Most likely there was several “puppet NGOs” repaid by the bodies whose representatives you will share with something such as so it, however, this is exactly factually wrong
3. 16 [See new part 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 part 29]: “The integration policy the Latvian government has been pursuing for the past eleven years…” – in fact, the https://datingmentor.org/cs/older-women-dating-recenze/ 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 demonstrate that the data off Latvian certainly younger Russian-sound system features increased substantially, and therefore on 95-98% regarding moms and dads thought one expertise in the fresh Latvian language is important due to their students, and you can encourage them to learn it as well that you could. Furthermore, it is simply impossible to graduate off even pris towards Latvian annually. In reality, the latest report significantly more than is nothing over nationalistic stereotype that’s demonstrably slanderous and you will insulting on Russian-talking society and cannot be reproduced within the a significant declaration. Regardless, that it report cannot be showed as reflecting the fresh new opinions out of actually essentially serious area of the Russian-speaking NGOs. The prejudiced circumstances of your kind you’ll seriously weaken new trustworthiness of the whole statement.
Con el fin de
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 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 .