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 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 sentences 53 and you will 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.
The fresh shape 6000 towards Russian-speaking relationships looks greatly overestimated, usually dos till cuatro numerous them officially joined (and some dozens very operating) are said
11. Para. 35 [See new section sixty]: “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, advised for the 1994: “We’d an alternative – possibly to help you cheat [the brand new Russian-speakers], or even to shoot
The fresh new statement tunes a little while strange – what is required as “cultural legal rights”? ‘s the straight to knowledge in mother tongue, or perhaps the https://datingmentor.org/nl/furfling-overzicht/ to fool around with minority vocabulary ahead of personal government included? And preciselywhat are such “minimum guidance”? For example, each other OSCE in addition to Council out of Europe for decades recommended so you’re able to give the voting legal rights on municipal elections getting low-people, and this is demonstrably not followed.
Off specific NGO agencies just who took part in the meetings having the fresh rapporteur, I heard totally different types of what they told you. I’m frightened the paragraph could be contested when you look at the Latvia for the purely truthful basis, and thus credibility of your own entire report would-be expected.