Minority issues in Latvia, No. 40

Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:16:24 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Minority issues in Latvia, No. 40

From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>

Original sender: Alexei Dimitrov <[email protected]>

Minority issues in Latvia, No. 40


Minority issues in Latvia, No. 40
Prepared by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
December 9, 2001

Content

- The President gets involved in the debate over the language
requirements for deputy candidates
- Parents' conference: Russian-language education should be retained
- Security Police monitors activities of the "Russian-speaking
organisations"
- Latvia’s media: serving integration or disintegration of the
society?


The President gets involved in the debate over the language
requirements for deputy candidates

On December 6 the President of Latvia Vaira Vike–Freiberga invited a
group of experts from the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, National Human Rights Office, University of Latvia, Saeima
(Parliament), State Language Centre and other governmental and
non-governmental organisations. Aim of the meeting was to discuss some
topical problems concerning the language legislation and policy in
Latvia.

In her speech, the President touched upon two topical language issues
in Latvia. The first of them is the problem of the personal names'
spelling. The current legislation provides that personal names and
surnames must be written in documents according to the grammar of the
Latvian language. The original form of the personal name in Latin
transliteration can be used on some other page of the ID. We already
mentioned this problem (see Minority issues in Latvia No. 29,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//05142001-11:14:17-5573.html
and No. 33, 
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//08032001-09:37:54-21727.html).
On December 21, the Constitutional Court will announce its judgment in
the case Mentzen v. the Saeima and Cabinet of Ministers. The surname
of Mrs. Mentzen, a Latvian citizen who married German and took her
husband's surname, was "Latvianized" as "Mencena" in her Latvian IDs.
A similar case on the minority name spelling is registered in the
European Court of Human Rights in July (Kuharec v. Latvia).

However, the main issue discussed during the meeting was the language
requirements for deputy candidates. According to the election
legislation currently in force, all citizens of Latvia, who received
education in other languages than Latvian, must produce certificate of
the highest ("3B") level of the state language proficiency in order to
be registered as candidates for parliamentary and municipal elections,
otherwise he/she is to be struck off from the electoral list.

The President said that she would like to get advice of the invited
experts till January 2002, whether it is worth to use the right of
legislative initiative and to prepare draft amendments to the
electoral laws to abolish the requirements. In the President’s view,
these requirements could be contrary to five articles of the
Constitution and the provisions of the European Convention of Human
Rights. The President said, "Those people whose native language is,
for example, Russian, are discriminated to some extent by this
requirement of the Election Law, as they did not master the Latvian
language in family from childhood, and now they are put in the
situation of inequality". The President also mentioned that Latvia is
the only European state where such restrictions exist, after Estonia
had abolished similar requirements in its electoral legislation. At
the end of her speech, Vaira Vike–Freiberga declared that in her view
"the article of the Election Law on the state language proficiency is
not democratic, because it provides inequality among the citizens of
our state and runs counter to five articles of the Constitution and
our international obligations" ("Latvijas Vestnesis" ("The Latvian
Herald"), December 7, 2001).

We reported repeatedly about the Ignatane case in the UN Human Rights
Committee (see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 34,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//08132001-10:18:44-14805.html,
full text of the Committee's Views at
http://www.riga.lv/minelres/un/cases/UNHRC_Ignatane_2001.html), as
well as the Podkolzina case in the European Court of Human Rights (see
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 26,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//03102001-09:28:45-7628.html).
The both cases concern the issue of language requirements for deputy
candidates. Mrs Ignatane has won her case; the case of Mrs Podkolzina
is to be examined in the near future. After the Ignatane case had been
won by the applicant, the pro-minority faction "For Human Rights in
United Latvia" ("HRUL") proposed amendments to the laws on
parliamentary and municipal elections aiming at abolition of the
language requirements, but these amendments were rejected by the
Saeima on October 23 (see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 38,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//11102001-13:09:24-14154.html).
However, the Cabinet of Ministers amended the state language
regulations in respect of the procedure of the state language
proficiency examinations (see Minority issues in Latvia, No.39,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//11252001-19:32:33-8254.html).

The President’s initiative came as surprise for MPs. As one might
guess, it is welcomed by the "For Human Rights in United Latvia"
faction. Other factions reacted in a much more reserved way. The
chairwoman of the ruling "Latvian Way" faction, Kristiana Libane said
that "it does make difference whether a proposal is submitted by
"HRUL" or the President", but that "it is a little bit unexpected".
The chairwoman of another ruling People's Party faction Vineta
Muizhniece expressed a hope that "such President's initiative will not
appear [as a draft amendment]". Radical nationalistic "For Fatherland
and Freedom" strongly spoke out against 
the proposal. Chairman of the oppositional Latvia's Social Democratic
Workers' Party faction Egils Baldzens "is not ready to support these
amendments", either ("Diena" ("The Day"), December 7).


Our commentary

As we mentioned in the previous issue of our newsletter, the crucial
problem for Latvia's authorities is whether the OSCE Mission to Latvia
will be closed in this year. Abolition of the language requirements
for deputy candidates is one of the main recommendations of the OSCE.
In this view, the authorities cannot wait till the European Court of
Human Rights examines the Podkolzina case. It was necessary to
demonstrate that the language requirements might be abolished very
soon. The ruling political parties could neither support the proposal
submitted by the oppositional "HRUL", nor could they propose their own
similar amendments - mostly because the election campaign has in fact
already started. 

While we wholeheartedly support the President's initiative, we have
serious concerns about its further development. It is not obvious at
this stage whether the President's initiative will indeed materialize
in some draft amednments, after the anticipated decision to close the
OSCE mission to Latvia has been taken. It is not obvious whether these
amendments will indeed envisage elimination of the language
requirements for the candidates - or will be aimed rather at minor
re-wording of the corresponding provisions. Last but not least - it is
not guaranteed that the President's proposals, even if submitted in
the beginning of the next year, will gain support of the parliamentary
majority. In any case, it is clear that this good intention has been
expressed very timely, to provide good excuse for closing the OSCE
mission. 

It is revealing that the President did not invite to the meeting any
minority rights NGO activist or MP from the "HRUL" faction. Generally,
no persons belonging to national minorities took part in the meeting.
It is highly regrettable that exactly those NGO activists and lawyers
who have been speaking for years about the discriminatory nature of
the language restrictions for the deputy candidates - a fact now
explicitly recognised by the President - have been prevented from
participation in such an important discussion. Somewhat paradoxically,
even the legal counsels who prepared the successful applications to
the UN HR Committee and the European Court on the "Ignatane case" and
"Podkolzina case" - the applications which virtually made the Latvian
authorities handle the problem seriously - were not among those
invited by the President. 


Parents' conference: Russian-language education should be retained

On November 24, the NGO LASHOR (Association for Support of Russian –
Language Schools in Latvia, http://www.lashor.lv) held the second
parents' conference "To learn in mother tongue" (the first conference
was held on November 25, 2000 - see Minority issues in Latvia, No.23,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//12232000-13:14:48-27639.html
). More than 1,000 parents, representatives of school administration
and guests participated in the conference. Activists of the
Association made presentations about the new models of bilingual
education elaborated by the Association, the problems of bilingualism,
and related issues. In particular, the schoolchildren's parents from
Valmiera spoke about their experience of protesting against the
elimination of state-supported secondary education in minority
languages (for details see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 30,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//05282001-20:42:14-2328.html).

The participants adopted a number of resolutions. One of them
confirmed the Association's authorities to represent the parents of
the Russian-speaking schoolchildren in relations with the state
institutions, as well as at the international level. Participants of
the conference also demand to suspend legislative provisions providing
elimination of state-supported secondary education in minority
languages, and to amend the state integration policy in the field of
education. They strongly support immediate ratification of the
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and
invite the EU institutions to take up elaboration of the legal
instruments which should guarantee the rights of the linguistic
minorities in the European Union. Almost 2,500 signatures were
collected in support of these resolutions only on November 24 (the
newspaper "Vesti Segodnya" ("The News Today"), November 26,
http://www.cm.lv/index.php3?br=$br&g=2001&m=11&d=26&w1=&w2=p&pub=001#banner)

The response of the officials of the Ministry of Education and Science
to the conference's proposals was harshly critical. Head of the
Ministry's Integration Division Evija Papule told that the issue is
"overpoliticised" and "created artificially by politicians and
administration of minority schools". She believes that 55-60% of
minority secondary schools are ready for transition to the Latvian
language of instruction in 2004, 10% of these schools already use
Latvian as a language of instruction. Head of the Parliamentary
Committee on Education, Culture and Science Dzintars Abikis declared
that the reason of slow transition to Latvian language of instruction
in minority schools in Riga is "agitation of the coalition "For Human
Rights in United Latvia" against education in Latvian" (the news
agency BNS, December 5,
http://rus.delfi.lv/archive/index.php?id=2285133&ndate=05.12.2001&categoryID=).


Our commentary

In our view, the issue is too politicised, indeed. This politicisation
began in 1997 – 1998, when the decision about the transition to
bilingual education in minority schools was adopted without any
consultations with parents and even school administrations. In 1998,
the provision on elimination of state-supported secondary education in
minority languages in 2004 was voted into the Education Law by the
outgoing parliament. The problem cannot be solved without amending the
Education Law, thus, it is political, indeed. At the moment, only the
pro-minority coalition repeatedly suggested to exclude the provision
on transition into Latvian as the sole language of instruction in
state-supported secondary schools. The ruling parties, in turn, have
repeatedly labelled this proposal as "aimed against the Latvian
language", thus, they became hostages of their own exploitation of
their constituencies' nationalistic sentiments. We hope that after the
October 2002 parliamentary elecetions, the new parliament will be able
to handle the issue in a more reasonable and balansed way.  


Security Police monitors activities of the "Russian-speaking
organisations"

On November 24, the newspaper "Lauku Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper")
published an interview with the chief of the Security Police Janis
Reiniks under the title "Reiniks knows the enemies of Latvia". Mr
Reiniks told that the Security Police monitors and analyses activities
of "Russian-speaking" and "ethnic" organisations, and mentioned also
the Socialist Party and "Equal Rights" party among those. Both these
parties are represented in the Saeima (parliament) in the pro-minority
coalition "For Human Rights in United Latvia". Janis Reiniks also
mentioned that the Security Police closely monitors activities of the
"Russian-speaking NGOs".

MPs from the "HRUL" faction submitted a parliamentary question to the
Minister of Interior Mareks Seglinsh, asking: 
- which else parties represented and not represented in the parliament
are being monitored by the Security Police; 
- which else Latvian-speaking, Polish-speaking, Yiddish-speaking and
other-language-speaking NGOs are being monitored; 
- why the Security Police classifies political parties and
non-governmental organisations on the basis of language and why
"enemies of Latvia" are being searched for in the "Russian-speaking"
organisations only.

Minister Seglinsh answered that the Security Police "monitors social
processes in the state", and "cannot ignore positions and opinions of
political parties and NGOs", but it has no special tasks to monitor
any concrete organisation. Minister mentioned that the title of the
article was chosen by the journalists. Mr Reiniks only answered their
questions and could not analyse all problems within the competence of
the Security Police, therefore he mentioned only "Russian-speaking"
organisations. The Security Police does not use division into
"Russian-speaking" and other organisations in its work. Mr Reiniks
used "the terminology better understandabale for the wider society",
the Minister Seglinsh explained.


- Latvia’s media: serving integration or disintegration of the
society?

On November 23, the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies
in cooperation with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, OSCE Mission to
Latvia and the Naturalisation Board held a seminar "Latvia’s media –
helping to integrate or disintegrate the society?". The results of two
studies were presented at the seminar. One of them was prepared by the
journalism teachers from the University of Latvia Ilze Shulmane and
Sergey Kruk. Another research was prepared by the company "Mediju
Tilts" ("Media Bridge"). The both research groups studied stereotypes
and the perceptions of integration in Latvia's media. The research of
Ilze Shulmane and Sergey Kruk was highly welcomed. The second study
was harshly criticised, because it was based almost only on loose
quantitative analysis of publications about integration in
Latvian-language and Russian-language media.

The researches indicated that the Latvian-language and
Russian-language press often write about the same problem from two
totally different points of view, does not take into account opinions
of another language group. Participants of the seminar discussed the
reasons of this situation, as well as possible solutions. Naturally,
very different opinions were expressed. Professor Abram Klyockin said
that the press writes about integration as "about political problem,
not the problem of concrete people". In his view, Latvian-speaking and
Russian-speaking people do not have so different viewpoints, like the
corresponding media does. Lecturer of the University of Latvia Inta
Briksha maintained that the Russian-language media more reflect the
real life of its readership, while the Latvian-language media covers
rather "the life of the political establishment". MP Boris Tsilevich
pointed out that the main factor is economic effectiveness of media;
they need to publish materials which are demanded by the readers, with
the aim to guarantee own economic survival and profits (the newspaper
"Panorama Latvii" ("The Panorama of Latvia"), November 29).

We hope that the discussion about the reasons of existence of
different informative fields in Latvia's media will be continued in a
constructive manner, like it was during the seminar on November 23.


Alexei Dimitrov
Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)


-----------------------------------------------------------------
For back issues, see  
http://www.riga.lv/minelres/count/latvia.htm#MinIssuesLatvia
-----------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
==============================================================
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
==============================================================