Probably there can be a few “puppet NGOs” paid by bodies whoever representatives you are going to give something similar to which, however, this can be factually wrong
3. 16 [See new paragraph 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 31]: “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 part 32]: “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”.
The surveys reveal that the info off Latvian one of younger Russian-sound system possess enhanced considerably, which from the 95-98% out of moms and dads imagine you to knowledge of the fresh new Latvian language is important because of their youngsters, and you may encourage them to see it as really that one can. Moreover, it is simply impossible to graduate off also pris with the Latvian on a yearly basis. In fact, the new declaration above is nothing more nationalistic label which is clearly slanderous and insulting on the Russian-talking neighborhood and should not be reproduced inside the a critical statement. Regardless, that it report can’t be demonstrated just like the reflecting the new viewpoints off actually just about really serious the main Russian-talking NGOs. This new prejudiced activities of your own type you will certainly undermine the new credibility of whole statement.
Para
6. 19 [See new part 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 millionairematch Jak odstranit ГєДЌet level, the Minority 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 .
