Integration monitor is a daily Latvian press digest on ethnic minority and society integration issues. The Monitor reviews the biggest Latvian dailies: Diena, Latvijas Avize, Neatkariga (in Latvian language), Vesti Segodnya (in Russian language). In specific cases other information sources are used. Latvian Centre for Human Rights is not responsible for information published by the media.

• Latvijas Avize writes about the new Social Memory Research Centre
• Legal Affairs Committee supports the proposal to deny state support for collection of the 10% of the voters signatures required for referendum

Latvijas Avize writes about the new Social Memory Research Centre (SMRC) being developed under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture and the University of Latvia. The Centre is developed in order to systematically analyse Latvias history, research and model Latvian social memory policy at the local, national and international levels, and to permanently evaluate the effectiveness of this policy. According to the article, it is not clear, what specifically the new institution will do, because numerous already existing institutions are doing much of the work potentially relevant to the SMRC. The author questions whether the SMRC will bring benefit to the society or to the social researchers employed at the SMRC.

Yesterday, the Saeima’s Legal Affairs Committee supported amendments limiting referendum opportunities, proposed by the “Unity” following the referendum on the status of the Russian language. The proposal denies state support for the collection of the required 10% of the voters’ signatures. Supporters of the proposal argued that the proposal will help save state funding and that the present referendum procedure is archaic and does not correspond to the modern democracy criteria.

Yesterday, the Saeimas Legal Affairs Committee supported amendments limiting referendum opportunities, proposed by the Unity following the referendum on the status of the Russian language. The proposal denies state support for the collection of the required 10% of the voters signatures. Supporters of the proposal argued that the proposal will help save state funding and that the present referendum procedure is archaic and does not correspond to the modern democracy criteria. NRA commentary points out that recently the ruling parties decided to grant annual state support to parties for every vote received at elections, now the same parties limit opportunities of the society to express its opinion through legal and peaceful means; NRA commentary also raises the concern that this proposal would make referendum a privilege of the few rich and powerful while public frustration with the government would be expressed through revolts and pogroms. Chas, NRA