Why have the Cornish been refused recognition as a national minority?

Dear Sir or Madam,

On ratifying the Council of Europes Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities, the government was obligated,
within twelve months of ratification, to submit to the Council of
Europe a report on the existing conditions of U.K. national
minorities together with a resume of legislative and other measures
taken to give effect to Convention principles. The Council of
Europe received the UK 1st report on 26 July 1999. Comment 48 of
the report stated that, in spite of receiving many representations
about the Cornish from individuals, groups, MP’s and MEP’s, the
Cornish were to be excluded from the Convention. Out of many dozens
of UK groups, only the Cornish were specifically named, identified
and targeted by government within its report as a group to be
deprived of Convention benefits. No other group was similarly
singled out for such attention.

It should be remembered that the Cornish are the only UK group with
a justified, but unresolved, territorial claim - see
DuchyofCornwall.eu. This unwarranted and wholly exceptional adverse
treatment is a manifestation of the government’s determination to
keep Cornish history, language and culture out of schools. By
taking such action, the assimilation programme is kept on course
and the duchy/private estate deception is maintained.

Paragraphs 2 and 46 of the 1st UK Convention report said: "National
Minority is not a legally defined term within the UK. Our report is
therefore based on the definition of racial group as set out in the
Race Relations Act 1976." Therefore the basis for excluding the
Cornish seemed to be the fact that they were not a Race Relations
Act 1976 case-law recognised group. The authorities have always
used this as an excuse to discriminate against the Cornish with
impunity.

However, although government was implying that UK groups covered by
the Convention were all Race Relations Act case law recognised
groups, the 1st UK report to the Council of Europe detailed
measures to be taken to develop and promote the educational rights
of groups labelled: Afro-Caribbean, Muslim, the Deaf, Hindu,
visible women, black men, Travellers, Bengali, Christian,
Ulster-Scot, Black-Jewish and Gaelic. As none of these groups were
Race Relations Act case law recognised groups, government were
operating an exclusion mechanism that was rigorously applied to the
Cornish, but not to others. This proved in time to be an
unwarranted difference in treatment that government could not
justify, and therefore refused to address.

Following release of the UK 1st Compliance Report, the Advisory
Committee visited the UK to seek out the views of those affected by
the content prior to formulating its own detailed response.

In June of 2001, a number of Cornish campaigners travelled to
London to meet representatives from the Advisory Committee. They
gave an overview of the long history, unique culture and different
origins of the Cornish people. They also pointed out the legally
extant territorial rights of the people of Cornwall. The
representatives did not need reminding that the purpose of the
Convention is to protect and promote threatened minorities, and
those most in need of the protection afforded by the Convention are
those minorities who are in danger of being assimilated out of
existence, i.e. the Cornish. The Committee was impressed both by
our numerous representations to date and our presentation that day,
for the subsequent Advisory Committee Opinion stated that the
Cornish should be included within the Convention.

The follow-up July 2001 Home Office response to a list of Advisory
Committee questions detailed the plethora of measures to be taken,
and the many millions of pounds to be spent, enhancing the
Convention rights of the likes of the Ulster-Scots and Gael groups.
Yet these were not Race Relations Act case law recognised groups.
In that same Home Office document, government told the Advisory
Committee that, as the Cornish were not a Race Relations Act case
law recognised group, the Cornish must remain excluded from the
Convention.

Throughout the intervening period, the Cornish continued to be
excluded from the Convention and their children continued to be
subjected to forced assimilation. However, Convention reporting
obligations placed an onus on government to submit a second
compliance report to the Secretary General by May of 2004. Although
Cornwall 2000 and others had made many unsuccessful attempts to get
the government to explain why it included some non-case law
recognised groups in the Convention, but excluded the Cornish, we
failed to obtain any coherent response.

Why have the Cornish been excluded? What government bodies,
organisations and individuals have been consulted on this issue?
What were their responses?

Yours faithfully,

Philip Hosking