Most likely there is certainly two “puppet NGOs” reduced of the regulators whoever representatives might tell something like that it, however, this will be factually incorrect
3. 16 [See new section 31]: “However, in the view of the Russian-speaking political parties…”. In fact, as all surveys reveal, this view is shared by a large majority of both non-citizens and Russian-speaking citizens of Latvia – thus, this is not just an attitude of some politicians.
4. 17 [See new paragraph 29]: “The integration policy the Latvian government has been pursuing for the past eleven years…” – in fact, the integration concept was officially adopted only in 1999, before that the official discourse was rather one of “de-colonization”. The very adoption of the citizenship law can hardly be regarded as a sign of the government’s goodwill – it was adopted after lengthy delays under the pressure of the Council of Europe: adoption of this law was an explicit precondition for the accession of Latvia to the Council of Europe, and exactly this delay was the reason why Latvia joined the Council of Europe almost two years later than its neighbours Estonia and Lithuania.
5. 18 [See new section thirty-two]: “In the opinion of the NGOs, including those representing the Russian-speaking community, young people are typically not interested in learning Latvian and make no effort even to acquire the rudiments, but at the same time hope for automatic naturalisation in the medium term”.
All of the surveys show that the info away from Latvian certainly young Russian-speakers possess increased drastically, which in the 95-98% away from parents thought one expertise in the new Latvian code is very important due to their people, and you will encourage them to learn it as better that one may. Also, it is simply impossible to scholar away from actually pris to the Latvian from year to year. Actually, the fresh new report more than is nothing over nationalistic stereotype that’s demonstrably slanderous and you can insulting into the Russian-speaking neighborhood and cannot be reproduced for the a critical statement. Regardless, which report can’t be demonstrated since the showing the views out of also virtually major part of the Russian-speaking NGOs. Brand new prejudiced items of one’s kind might positively weaken the fresh new trustworthiness of one’s entire statement.
Para
6. 19 [See new section 33]: it is not clear which “extremist Russian-speaking political parties” are meant (we do have some small parties of the kind, unfortunately, but meetings with them were not included into the Rapporteur’s programme, as far as I know). Besides, it is not clear what kind of “alarmist figures” is meant – in fact, these Russian nationalistic parties do not predict any large-scale (re-)emigration to Russia and put forward quite different slogans.
7. 32 [See new paragraphs 51-52]: It is not clear what 109 advisory boards are meant. At the national level, the Minority escort in Fayetteville Consultative Council attached to the former President G. Ulmanis was functioning between 1996 and 1998 (I was a member of this council from its first till the last meeting), however, after the election of the current President V.Vike-Freiberga, it was abolished. Two specialised boards currently exist. The first one is on minority education issues at the Ministry of Education. Majority of its members represent the Ministry’ bureaucrats and school administrations, and only minority – relevant NGOs, besides, these NGOs are chosen by the Ministry itself, and often they do not represent the genuine views of the persons and groups affected. Under the previous minister Mrs Druviete, the board was not summoned for more than half a year. Most recent information on the board’s activity is available (in Russian) at .