Celtic League recognised by United Nations
Many thanks to my friends in the Kernow branch of the Celtic League for their press release announcing they have been granted "Roster Status" within the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) at the United Nations.
As the League says, Roster Status was set up to improve and enhance the involvement of Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) at the UN. The Celtic League will join only another 979 organisations from around the world with this privileged status.
Roster Status is normally restricted to NGOs with a narrow and/or technical focus and includes the Association for World Education, International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities and Refugees International.
As the League's press release says:
"The League is in limited consultative status with the UN and can be called on by the UN to contribute to discussions to help it form an opinion on certain topics in particular areas. The status also means that the League can attend UN meetings, are invited to attend international conferences, contribute to forums and designate UN representatives."
The League's recognition by the UN is thanks to a proposal from Egypt. The UK's UN mission, based in New York, tells me that such proposals are very rarely turned down unless there is an objection raised by the nation which hosts the NGO. In the case of the Celtic League that would have been either the UK, France or Ireland.
The League made news recently when some of its members called for a boycott of the flag of St George during the World Cup, claiming it represented a symbol of pro-English cultural oppression in Cornwall. A spokeswoman for the UK UN mission said the UK does not block "Roster Status" proposals on the grounds of freedom of speech, or unless there are clear links to terrorism.
Meanwhile the League celebrates "a fantastic result!"
Comment number 1.
At 15th Jun 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 15th Jun 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:Perhaps this good news will help sensitise you to the offensiveness of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s relentless deployment of the offensive anglo-imperialist-kernow-assimilationist expletive 'c' word and enable you to, in its place, deploy the factual word 'Duchy' in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission On The Constitution 1973 (aka The Kilbrandon Report):
'Just as the people of Scotland and Wales tend to resent the description of their countries as regions of the United Kingdom, so the people of Cornwall regard their part of the United Kingdom as not just another English county. The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in the 14th century may have been in some respects a mark of English overlordship, but it established a special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown. Use of the designation (Duchy) on all appropriate occasions would serve to recognise both this special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall, on which our witnesses laid great stress.'
Handy source:
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 15th Jun 2010, TheCornishRep wrote:I would be interested to know why the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ insist on calling it a county when, constitutionally, it's a Duchy. The Kilbrandon report recommends that it be called a Duchy so why the resistance?
I asked the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ via the freedom of informations act to explain this but they refused to do so and apparently they don't have to.
Graham perhaps you can tell us why? What instructions or other advice are you given on referring to Cornwall and the Duchy?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 15th Jun 2010, Graham Smith wrote:The short answer is that the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ has given me no instructions or advice, but that might be simply because I haven't asked for any. I will "refer up" to see if there is a policy and will report my findings.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 15th Jun 2010, john wrote:Why does the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ have ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Wales, ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Northern Ireland and ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Scotland but do not have a ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ ENGLAND? Please do not tell me it is because there are regions in ENGLAND. My Grandchildren know more about the Middle East than they do about their own country because it is disrespected on television. Are you part of the Government conspiracy to subvert ENGLAND into the amorphous mass called Britain? We have a pride in our Nation but the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ seem to ignore the ENGLISH people at every occasion while at the same time promoting Scottish, Welsh and Irish culture and values. We are the only country in the UK not to have a Parliament or Assembly but the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ never mentions this in any of its programmes. On ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Parliament channel you have debates from the other three counties but do not question why ENGLAND is unrepresented. You confuse Unionists and Britain with the ENGLISH and I, for one, would be perfectly happy to disband the UK and have ENGLAND go it alone and I know there are many more like me.I truly hope that this tiny pebble, that is my voice, will subsequently lead to an irresistible landslide that the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ cannot ignore.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 15th Jun 2010, Graham Smith wrote:The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ does not have a policy, which is a relief because if it did I probably should have known about it. A key word in the Kilbrandon Report is "appropriate" and, in very general terms, I think that accurately describes the words ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ journalists try to use whatever we're reporting on.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 15th Jun 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:Well then, Mr Smith, surely all reports of events that occur within The Duchy Of Cornwall should refer to the territory within which they occur as 'Cornwall', 'The Duchy Of Cornwall' or 'The Duchy'. That's 'appropriate' and applies the Kilbrandon Report recommendation and demonstrates respect for that Royal Commission's findings by an official body - the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳.
Re John's point. ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Cornwall is also long overdue.
PS If you are indeed doing some up-line communication, Mr Smith, you should also ask that they stop perversely referring to The Celtic Nation And Duchy Of Cornwall as being in 'the south west of England' which it clearly isn't - the 'south west of England' ends at the River Tamar. Here are some valuable references that may assist your orientation (feel free to pass them up the line also):
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 16th Jun 2010, walter1965 wrote:I find it disturbing. There is much doubt about the "Celtic" impact on the UK biologically anyway, but to back the concept that the Scots, Welsh, and "Cornish" are all descendants of ancient white tribes alarms me. Surely the UK is multi-cultural and multi-ethnic? And as the Scots and Welsh were not even referred to as "Celtic" until the 1700s, I think that the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is backing a form of racism here.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 16th Jun 2010, walter1965 wrote:Further to my recent e-mail, I don't have any problems with Cornish independence - or independence elsewhere. The people should be heard. I just find this false assertion of an ancient white ethnicity disturbing in the modern day UK.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 16th Jun 2010, TheCornishRep wrote:@walter1955
Please be careful not to confuse concepts of race and ethnicity. Race is biological and I would agree there is no Cornish race. Indeed in modern Europe, Afro-eurasia even, there are no genetic frontiers between people. DNA drifts.
However ethnic identity is really ones perceptions of ones own identity not necessarily based on race. For example one can grow up in a Basque family speaking Basque and therefore acquire a Basque ethnic identity but have been adopted from African origins.
In this light people have been thinking of themselves as Cornish continuously now for a very long time. Perhaps longer than England has existed.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 24th Jun 2010, TheCornishRep wrote:"I will "refer up" to see if there is a policy and will report my findings"
Any results so far?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 24th Jun 2010, Graham Smith wrote:As per comment 6 above: there is no ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ policy, other than trusting journalists to use their commonsense.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 27th Jun 2010, TheCornishRep wrote:So why do all ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ journalists use 'county' when its clear that there is a case for using Duchy?
Equally why does the Beeb in Kernow never investiage the unanswered questions that surround the Duchies relationship with Cornwall? It's really fascinating stuff when you start to scratch the surface.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)