“This will lead to the justification of torture”: Langa believes that human rights are only for citizens of Latvia 0 28

The dispute was sparked by a statement on social media by Liana Langa, in which she effectively questioned the extension of a number of rights to non-citizens and newcomers. "Are you not aware that the articles of the Satversme, including those concerning religion, apply to citizens of Latvia, not to newcomers, tourists, migrants, and vagrants?" she wrote.

Lawyer and public commentator Maris Luste sharply criticized this position, calling it "a frightening misunderstanding of the fundamental law."

"Could national politicians themselves undergo the naturalization process? For example, Liana Langa has just demonstrated a frightening misunderstanding of the fundamental law of the Republic of Latvia. Then, perhaps, the political force she represents is building the foundation of its ideology on a lack of knowledge?" Luste wrote on social media.

He emphasized that the Constitution clearly distinguishes between rights applicable solely to citizens and those that belong to "every person in Latvia."

In his argumentation, Luste uses a harsh hypothetical example: "Imagine that two terrorists are detained, having hidden an explosive device. A police officer asks both for their passports and only pulls out the nails of the one who turns out to be a non-citizen or newcomer. Or, as is customary in Russia — the terrorist has an ear cut off and it is stuffed in his mouth. The tortured confesses, and the explosive device is neutralized."

According to him, such logic leads to the justification of torture and undermines the very principle of the rule of law. He warns that if the state itself violates the law, "it ceases to be legitimate."

"As is known, the Satversme clearly defines which fundamental rights apply only to citizens and which apply to all people in Latvia. And this is how the Constitution, as in a democratic state, reflects the significance of a person as the highest value."

The expert also draws a historical parallel with antiquity: "It is important that we do not return to the thinking of Ancient Rome, where part of the people were considered 'things.'" Luste warns that selective application of human rights "throws society back at least three hundred years."

He separately notes that the dispute arose against the backdrop of discussions about the rights of Muslims to publicly express their religion in Latvia: "Yes, the discussion in this case is related 'merely' to the right of Muslims to demonstrate their faith in the public space of Latvia, as we could observe last Friday in Plavnieki. However, constitutional illiteracy makes one think that the entire catalog of fundamental rights is misinterpreted. And in a rule of law, 'correct' ancestral blood does not yet mean that you are 'above all others.'"

In conclusion, he makes a sharp statement: "If someone is deliberately undermining the foundations of a democratic state — they themselves deserve a preventive conversation at the Security Service."