8. Para. 33 [See new part 56]: “It has to be recognised that part of the Russian-speaking community in Latvia resists integration”. Many researchers concluded that the main problem is that the very concept of integration is interpreted in different ways by the government and the Russian-speaking community: while the official policies stress acquisition of the Latvian language, and acceptance of the “official” version of history, citizenship legislation and language policies as the main criteria for integration, the Russian-speakers emphasise that integration is a two-way road, and advocate the need to ensure their effective participation in decision-making, and recognition of and respect to their distinct identity – in particular, by adapting the system of state government to the multicultural and multilingual nature of the Latvia’s society. In other words, the questions is whether the respect to cultural diversity and full implementation of minority rights is a part of the integration concept or not. Thus, the statement quoted above is somewhat misleading – it would be better to stress the differences in approaches to the integration concept.
9. Para. 33 and footnote 5 [See new section 56 and footnote 8]: the footnote is very essential, indeed. However, the real picture is even more salient. It is worth mentioning that the pre-election programme of the Latvian People’s Front (LPF) in 1990 elections (when, for the last time, all residents were allowed to vote) contained a provision which for any practical reason could not be understood otherwise than “the zero option” (i.e. citizenship for everybody). This was one of the reasons why many Russian-speakers voted for the LPF then, thus ensuring its constitutional majority and the restoration of independence by parliamentary way. Thus, the non-citizens believe, and not without good reasons, that the legislators elected by political dating sites them simply deprived their own electors of political rights, meanwhile keeping their mandates. Under these circumstances, the word “misunderstanding” hardly reflects the reality, and it is simply not true that “such sentiments are …without foundation”. As one of the LPF leaders, A. We chose deception” (Latvia – whose homeland? Report about the conference organized by the Heinrich Boll Stiftung, Riga: Goete Institute, 1994, in Latvian).
10. Para. 34 [See new paragraphs 53 and 54]: 42% is the figure for those ethnic Russians who were registered as citizens since they could trace their roots back to the citizens of the pre-war Latvia, not the number of those arrived after WW2.
New shape 6000 with the Russian-speaking relationships seems heavily overestimated, usually dos right until 4 countless him or her officially registered (and several dozens really performing) try mentioned
11. Para. 35 [See new paragraph 60]: “Everyone agreed that the cultural rights of the minorities were respected. The NGOs also agreed that legislation complied with the minimum recommendations made by international organisations (the OSCE and the Council of Europe)”.
Panteleevs, told within the 1994: “We’d a choice – either to help you cheat [new Russian-speakers], or to shoot
The report sounds a while unusual – what is implied as “cultural rights”? ‘s the to studies during the mother tongue, or perhaps the to fool around with fraction vocabulary ahead of public government included? And you will exactly what are these “minimal suggestions”? Like, both OSCE additionally the Council of Europe for many years required so you’re able to offer the voting legal rights on municipal elections to have non-people, and this is clearly not then followed.
Of specific NGO agents just who took part in the brand new meetings which have the new rapporteur, We read totally different type of what they said. I’m afraid the part might possibly be competitive within the Latvia into purely factual basis, meaning that dependability of whole statement might possibly be questioned.