R - v - HICKS NUTE & ROWE

1          Sanctioning by the Stannary Parliament of the removal of the signs including:-

a)                 A brief history of the Stannary Parliament and its legitimacy

b)                 The decision making process that led to the decision to remove the signs

c)                 Any documentary evidence of the decision making process.

Date

 

Evidence

300BC

Ancient British people
Conglomerate of small Celtic nations
Pytheus of Massillia – of the Cornish, reported;
“civilised in their mode of life owing to contact with foreign merchants”.

“Tin in Antiquity”

R.D.Penhallurick, 1986

40AD-410

200BC -

400AD

Roman period

Romans occupying much of Britain but never military occupation of Cornwall, only trade. 

Britain a Celtic nation – “stannaries, a continuation of the old British courts before the times of Julius Caesar”.

Tin production being carried out at Chysauster and Carn Euny.

One English Heritage sign removed from each site.

Cornwall – One of the Four Nations of Britain – Murley, Pascoe & Nute – 1996

History of Cornwall

Richard Polwhele –

1816.

Letters to English Heritage on 12th August 2000 and 7th Sept.2000

440 AD

540AD

Pictish invasions from the north cause the Celtic King to invite Hengst and Horsa to assist him.  They later invade and this leads to a 500 year war between invading English (Anglo Saxons) and the Celtic Nations e.g King Donniert, King Arthur, Cornish Celtic Kings.

King Arthur Born at Tintagel Castle

Seven English Heritage signs removed.

King Arthur holds Anglo Saxons back for 70 years. 

Christian Cornish Kings and Church.

Dozens of 5th to 10th century stone crosses are
scattered over the Cornish countryside unlisted by English Heritage.

Letters to E.H. of 21st August 2000 (1) and

19th October 2000 (6).

King Arthur, King of Kings by Jean Markale, Professor of Celtic Studies – Sorbonne

Gordon & Cremonesi,

London – 1976

836

Battle Hingston Down

Cornish against King Egbert

Breaking the Chains

pp.22

936

King Athelstan, King of Wessex

Boundary of Cornwall set as in the River Tamar

All Cornish people north of the border were sent back to Cornwall.  “Exeter was cleansed of its defilement by wiping out that filthy race”.

Governed by customary tradition and Cornish Kings in their own Cornish language

Possibly penultimate Cornish King Doniert

King Doniert’s Stone – Bodmin Moor

One English Heritage sign removed

Breaking the Chains

John Angarrack- 1999

Stannary Publications

pp.,25-26 etc

Letter  to E.H.

21st September 2000

c.936

Last Cornish King, King Howell, (people still being called after Cornish king to-day).

Ballowal Barrow – possible burial site of King Howell.

One English Heritage sign removed.

England was a series of individual shires.  Cornwall was not part of the Heptarchy

(7 Kingdoms).  Wessex, Mercia, Sussex etc.  Governing under an Anglo-Saxon system.

Cornish were a separate Celtic system of government.

Letter to E.H. 7thSept. 2000

1066

Norman invasion of England.

Normans face a hostile Cornish people.

Accommodation made between Normans & Cornish to effect Cornwall would be governed by an Earl. 

No reference to

“the stannaries”

in Domesday Book

1198

First acknowledgement of a long pre-existing Cornish parliament or convocation under Latin name Commuitatis.  Concerned with the collection of taxes within Cornwall and continued independence.

Sir Geo. Harrison, Keeper of the Records, Duchy of Cornwall. The Stannaries of the Duchy of Cornwall, Longman and Green 1835, page 67.

1201

Charter of King John.  Barons ruled King John cannot own the Stannaries led to Magna Carta 1215.

The Stannaries,

G.R. Lewis, Harvard

Uni. 1908 p.84

1305

Stannary Charter.  Recognised right of Stannaries to its own independent legal system.  Customary Rights. 

See 1198

Laws and Customs of the Stannaries, Thomas Pearce 1725.

1337-1338

Duchy Charters.  Creation of Duchy of Cornwall.  Son of the existing King created as Duke of Cornwall and given large tracts of land in Cornwall and elsewhere e.g. Tintagel.

Can extract from the Charter that Cornwall is recognised as being something different to Cornwall.  Grants writs or summons of Exchequer for whole of Cornwall.  “The Stannaries” included as a pre-existing  Cornish organisation. 

There would have also been a dual role of the Cornish Convocation dealing with the administration of Cornwall not simply restricted to the management of Tin Mining industry e.g.  Duchy Charter refers to “Court of Stannary and Mines” Indicative of dual function.

H.M.S.O.

1st February 1978

Statutes in Force

Constitutional Law 10

Act of Parliament:-

“The Prince’s Case 1606” -  8 Co.Rep.13b at 16a, 20a.

The Stannaries

G.R. Lewis,  Harvard Uni – 1908 

“The Stannaries twofold meaning “ – p.33

1337-1485

Succession of French Monarchs, Plantagenets governing England with eldest son and heir being Duke of Cornwall.

Government of Cornwall continued much as before with Stannary Court and Stannary Parliament or convocation meeting when necessary.

Cornwall known as Cornubia (Latin) and recognised as separate country.    

Henry VII, Vol.1,2 & 3,

A.F.Pollard, Uni.London

Longman, Green 1913.

1485

1497

1549

Henry Tudor invaded England with a Breton Army supported by Cornish and Welsh contingents. (The three members of the Celtic Brythonic language group)

Battle of Bosworth.  Henry Tudor Henry VII killed Richard III, last Plantagenet King.

1337 Charter becomes extinguished as now no longer a Plantagenet eldest son.

There is a state emergency centring on  Duchy of Cornwall as a Plantagenet institution could not survive past 1485 into the Tudor era. 

Tudor Henry VII possibly unconstitutionally makes his son, Arthur, Duke of Cornwall, contrary to provisions of Duchy Plantagenet Charter.

Cornish people regarded the Tudor Arthur as a usurper or fraud and rebelled against all ordinances proclamations and taxes imposed by the Dukes.

Additionally Cornish were subject to heavy taxation by Henry VII to fund war with Scottish Celts which they resented and was contrary to the spirit of 1305 Charter. 

For a period of 11 years the Cornish stopped production of tin.  This caused a large loss of Revenue and forced the King to enter into discussions with Cornish. 

This was main reason for the agreement that became the 1508 Charter.

This reaffirmed previous rights, pardons people involved in previous activities.  Fresh start for Cornwall.  Reaffirmed the Customary right to a Cornish parliament.

Also included provision that any Acts of Parliament had to be approved by the Stannary Parliament.

Tin production recommences.

There was then a measure of co-operation between Duchy and Cornish community, and parliament.  Stannary parliament met when needed to do something serious.  Day to day management of Tin production was dealt with by Warden, Vice Warden and various Stewards.  Disputes were dealt with in Stannary Court.

Meetings of Stannary parliament.

Imposition of state Church of England – over 6,000 Cornish protesters become martyrs.  

Destruction of Glasney College, Penryn.

Church not established according to Magna Carta.  

Shakespeare, Richard III – Act 5; end of Scene 3; “these bastard Bretons”. (not noted by English historians)

The Tudor dynasty was not expected to last – Pollard.

Journal of the Royal Institute of Cornwall,

The Cornish Rebellion,

Part 1, 1915, pp 49-86

The Blue Book;

The Laws of the Stannaries.

The Cornish Rebellion of 1549 – W.J.Blake –

Journal of the Royal Institue of Cornwall –

Part II – 1911.

1602 -

1630

1642-45

Carew – Cornish Stannary Parliament right to convene at the discretion of the Stannary community.  *Lord Mohun convened Parliament by this rule as the intention of the 1508 Charter after the emergency.  Objections to Westminster Parliament by Lord Eliot overruled.

**Mayors controlled by the Duchy

Known Dates of Convocations of the Cornish Stannary Parliament;

**Anno 30 Eliz.I   1589 - Lostwithiel

*Anno 22 Jac 1  -  1625 – Lostwithiel**

*Anno 11 Car.Primi, - 1637/8 - Lostwithiel**

*Anno 2 Jac.II – 1687/8 - Lostwithiel**

*Anno 4 Jac.II – 1689 (interregnum)

*Anno 2 Reg. Annae, - 1704 - Truro**

**Anno 8.Anne  - 1710 - Truro.

**Anno 23 Geo.II – 1750 - Truro

**Anno 27 Geo.II – 1752 – Truro & Helston. Laws made and existing confirmed.

 22 Jac. I; 12 Car.I; and 4Jac. II; confirmed by

Laws of the Stannaries of Cornwall c.1760.

*Laws & Customs of the Stannaries –

Thomas Pearce - 1725

**Journal of the Royal Institute of Cornwall

Part 2  -  1905 - The Stannaries of Cornwall.

Civil War – Cornish Royalist Army takes Bristol. Captures Roundhead Army at Lostwithiel. Final surrender at Pendennis Castle.

Carew, by F.E.Halliday.

Melrose, London.

*Faction & Faith, Anne Duffin, Uni. Exeter Press, 1996, p.94.

**Journal of the Royal Institute of Cornwall,

1980, G.Haslam,p.224-238.

**Metal Mining – J.B.Richardson – Allen Lane, 1974, page 57.

Earlier records believed to have been burnt by invading Roundhead Army 1645.

Cornwall in the Great Civil War – Mary Coates –  Bradford Barton, Truro 1933.

1693

Royal Mines Act 1693.  Recognised the existence of Stannaries Constitution and Charters.

5 Will & Mary c.6

Constitutional Law 7.

1752

Last Convocation.  Stannary parliament challenged Duchy of Cornwall decisions.  Convocation moves from Truro to Helston because of the dispute. 

Duke had assumed the right to issue writ to summon Parliament notwithstanding that this was not a requirement of the original parliament 

or the Duchy of Cornwall charters.

Parliament that met in 1752 reaffirmed all previous legislation and Charters.

Stannary Court still existed and sat regularly.  Duchy in effect became government of Cornwall.

Tin production carried on much as before but probably in expectation that there would be a Parliament when needed in the future.  Parliament was not dissolved. 

Journal of the Royal Institute of Cornwall,

Part 2 – 1905;

pages 292-306.

Charter of 1508 requirement for Mayors of four Stannary towns to nominate Stannators

Intended for duration of

Emergency caused by Tudor Henry VII ursurpation of the throne and killing of Plantagenet Richard III.

Ducal or royal writ to convene Stannary Parliament not required by Charters; therefore, customary “at their discretion” per Carew 1602  applies.

1838

Abolition of Coinage Duty.  This was the tax on tin production that had been paid by tin miners to the Duchy since 1337 to cover expenses. Duchy compensated.    This was main tax paid by Cornish people. Cornwall had historically paid double the duty because there was an English custom of charging foreigners double tax.

1 & 2 Vict c.120

1858-63

The Cornwall Foreshore Dispute between the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall -1858

Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863-1982

Sections 31, 32, 33 & 37.

26 & 27 Vict c.49

1896

Stannary Court functions transferred to the County Court.

50 & 60 Vict. C.45.

Stannary Law – Prof.

Pennington, 1973

David & Charles

Newton Abbot.

1974

Stannary Parliament reconvened based on independent right of the Cornish to convene at their own discretion under precedents of Carew and Mohun. – Prescription and custom.

Stannary members embark on years of research

Into the hidden history of the Stannaries.  Documents and Books collected.

Refer above 1602-1630

1974 -

1992

Individual Court cases undertaken by active and former members of the reconvened Cornish Stannary Parliament  - unsuccessful.

Employed legal advice on Stannary law.

Correspondence with government legal departments on the validity of Stannary Charters.

Published Cornish Stannary Gazette

Hambley

(Lord Widgery)

All.Eng.29May1979.

and Trull

1993-

2000

Publications – The Constitution of Cornwall;  Cornwall – One of the Four Nations of Britain and Breaking the Chains.

Submissions to:- Boundary Commission for a Cornish Constituency;  - The European Parliament re culture;  -  The European Court of Justice re British identity;   -The Council of Europe re National minority identity; – The Race Relations Commission; - The Office for National Statistics re identity; - The Home Office re Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities ;  etc  - see list.

Represented on:-  Objective One Regeneration Committee; Cornish Mining World Heritage Bid;

Members of F.U.E.N. (Federal Union of European Nationalities).

Maintain Cornish Heritage and Stannary Parliament web sites.

Thousands of Mini St.Piran flags produced and given to children on feast days and holidays, etc.

Rodney Nute appointed as Bailiff.

ISBN Nos:

0-9529313-0-3

0-9529313-1-1

St.Piran’s Day -5March

Helston Furry

Trevithick Day, Camb.

Golowan, Penzance,

Murdoch Day, Redruth

Padstow ‘Obby Os

Queen’s Visit, Bodmin

Duke’s Visit, Truro.

Gorsedd Kernow

Celtic Festival, Perranp.

28th Sept 1999

Minute No.5


  1. Why it is unlawful for English Heritage to place and fix the signs  on the Heritage sites from which the signs have been removed?

1.                  Not their land as provided in the Duchy of Cornwall Charters 1337-8 adjudged to be an Act of Parliament by “The Princes Case 1606”.

a)         Stannary laws supported by the Royal Mines Act 1693

b)                Stannary ownership supported by the Foreshore of Cornwall Dispute 1858 between the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown.

2.                  False description on the signs, i.e., “destruction of context” per European Heritage on the Archaeological Heritage 1992.

Specific examples, English Heritage. We are Cornish and British, NOT English.   Refer The British Nationality Act 1981 and the Act of Union Between Scotland and England of 1706.


3          a)  A brief introduction to the 1508 Charter and a short history  lesson of  how and why the Charter was granted.

b)  Why do we say the Charter is still valid today (consider any counter-arguments that there may be and answer them).

c)  What is the distinction that requires some Acts of Parliament e.g. the National Heritage Act 1983 to be approved by the Stannary Parliament  before they apply to Cornwall.

(a)  Charter of Pardon of 1508 granted by Tudor King Henry VII wishing to legitimise the transfer of the benefits of the Plantagenet Duchy of Cornwall Charter to the Tudors.    Cornish objections to decrees by Henry’s son Arthur.  Cessation of tin production and uprising in 1497 leading to the battle of Blackheath.  Cornish ringleaders executed.  Cornish plans to install Perkin Warbeck as Richard VI.    Negotiations with Henry VII led to Charter and provision to veto any English Acts prejudicial to the interests of the Cornish people.   Tin production recommenced in 1509.

(b) Valid because the Duchy of Cornwall Charter was adjudged to be an Act of Parliament by “The Prince’s Case 1606”.   The Duchy Charter as an Act of Parliament therefore intended by the description “the stannaries” to incorporate all facets and meanings associated with “the stannaries” including the Charter of Pardon of 1508.  This principle of interpretation is based on stricter criterion than otherwise widely employed to elicit benefits for the Duchy of Cornwall.  

Note:- Items not recorded in the Duchy Charter but nevertheless claimed or ‘awarded’, later include; The Isles of Scilly; intestate estates; gold and silver; treasure trove, and the Foreshore of Cornwall. 

Note:- Nullum Tempus Acts did not apply to Cornwall and under the Duchy of Cornwall management Act 1863-1982, sections 31, 32, 33 land claims can be made “nunc pro tunc” and Duchy produced documents legal while land claimed by Duchy thereby becomes Duchy  per section 37.

(c) According to the “assent and consent” requirements laid down in the Charter of Pardon of 1508 the misrepresentation of Cornish history by the presence of English Heritage and its attendant signs is prejudicial to the interests, heritage and identity of the Cornish people and the Cornish Stannary Parliament is therefore entitled to veto the application of the National Heritage Act 1983 to Cornwall.

4          Our view of the ownership of the individual sites.  Why do we say that they are owned by the Cornish people as opposed to English Heritage or the Duchy of Cornwall?

Do we include Craig’s “Cornish Heritage sites claimed by English Heritage” document here if so do you have electronic version that can be included??

Yes

Reference is made to the Foreshore dispute between the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown culminating in the Articles of Agreement in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858.

“Before tracing further the history of the Earldom, it is proper to draw attention to one species of property in this county almost peculiar to it, and essentially connected with its soil, namely the stannaries or tin mines there, and from a few particulars of their history, some light will be thrown on the main question in this case, namely, to whom the ownership of the county belonged in early times”.

(Cornwall Foreshore:- Exchange  -  Crown, No.27  -  Revised page 95m)

There is no reference to “the stannaries” or tin mined of Cornwall in Domesday Book, “not of course from their not having been then discovered as it is generally admitted that they were worked long before the Christian era”.   (Foreshore p.95m)

“The argument on the part of the Duchy that because the Stannaries throughout the county of Cornwall belonged to the Earls therefore the land did also, is groundless; the right of the profits of the stannaries was an incorporeal one (see case of the Stannaries 12 Rep.9b) extending as well into the lands of the subject as into the King’s own demesnes; consequently when it is shown that the Earls of Cornwall had the issues of the stannaries throughout the county, no legitimate inference can be drawn from this as to their ownership of the land of the county, as the right to the profits of the stannaries, was one independent of the ownership of the soil”.   (Cornwall Foreshore:- Crown reply page 3  -  revised page 72b)

“Then it is said by the Duchy, ‘we make the minerals ours by the act of extending the county by mining.   That one man should be able to change his neighbour’s property into his own by committing a trespass upon the former, is hardly consistent with the English, or any other law”.  (Cornwall Foreshore:- Crown – reply page 7,  -  Revised:- page 76b)

5          A brief account of why we believe that there is no legal validity in the current ownership/management of the sites.  This needs to be specifically directed at English Heritage issues.

OR do we include Craig’s “Cornish Heritage sites claimed by English Heritage” document here if so do you have electronic version that can be included??

No electronic version

Include here the five pages on the Duchy of Cornwall Charter of creation 1337 which includes “the stannaries”.

Sent by e-mail by Colin to Ian Wednesday 19th December 2001

Summary of above:-

Nute, Hicks and Rowe.              Truro Crown Court             14th January 2002

I removed English Heritage signs because they were situated on land which belongs to the Cornish people.

This action is supported by the Duchy of Cornwall Charter of 1337 which became an Act of Parliament in 1606.    This Act states:-

(a) “and desiring that places of note of the same kingdom should be adorned with their pristine honours”,

and, as part and parcel of those pristine (or ancient) honours;

(b) “and also our stannary in the same county of Cornwall, together with the coinage of the same stannary, and with all the issues and profits therefrom arising, and also with the explees, profits and prequisites of the court of Stannary and Mines.

Being the first Duchy created in Britain and embracing within the text a dedication to the “pristine honours of places of note” is clearly of significance.   It puts on record recognition of the distinct Celtic identity, pristine or ancient institutions and independent past of the Cornish.  The stannaries are widely recognised as a Cornish organisation of pre-Christian origin.

In 1858, in a dispute between the Attorney Generals of the Duchy and the Crown over the ownership of the Foreshore of Cornwall,  it was repeatedly affirmed  by the Crown that  the ownership of the soil of Cornwall belonged  “in early times” to the stannaries; for example;

“Before tracing further the history of the Earldom, it is proper to draw attention to one species of property in this county almost peculiar to it, and essentially connected with its soil, namely the stannaries or tin mines there, and from a few particulars of their history, some light will be thrown on the main question in this case, namely, to whom the ownership of the county belonged in early times”.

(Cornwall Foreshore:-    Exchange  -  Crown, No.27  -  Revised page 95m)

The Royal Mines Act 1693 confirms “the charters, laws, customs and constitutions of the Stannaries” which includes the Stannary Charter of Pardon of 1508.

The Stannary Charter of Pardon 1508 provides for the right of the “heirs and successors” of past generations of Cornish tinners to take action “for their best profit and greatest advantage as to them seem best to be done”.

The presence of English Heritage in Cornwall and its signs at Cornish Heritage sites is considered to be racially motivated and in violation of the “European Convention on the Archaeological Heritage”, in that, such indifference to the facts of history constitutes (as provided in the Convention) a “destruction of context” meaning, English Heritage signs are totally out of place in a Celtic context.

I believe, that neither Parliament nor the Duchy of Cornwall intended or intend to deny the principle of equality before the law or to alter the Celtic identity, history, monuments or institutions of the Cornish to Anglo-Saxon English.  Therefore, after a great deal of fruitless correspondence with English Heritage and many government departments, it seemed best to me to exercise the ancient rights of the Cornish stannaries by taking the necessary action of removing a number of the offending English Heritage signs in a careful and reasonable manner.

6          In relation to each of the sites we need bullet points of why it was necessary to remove the signs to protect the property. This should include:-

a)         Why was it in need of immediate protection?

b)        Why was the removal of the signs reasonable in relation to the need for immediate protection in the circumstances?  This will need to include the steps that have been taken previously directly with English Heritage.

(a) The sites were being popularised and commercialised as of English origin on an increasing scale by English Heritage in conjunction with a policy of treating the Celts as a thing of the past and failing to treat important Cornish monuments with the care that would be provided if held in the hands of the owners, the indigenous Cornish people.

(b) After of series of letters to government departments and English Heritage over a period of at least two years (refer list) before action was taken it was decided that English cultural aggression in Cornwall was regarded as normal and acceptable to English institutions and therefore it was necessary to oblige them to stop and think of the error of their ways.   In particular their departure from the principles of international law for the protection of national minorities and their infringements of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 4 (a), “States Parties shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof”. 

(c)  Action by English Heritage considered to be in violation of the provisions of the “European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage” which came into force in the United Kingdom on 20th March 2001. 

Should we include the document “The Record of English Heritage in Cornwall” ?? Possibly in abbreviated amended form

See Nigel’s document and The Grim Reality

7          Why is the placing of the English Heritage signs to be perceived as an act of racial discrimination?

Racial discrimination is defined in Race Relations Act s 1(1), which provides as follows:

 


A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if—(a) on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or (b) he applies to that other a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same racial group as that other but—(i) which is such that the proportion of persons of the same racial group as that other who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that racial group who can comply with it; and (ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied; and (iii) which is to the detriment of that other because he cannot comply with it.’

Racial group is defined in s 3(1) of that Act, which provides:

 


‘…“racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, and references to a person’s racial group refer to any racial group into which he falls.’

Lord Fraser in Mandla –v- Dowell Lee [1983] 1 All ER 1062 at 1066

“For a group to constitute an ethnic group in the sense of the 1976 Act, it must, in my opinion, regard itself, and be regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue  certain characteristics. Some of these characteristics are essential; others are not essential but one or more of them will commonly be found and will help to distinguish the group from the surrounding community. The conditions which appear to me to be essential are these: (1) a long shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it keeps alive;(2) a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance. In addition to those two essential characteristics the following characteristics are, in my opinion, relevant: (3) either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors;(4) a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group;(5) a common literature peculiar to the group;(6) a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it;(7) being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community, for example a conquered people (say, the inhabitants of England shortly after the Norman conquest) and their conquerors might both be ethnic groups.
A group defined by reference to enough of these characteristics would be capable of including converts, for example, persons who marry into the group, and of excluding apostates. Provided a person who joins the group feels himself or herself to be a member of it, and is accepted by other members, then he is, for the purpose of the 1976 Act, a member.”

Still need to say why placing of these signs is racial discrimination against Cornish

Because the presence and actions of English Heritage in Cornwall is in violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination  Article 4 (a) quoted above in 6, and the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities of 1992, Article 4.2.  “States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards”.   And Article 4.4; “States should take measures in the field of education to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of the minorities existing within their territory”. And Article 2..1. “Persons belonging to national minorities have the right to enjoy their own culture…….freely and without interference or any form of discrimination”.

   Back