Is it just me, or is there Russians in this thread complaining about other countries lack of human rights?
Do you feel it this right is reserved to all humanity or just particular nationalities?
Seriously lacking in this thread seems to be Tekee´s own country which features yearly in Amnesty International´s reports.
Tekee is NOT Russian.
However, that does not mean that I don't also dispute the relevance and substance of what you just posted. I certainly do. What is Estonian citizenship but a manifestation of nationalism? To be an Estonian citizen is to accept and adhere to the very bases of nationalism that you object to so vehemently. To be Estonian is (however much you find the concept of being any sort of -----ian revolting) to speak Estonian and to behave, at least to some socially acceptable extent, like an Estonian. Nationalism is an accomplished fact.
Therefore, if these Russians assert their rights to Estonian citizenship, that is for them to assert that they actually are Estonian. The objection is that to be Estonian is based on nationalism, and on this nationalist principle, based largely on language, they simply are not Estonian.
The Swiss and the Belgians seem to be doing fine having two national languages. Maybe it is possible to be a citizen of the country without this nationalist basis of one language? Furthermore in more advanced countries like France and Spain, minority langauges gain more and more rights to be regional means of ciommunication on par with the state language. Seems fair to me.
Let me gain your attention to the following document:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 27
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.
Lets take a definition of minority from (for our convenience) from wikipedia:
A minority is a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society.
I think Russian minority qualifies for all parameters. It is a sociological group (people that interact with one
another, accept expectations and obligations as members of the group, and share a common identity). The sociological group of Russians living it Estonia certainly does not constitute a politically dominant voting majority of Estonia.
Russian minority can be identified as ethnic and linguistic minority in the sense of article 27. It think it is self evident. The question here is that Estonian government does not recognise them as such and therefore does not see the problem that it doesn't respect the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That government does not recognise them as citizens, but as "aliens", immigrants.
Just out of curiosity here's the definition of "regional or minority languages" according to
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (that Estonia has not ratified, Russia and most progressive Europe did ):
Article 1 – Definitions
For the purposes of this Charter: "regional or minority languages" means languages that are: traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population; and different from the official language(s) of that State.
I do not know how far "traditionally" goes back in time. This is what lawyers get paid big money for. However, it can be argued that Russian has been spoken in Estonia for three centuries (on par with two centuries of German) and its native speakers still exist today in a given country. I would say that the situation is much the same as with
Sweedish in Finland, where it has been spoken for centuries, is the language of a former occupying power and it is an
officially recognsised MINORITY LANGUAGE. I don't understand the difference between Russians in Estonia and Sweeds in Finland, except that Russians don't enjoy the same rights.
Now to the political question of citizenship. Lets take the same document:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 3
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.
Article 4
1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
Even this article and "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation" the convenant still does not approve of discrimination on the ground of language and social origin.
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
From where I stand, the descision to make most Russian people as "aliens" and non-citizens violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
EDIT2:
and Russia possibly won't accept them having double citizenship.
Russia accepts double citizenship.