Most likely discover a couple “puppet NGOs” paid off by the government whoever agencies might give something similar to which, however, this is certainly factually wrong
3. 16 [See new paragraph 30]: “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, flingster Review 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 paragraph 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 the studies show that the details out-of Latvian certainly one of young Russian-speakers features improved considerably, and therefore about 95-98% out-of parents believe one to experience in the latest Latvian language is important because of their children, and cause them to become know it well that you can. Additionally, it is simply impractical to scholar from also pris toward Latvian from year to year. Actually, the brand new statement over is nothing more than nationalistic label which is obviously slanderous and you can insulting into Russian-speaking neighborhood and should not be applied inside a life threatening statement. Nevertheless, that it declaration can’t be presented since highlighting the viewpoints off also practically major part of the Russian-speaking NGOs. The fresh prejudiced things of kind might positively weaken the newest credibility of the whole statement.
6. 19 [See new paragraph 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 sentences 51-52]: It is not clear what 109 advisory boards are meant. At the national 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 .