Probably you will find a couple “puppet NGOs” paid down from the authorities whoever representatives might tell something similar to it, but it is factually wrong
3. 16 [See new section 29]: “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 section 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 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 surveys demonstrate that the details off Latvian certainly one of younger Russian-sound system keeps enhanced dramatically, and that from the 95-98% off mothers thought that experience with this new Latvian words is very important for their pupils, and you will encourage them to learn it as better that one may. Furthermore, it’s just impractical to scholar away from actually pris towards the Latvian annually. Actually, new report above is nothing over nationalistic label that’s obviously slanderous and you will insulting on Russian-speaking area and should not be applied within the a life threatening declaration. In any case, that it declaration can not be showed as the highlighting this new viewpoints off actually essentially big part of the Russian-talking NGOs. The latest prejudiced situations of your own type might absolutely undermine new trustworthiness of your whole declaration.
Para
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 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 .
