Minority issues in Latvia, No. 45
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:58:18 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Minority issues in Latvia, No. 45
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Original sender: Alexei Dimitrov <[email protected]>
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 45
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 45
Prepared by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
March 1, 2002
Content
- Is NATO appeal for democracy to be heard in Latvia?
- Draft "language amendments" to the Constitution elaborated
- "Language alert" in Daugavpils
- MPs debate personal name spelling and ethnicity record
- One more case of personal name spelling considered by court
- Head of the Integration Board advocates ratification of the
Framework Convention
- No corpus delicti declared in "Klementyev case"
- How multiculturalism might be understood in Latvia
Is NATO appeal for democracy to be heard in Latvia?
---------------------------------------------------
"The compliance of the Election Law of Latvia with the democratic
standards will be of high importance when making the decision about
the invitation to join NATO", George Robertson underlined addressing
the Parliament of Latvia on February 21. The Secretary General of the
alliance stressed, that the candidate states have to meet political
and democratic criteria as well as the military ones. To make a
progress on this way Latvia has to abolish the provisions of the
Election Law, which require the highest proficiency degree in the
Latvian language from the deputy candidates (we reported repeatedly
about this problem in the previous issues of our newsletter).
Answering the question of whether this demand is the last to fulfill
before the accession, Mr Robertson pointed out that democracy can not
be fixed once and for all the times, it is a dynamic process and the
candidates as well as the member states have to be flexible enough to
maintain that the democratic standards change to serve the society
interests best. Mr Robertson mentioned that attitude towards national
minorities is a significant criteria for evaluation of the state's
readiness to join NATO.
After Mr Robertson's speech, MPs representing the ruling parties were
"very skeptic and did not show any readiness to change the law in the
nearest future" ("Diena" ("The Day"), February 22). Dz.Rasnachs
(radical nationalistic "For Fatherland and Freedom") told, "I think
that George Robertson did not make it clear that the law has to be
amended. He has only noted that it was the President's initiative and
he agreed with it" ("Lauku Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper", February
26). The same view was seconded by V.Muizniece, chairwoman of the
People's party faction.
The Prime Minister of Latvia declared that the Election Law will be
amended long before the NATO summit and that the corresponding
decision had been adopted by the Coalition Council. This declaration
was made after the meeting with Nicholas Burns, the USA ambassador to
NATO, on February 26. However, MPs from the ruling coalition are not
aware of this decision, and so far the working group established by
the coalition discusses only amendments to the Constitution aimed at
strenghtening the status of the state language, not the Election law
("Chas" ("The Hour"), February 27,
http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2002/02/27/l_043.htm l).
Our commentary
In fact, the speech of Mr Robertson dotted the i's and crossed the t's
in the discussion on whether it is an official NATO demand to amend
the election legislation in order to join the alliance. Now the
politicians from the ruling coalition should only think over, how to
save the face and explain their sudden concession to nationalistically
minded constituencies before the elections. Tense behind-the-scene
bargaining is to be expected over which party will have "to surrender"
and to support the amendments, and which one can afford consistent
opposition to them, thus scoring political points before the
elections.
In our view, it is deeply regrettable that the abolition of the
language requirements is still being spoken about as "NATO demand",
not "necessity for the democratic society".
Draft "language amendments" to the Constitution elaborated
----------------------------------------------------------
On February 22 the Coalition Council (an informal political body
created by the ruling parties) approved draft amendments to the
Constitution aimed at strengthening of the state language status (see
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 44,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//02192002-18:42:09-3205.html ).
On March 7 these amendments should be submitted to parliamentary
commissions.
Article 18 (see
http://www.saeima.lv/LapasEnglish/Constitution_Visa.htm for the text
currently in force) will be supplemented with the provision that every
MP is obliged to swear "to defend Latvia's sovereignty and state
language", otherwise his/her mandate cannot be approved. Article 21
will provide that the sole working language at the Saeima (Parliament)
is Latvian (now it is stipulated in the Rules of Procedure of the
Saeima). One more amendment stipulates that the sole working language
in local governments is Latvian. Last but not least, each person's
right to address submissions to State or local government institutions
and to receive a materially responsive reply (Art.104) will be
limited: answers only in Latvian will be guaranteed.
Ruling parties the People's Party and "For Fatherland and Freedom",
actively use the language issue in their pre-election campaign (the
parliamentary elections will be held on 6 October, 2002). Both parties
organised polls and questionnaires, asking people whether "the
deputies must know the state language" ("Diena" ("The Day"), February
25).
Attitude towards the elaborated amendments to the Constitution is very
different. Naturally, most of people addressed by the polls'
organisers support retaining of the language restrictions. In the
meantime, leading columnist of the Latvian-language opinion-maker
"Diena" Aivars Ozolinsh (not at all sympathetic towards the
pro-minority politicians) calls the proposed amendments "intentionally
provocative" ("Diena" ("The Day"), February 21). An interesting letter
was published on February 14 in "Auseklis" � newspaper of the Limbazhi
district with over 88% ethnically Latvian population. Its author Mr
Shpats states, that the aim of the letter is to show that some people
think differently from how politicians present the rural population's
views. "Opinion of the Saeima's factions on necessity of the norm of
language proficiency... is an anachronism and is determined by
narrow-minded nationalism... There are people of different ethnic
background, of different fields of knowledge in Latvia, and it is
undemocratic to define the level of the language proficiency in the
Election Law". The author suggests examination of the deputies' IQ
instead. The author concludes, that the situation is similar to the
Soviet times � people think differently from the governing
"partocrats", differently from what politicised newspapers write (read
in Latvian at http://www.auseklis.lv/index.php?d=1013641261&nm=1557 ).
Our commentary
It is really hard to invent new restrictions in the language
legislation without protests on the part of international
organisations, for maximum limitations hav been achieved during the
debate over the State Language law and subsequent regulations in
1995-2000. Amending the Constitution is rather imitation of real
efforts.
The drafted provisions on MPs' oath and Latvian as the sole working
language in the Saeima and municipalities will change little in
practical terms. The State Language law and corresponding rules of
procedure already provide clearly that Latvian is the working language
in the Saeima and local governments. However, ruling MPs might appear
trapped owing to their own initiative. Swearing is prohibited by some
religious confessions widespread in Latvia, and this has been taken
into account: the proposed text contains the word "solijums" (promise)
instead of "zverests" (oath). Nevertheless, the assumpption that a
legally elected representative can be deprived of his/her mandate
solely on the basis of his/her refusal to give this promise (which
anyway could be interpreted as an oath) might run counter to Article 3
of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (the
right to free elections).
The proposed amednment to Art.104 is also controversial and
counterproductive. The State Language law already sets substantial
restrictions on implementation of this right - in any case, it is not
at all interpreted in a sense that everybody can demand an answer in
any language by his/her choice (what, of course, would be clearly
unreasonable). However, in fact the ruling parties suggest lowering of
the level of constituional guarantees of human rights protection -
rare and obviously undesirable phenomenon in modern Europe. Which
group will suffer the most if this amendment is adopted? Undoubtedly,
it will cause most troubles not for the linguistic minorities in
Latvia, but for the EU citizens who will come in after Latvia's
accession and who have no knowledge of Latvian at all. Thus, in
essence this draft amendment is anti-European rather than
anti-minority.
"Language alert" in Daugavpils
------------------------------
Five representatives of Latvian intelligentsia from Daugavpils,
including the leader of the local branch of the "For Fatherland and
Freedom" party, sent an open letter to the President, Prime Minister,
Saeima, and the Chair of the Commission on the State Language. The
authors complain that the State Language law is not observed in
Daugavpils. Russian is spoken everywhere, and even city mayor R.Eigims
spoke Russian during official event without required translation into
Latvian. The letter contains concrete details sufficient to identify
other "perpetrators" - those who speak Russian to officials, possess
language proficiency certificates but do not use Latvian, etc.
The President's Chancery asked the city mayor to take steps in order
to ensure implementation of the law. On February 25, the People's
Party parliamentary faction invited head of the State Language Centre
Dz.Hirsha, Daugavpils state language inspector V.Mishke and other
officials to the special meeting. Mrs Hirsha pointed out that only 12
state language inspectors control observance of the law in the
country. Budget of the Centre does not allow hiring more employees as
the inspectors. Mrs Mishke did not attend the event in question, but
she also did not receive any complaint from Daugavpils' residents
("Diena" ("The Day"), February 26). Mr Eigims declared that the main
problem is not lack of the state language inspectors, but the lack of
money for Latvian language training in Daugavpils. The City Council
provides some money for it, but the state does not support these
activities.
Our commentary
Daugavpils, the country's second biggest city, located in Latgale
(Eastern part of Latvia), is inhabited predominantly by
Russian-speakers. Founded in 1275 by Livonian knights, the city
changed its name in 1656 to Borisoglebov, in 1893 - to Dvinsk, and in
1920 received its current name. In 1893, Jews constituted the majority
of the city's population - 46% (Russians - 28%, Poles - 16%, Germans -
4%, Belarussians and Latvians - 2% each, Tatars - 1%). In 1920, only
145 ethnic Latvians resided in Daugavpils, out of 30,000 population.
During the Latvian independence, in 1920-1940, the Latvian population
of Daugavpils substantially increased - mainly due to growing numbers
of state bureaucrats sent from Riga (what was seen by many as an
exile). Before 1934, several languages were freely used in Daugavpils,
and even after 1934 K.Ulmanis' coup-d-etat and following tightening of
the language policies, Russian still was widely used (for more
details, see interview with Daugavpils historian S.Kuznetsov in
"Vesti-Segodnja" ("The News Today", February 28,
http://www.cm.lv/index.php3?br=$br&g=2002&m=02&d=28&w1=r&r=3&w2=p&pub=004#banner
).
Nowadays only approx. 15% of the residents are ethnic Latvians
(Russians - 56%, Poles - 15%, Belarusians - 9%). However, more than
2/3 of the city residents are citizens of Latvia, one of the highest
proportions among the main Latvia's towns.
According to the legislation of Latvia, no special rules for language
usage exist for the areas inhabited by minorities historically or in
substantial numbers. Thus, the language rules in Daugavpils are
absolutely the same as elsewhere in Latvia, including e.g. prohibition
to address the municipality in any langauge besides the state one.
Of course, it would be difficult to expect that in areas like
Daugavpils, with its history and demographic composition, the State
Language law will be implemented exactly the same way as in
overwhelmingly Latvian-speaking regions. Local governments cannot
provide enough money for qualitative Latvian language training, the
more so that Latgale is the poorest and most economically depressed
Latvia's region. In our view, under these circumstances it would be
more fruitful to spend money from the state budget for teaching
Latvian, rather than hiring new language inspectors - a measure
expected to be proposed by the People's party. In any case, only
ratification of the Framework convention for the protection of
national minorities and its fair implementation could offer democratic
and durable solution.
MPs debate personal name spelling and ethnicity record
------------------------------------------------------
Two draft laws have caused heated parliamentary debates over personal
name spelling and ethnicity record in documents. On February 21, the
Saeima considered amendments to the Law on the Registry of Residents.
According to the current version of the law, one's ethnicity must be
included into the Registry. This record is mandatory even for newborn
babies (see
http://www.riga.lv/minelres/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia_ResReg_excerpts_English.htm
). The Law on Change of Name, Surname and Ethnicity Record (
http://www.riga.lv/minelres/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia_EthnChange_excerpts_English.htm
) establishes the "blood" principle � one's ethnicity is determined on
the basis of his/her parents' (or grandparents') ethnicity, not of
his/her own identity.
Majority voted in favor of retaining the record in the Registry.
Following the judgement of the Constitutional Court in the "Mentzen
case" (see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 41,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//01042002-12:02:29-13464.html
), MPs adopted the amendment, which allows to enter the original form
of personal name in Latin transliteration, along with the
"Latvianized" form, into the Registry ("Telegraf" ("The Telegraph"),
February 22,
http://rus.delfi.lv/news/daily/telegraf/article.php?id=2730071 ).
The same issues were topical when the Saeima considered the draft Law
on Passports and Identity Cards. The new draft envisages optional,
instead of mandatory, ethnicity record in new ID cards, and no such
entry in the passports at all. Press Secretary of the "For Fatherland
and Freedom" J.Kuzulis declared, that his party cannot agree with such
"cosmopolitanism". Similar views have been expressed also by some MPs
from other parties, so, an interesting debate on the issue should be
expected.
Unfortunately, specimens of new IDs do not provide place where the
original form of the personal name can be recorded. Absence of such an
entry would clearly run counter to the judgement of the Constitutional
Court in the "Mentzen case" ("Chas" ("The Hour"), February 15,
http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2002/02/15/l_070.html ).
One more case of personal name spelling considered by court
-----------------------------------------------------------
We already reported about the case of Mr Russkih (see Minority issues
in Latvia, No. 29,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//05142001-11:14:17-5573.html ).
He was issued his son's birth certificate, where the surname was
written as "Ruskihs", i.e. with one "s" in the middle (since
consonants cannot be duplicated in Latvian), although his own surname
is written in his passport as "Russkihs" � i.e. only with mandatory
Latvian ending "s". Mr Russkih's complaint was rejected, and he
brought the case before the court. On February 6 the case was
considered by the jury. The plaintiff was assisted by Gennady Kotov,
co-chairman of the Latvian Human Rights Committee.
The complaint was rejected, although it was based on the same
legislative provisions of the Constitution and European Convention on
Human Rights prescribing respect for private and family life, as the
complaint of Mrs Mentzen before the Constitutional Court (see Minority
issues in Latvia, No. 41,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//01042002-12:02:29-13464.html
). The judge pointed out that "international conventions regulate main
principles of the law, which are not applicable directly, but are to
be included into the State Parties' law". It clearly runs counter to
the Law "On International Treaties of the Republic of Latvia".
In the "Mentzen case" the Constitutional Court ruled, inter alia, that
the personal name could be "Latvianized" only once. Of course, the
name of the newborn baby was "Latvianized" for the first time in his
birth certificate. However, the surname of his parents had been
already "Latvianized", when they received Latvian passports. According
to Section 151 of the Latvian Civil Law, a child receives the surname
of his parents, i.e. "Russkihs" in the case. Mr Russkih declared his
intention to submit an appeal to the district court ("Chas" ("The
Hour"), February 7,
http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2002/02/07/l_027.html ).
Head of the Integration Board advocates ratification of the Framework
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Convention
----------
On February 18, the Russian-language daily "Chas" ("The Hour")
published an interview with Ramona Umblija, chairwoman of the Board of
the Society Integration Foundation, main body in charge for the
distribution of
funds for projects under the National Program "Integration of the
Society in Latvia".
Mrs Umblija highlighted three main tasks in the field of society
integration: promotion of active dialogue between the Latvian
community and national minorities, ratification of the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and creation of
of the ministry responsible for integration and ethnic policy in the
state ( http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2002/02/18/l_008.html ).
The Framework Convention was signed by Latvia in May 1995, but is not
ratified so far. The ratification bills
submitted by the pro-minority faction "For Human Rights in the United
Latvia" were rejected more than once by the Saeima's majority. No
specific state body is in charge for minority affairs in Latvia,
different institutions dealing with ethnic affairs exist in a few
ministries. Ratification of the Framework Convention and establishing
of the state body for minority affairs are included into
recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(Resolution 1236 "Honouring of obligations and commitments by Latvia",
http://stars.coe.int/ta/ta01/ERES1236.HTM ).
No corpus delicti declared in "Klementyev case"
-----------------------------------------------
On February 9 daily "Chas" ("The Hour") reported that the General
Prosecutor's Office will not continue investigation on MP
A.Klementyev's accusation against Riga ex-mayor A.Argalis (see
Minority Issues No 42,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//01182002-19:05:35-26586.html )
. The Constitution Defence Bureau investigated the alleged incitement
of ethnic hatred and was satisfied with Argalis' explanations. It
declared no corpus delicti in this case. A.Klementyev told that he
will bring a civil action before a court against Mr Argalis as a
private person for insulting his honour and dignity ("Chas" ("The
Hour"), February 9,
http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2002/02/09/l_032.html ).
How multiculturalism might be understood in Latvia
---------------------------------------------------
An article titled "Monuments, the ethnic Latvian identity and
fashionable multiculturalism� written by Dr Artis Pabriks, researcher
of the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies, was
published in "Diena" (February 23).
Dr Pabriks points out that though the "ideology of multiculturalism is
now rather popular, it does not undoubtedly guarantee success in
strengthening the roots of national identity". The author stresses
that this ideology has not given an unambiguous answer on how to
support the so-called "celebration of diversity" without destroying
unity of society and saving "unified state" (i.e. etatique) thinking.
Dr Pabriks also states that for the purpose of self-identification one
has to have a clear vision of what he is not, so it is "necessary to
draw a line between "us" and "others"". "For me the border posts are
democracy, the Latvian language, the Latvian ethnicity ('latviskums'),
justice, freedom and national statehood ('nacionalais valstiskums')...
I am ready to be tolerant towards those standing on the other side as
long as they tolerate the fact that these principles govern in
Latvia", writes Dr Pabriks.
----------------
Compiled by:
Alexei Dimitrov
Tatyana Bogushevitch
Yuri Dubrovsky
======================================
--
==============================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern
Europe
Submissions: [email protected]
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected]
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==============================================================