■ Tatjana Ždanoka (left), Aldis Kušķis (centre) and Georgs Andrejevs.  All three Latvian MEPs voted in favour of the Parliament's resolution on homophobia.

RIGA, January 22, 2006  –   Last week, the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning latest wave of homophobia in various member states of the European Union.

Latvia was one of the prime reasons for such resolution, last July the Riga City Council initially gave permission for the “Gay Pride” March.

But following hysterical opposition by religious leaders, some conservative politicians and ultra nationalists, the city authorities banned the first-ever Pride in Latvia.

The organisers of the march successfully challenged the ban in court, but  on the day the participants experienced hatred, abuse and violence the Latvian capital probably never seen before.

This homophobic hysteria has lead to a constitutional amendment, which now defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman only.  Sponsors of this amendment did not even pretend that the sole reason is to ensure Latvia never joins those European nations legally recognising same-sex unions.

Because Latvia was of the main reasons for the European Parliament’s resolution, there was a wide coverage of this issue in the Latvian media.

A day before the debate in Strasbourg, internet news portal www.delfi.lv published an article headlined “Signal From the European Parliament: ‘No’ to Homophobia, Also in Latvia!”

The article reported that various European Parliamentary poitical groups had prepared a resolution – and it is possible that Latvia might be mentioned by name.

Dutch MEP, Sophia in’t Veld was quoted in the article.  She criticised the recent constitutional amendment in Latvia, saying that “even the US President George Bush cannot go that far”.  She added that such amendment could only be evaluated negatively in twenty-first century.

“Imagine if a constitution is amended to ban marriage between the Catholics and the Jews, or people of different nationalities,” she told Delfi.  “No one would adopt such amendment and it would be pointed that in our modern society each adult has a right to choose his or her partner.

“Why can’t this principle be applied to homosexual people,” she asked?

The article pointed out that, according to the lawyers’ views, Latvia will not have to amend its constitution again if the resolution is adopted.

However Sophia in’t Veld said that such resolution will be a very strong signal to all EU member states that any form of discrimination and violence against homosexual people are not allowed.

She also said she believed this resolution will not allow the European Commission to keep their eyes closed and it will have to evaluate homophobia in EU member states.

As during the events around the first Pride March and following eruption of homophobia, the main daily Diena (The Day) continued its supportive stance.

Another main daily Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze (‘The Independent Morning Paper’) kept its usual ‘homophobic’ stance.

Before the vote at the European Parliament on Wednesday, Diena published an article on its front page with the headline ‘European Parliament Condemns Eruption of Homophobia in Europe’.

The article reported on Monday’s debate in Strasbourg and quoted some MEP’s speeches, pointing out that the homophobic events last year in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland had caused this Europe-wide concern and the resolution on the issue.

The very next day, Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze published on its front page an article with the headline ‘Gay Hysteria: European Parliament against Latvia’

Main tone of the article was that Europe is interfering with Latvia’s internal affairs and those supporting the resolution were portrayed as the country’s enemies.

The article referred to a fact that a proposal for the resolution from the ‘greens’ specifically mentions Latvia as a homophobic state.  It further linked Tatjana Ždanoka, left-wing Latvian MEP who is a member of the Greens group at the European Parliament. The paper pointed out that her group “did not hesitate to name Latvia as one of the most homophobic countries”.

Ms Ždanoka is a controversial politician in Latvia.  Because of her links with the communist party during the Soviet Union era, she was not originally able to participate in parliamentary elections in Latvia and challenged the country’s election legislations at the European Court of Human Rights.

She is one of the most outspoken defenders of the right of Russian-speaking communities in Latvia and consequently not popular, to say the least, among many ethnic Latvians.

Inese Vaidere, another Latvian MEP from the Union for Europe of the Nations Groups, said that also her group proposed a motion for resolution, but it was less radical.  She told the newspaper, “We do not deny that lesbian and gay rights should be protected, at the same time we also support classical family and church values”.

But she added that she did not know how much Tatjana Ždanoka was connected with the Greens’ proposal – but said she felt mentioning Latvia in their proposal was “Tatjana Ždanoka’s ‘finger’”.

Tatjana Ždanoka herself did not deny that the Greens are among the most enthusiastic defenders of lesbian and gay rights, but the resolution’s main initiators were other groups.  She also told the paper that it was pointless to hide in which countries homophobia is most expressed therefore in their proposal Latvia was mentioned together with Poland and Lithuania.

She also told the newspaper she did not understand why it was necessary to amend the constitution to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman that further discriminated against lesbians and gay men.

Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze also quoted some Polish MEPs who pointed out during the debates that people cannot be forced to accept gay rights if their personal convictions do not allow that.

In particular the paper quoted Polish MEP Barbara Kudricka who said “European Parliament should not be asking all countries to accept homosexuality since there are conservative and more liberal countries”.

The article then pointed that some Latvian MPs condemned the European Parliament’s resolution saying that the resolution interfered with Latvia’s internal affairs.  The paper noted that despite condemnation from Europe, three countries, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, protect marriage as a union of a man and a woman in their constitutions.

Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze also sought comment from two domestic MPs.

“Everyone has a choice how to organise their sexual life and we are not trying to condemn anyone, said Augusts Brigmanis (Farmer’s Union) and a member of the Parliamentary Committee of Human Rights and Social Affairs.

“I personally have pragmatic and puritan views and put marriage between a man and a woman as a priority.  This is country’s foundation.  And if yet another time we have to protect this foundation, I am voting with my both hands.

“In this situation there might be various signals and remarks coming from Europe, but we are a sovereign nation and we have a right to state clearly our opinion on this matter,” he told the paper.

Jānis Šmits, of the First Party of Latvia and also a member of the Parliamentary Committee of Human Rights and Social Affairs pointed out that Latvia has always been a very tolerant  nation towards different kinds of minorities including also sexual minorities.

“Live, do whatever you want, no one discriminate against you as along as you do not try to impose upon society your ‘true truth’ and label all who is not homosexually oriented as ‘old-fashioned’, he said.

“As for the EP resolution – we will acknowledge it, but it is time to talk about traditional family values protection internationally.  Taking into account the this resolution on homophobia was initiated by the Dutch MEPs, I would like to point that they should first of all clean their door steps first since drug abuse and prostitution is flourishing in this country.”

Responding to ‘thank you’ e-mail by the Latvians LGBT activists to Georgs Andrejevs, Latvian MEP from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, who voted for the resolution, his office replied:

“Citizens’ rights in European Union are universal for all. Intolerance and discrimination on any grounds, including on the grounds of sexual orientation, is not acceptable in any its manifestation.”

■  The nine Latvian MEPs voted as follows on the European Parliament’s resolution on homophobia:

For:  Georgs Andrejevs, Aldis Kušķis and Tatjana Ždanoka.

Against:  Valdis Dombrovskis, Guntars Krasts, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, Rihards Pīks, Inese Vaidere and Roberts Zīle.

For more information about Latvian MEPs, click HERE.

SEE ALSO

Gay TV Personality Criticises Latvian Parliament As Euro-MPs Have Their Say.  From an “out gay” television personality in Latvia to Members of the European Parliament, there has been continued criticism of Latvia's Saeima (Parliament) following the third and final reading of the Constitutional Amendment that will define “marriage” as being between a man and a woman. (UK Gay News, December 15, 2005)

Latvia Cements Homophobia Into Constitution As Gay Marriage is Banned.  The Latvia Parliament has adopted a constitutional change that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.  This will prevent any possibility for gay marriage in the future.  This morning, 65 MPs voted in favour of the change at the amendment’s third – and final – reading in Parliament. (UK Gay News, December 15, 2005)

Latvia Moving Backwards, Say Gay and Lesbian Intergroup of MEPs.  Two leading Members of the European Parliament’s gay and lesbian rights ‘Intergroup’ have today expressed “serious concern” on the increased homophobia in Latvia. (UK Gay News, December 6, 2005)

Block Put on Gay Marriage by Latvian Parliament.  A change in the constitution that will define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and blocks the way for “gay marriage”, became a virtual certainty today when the 100-seat Latvian parliament passed the proposal with a massive majority in the amendment’s second reading. (UK Gay News, December 1, 2005)

Gays in Latvia Have an Official Watchdog.  A new independent department that will keep an eye on discrimination has been set-up by the government in Latvia.  And the National Human Rights Office will be embracing the gay and lesbian community as well as other sections of society as well as racism and other forms of discrimination. (UK Gay News, November 30, 2005)