8. Para. 33 [See new paragraph 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 part 56 and you may 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 amateur gay hookup tumblr 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 new shape 6000 into the Russian-speaking associations seems heavily overestimated, constantly 2 till 4 numerous him or her formally registered (and some dozens really working) try said
11. Para. 35 [See new paragraph 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, told inside the 1994: “We had a choice – sometimes in order to cheat [the fresh Russian-speakers], or even to capture
The fresh statement tunes a while unusual – what is designed because “social rights”? Is the to training within the mother language, and/or to use fraction language just before societal bodies integrated? And you can preciselywhat are such “minimum suggestions”? Including, each other OSCE and also the Council out-of Europe for years required in order to offer brand new voting legal rights at the civil elections to have low-owners, and this is obviously not accompanied.
From specific NGO agencies exactly who took part in new group meetings with the fresh rapporteur, I heard completely different kind of what they said. I am frightened the part might possibly be competitive from inside the Latvia toward strictly truthful foundation, which means that trustworthiness of your whole statement could well be asked.