8. Para. 33 [See new section 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 you will 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 Garland chicas escort 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 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.
The new shape 6000 towards Russian-speaking associations appears greatly overestimated, usually dos right up until cuatro countless him or her formally joined (and lots of dozens really doing work) is stated
11. Para. 35 [See new part 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 had an alternative – often in order to cheat [new Russian-speakers], or even take
The fresh new report music a little while unusual – what is designed as “social liberties”? ‘s the to education inside the mom language, and/or straight to have fun with minority language ahead of social regulators integrated? And you will what are this type of “lowest advice”? Particularly, one another OSCE in addition to Council out-of European countries for many years required in order to give the voting rights from the municipal elections to have low-owners, and this is obviously perhaps not then followed.
From specific NGO agencies who participated in the group meetings which have this new rapporteur, We heard different type of what they told you. I am afraid that the paragraph might be competitive into the Latvia on strictly factual base, for example trustworthiness of whole statement might be questioned.