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 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 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 mature quality singles visitors 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 into Russian-talking contacts appears greatly overestimated, always 2 till 4 numerous her or him formally joined (and some dozens very working) is actually said
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, informed for the 1994: “We’d a choice – sometimes to deceive [the Russian-speakers], or perhaps to shoot
The fresh new statement sounds a while strange – what’s suggested since “social legal rights”? Is the to studies in the mommy tongue, or the to explore minority language in advance of social regulators provided? And you can what exactly are this type of “minimal advice”? Such as for instance, both OSCE therefore the Council out-of Europe for a long time required to give the voting legal rights within municipal elections for low-residents, referring to certainly perhaps not implemented.
Away from some NGO agents which took part in this new group meetings that have the latest rapporteur, I read very different sorts of what they said. I am afraid your section is contested from inside the Latvia to the purely truthful basis, which means that credibility of your own whole statement could be questioned.
Keine Kommentare vorhanden