchy since it was formed in 1372 by Edward III to generate an income suitable for the heir to the throne.

The Scillonians, as the islanders like to be known, have now consulted lawyers for the first time to examine the legal status of the Duchy of Cornwall. They have also secured the support of Andrew George, the local Liberal Democrat MP, who has submitted a Freedom of Information request to establish why the Duchy was excluded when many other Crown properties are not.

The Duke of Westminster, one of Britain’s biggest private landlords, was defeated when he went to court to try to stop leaseholders on his Grosvenor Estate buying the freeholds under the right to buy legislation.

Alan Davis, secretary of the Garrison Leasehold Group, said: “We are campaigning for the same equal right to enfranchisement as other citizens. Our problem is that our landlord is the Duchy of Cornwall.

“The Duchy on its website refers to itself as “a well managed private estate” whose principal activity is the sustainable and commercial management of its land and properties”.

“Yet as far as leasehold reform goes, the Duchy lays claim to being part of the Crown, although it is not a Crown Body. While the Crown has specific, understandable and clearly intentioned exemptions applying to properties within the grounds of the Royal Palaces. the same cannot be said of the Duchy of Cornwall which is a commercial estate.

We believe that it is unjust and unfair that the Duchy is able to opt out of this arrangement by virtue of resort to what appears to be feudal privilege or connections in the corridors of power.”

The Duchy once owned all the land and properties on the Isles of Scilly but many homes on St Mary’s have been sold off so it now owns 330 - just under 30 per cent - of the 1,150 residential properties on the islands.

The Duchy of Cornwall estate, which is spread over 23 counties mainly in the south-west of England, rose in value last year by eight per cent to £647 million. The Prince of Wales’s income from the Duchy rose by £1.1 million to £16.3 million.

Mr Davis said: “The Duchy does not like the enfranchisement legalisation and have used their position to claim an exemption. No other freeholder has the right to say no to enfranchisement. Even the Crown will allow it, if it does not impinge on Royal Palaces.”

The Duchy is determined that the houses in the Garrison will not be broken-up or fall into private hands so will not sell the freeholds. A spokeswoman said: ”

The Prince of Wales upset the 2,000 islanders in 2005 when the Duchy entered the holiday-home business on the islands for the first time. It renovated a granite two-bedroom house that had traditionally been used by local teachers.

Annabel Elliot, the Duchess of Cornwall’s sister and an interior designer, was paid from duchy funds to give the cottage an extensive makeover. The Duchy has also imposed Visitor Licence fees - dubbed a bed tax by the locals- on residential tenancies who do holiday lets.

A spokeswoman for the Duchy said: “The Garrison on St Mary’s is one of a small number of sites belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall estate that is exempt from the leasehold reform act. In order to preserve the special appearance and nature of this site it was agreed at the time the legislation was introduced, and reinforced by subsequent ministerial statements, that the Duchy would retain the freehold of the properties rather than allow a fragmented approach to their management.”