Summary

We have to clarify that this side of the house is not trying to get rid of certain parts of history. Under this plan we will allow to display these symbols in schools or museums, because we agree that they have huge historical meaning and they should be taught about in history classes. We state that they shouldn’t be used on the streets and in other public places, because they represent ideas many find unacceptable. Also people when visiting museums or reading books about Nazi and communism agree to be exposed to the information about these regimes, even if it will be unpleasant for them, while people in public places don’t. Also we don’t want to debate whether holocaust happened and what the ultimate truth is, but we state that many people in Baltic states experienced these regimes in real life, and most of them perceive it as something unacceptable. Nazi regime is being criticized by the whole world community and people responsible for the evil actions done by this regime were judged by the war tribunal. The occupation of Baltic states by the Soviet Union was agreed to be illegal by the three governments of Baltic states, the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, United States, the US court laws, and the United Nations Human Rights Council. All these institutions are something we trust in and rely in terms of such matters. If they find the invasion and occupation illegal then it is something that should be treated as unacceptable. Both these regimes left a lot of scars in people’s souls and we would like to protect them from being exposed to unpleasant memories when seeing a swastika on someone’s t-shirt. We proposed idea that both the freedom of speech and self-expression are not ultimate. The burden of proof is to show that by implementing this plan benefits outweigh practical harms. We agree that freedom of speech and right for self-expression are ones of the rights each and every democracy should promote, but what the oppositions fails to understand that these rights are not unlimited. The case with the right for self defense is quite similar – the value of life is the most important right every person should have, but nevertheless we limit the right to self defense to certain extent, because we believe that these rights should be perceived as how the whole society sees them, not how every individual would like to see it in order for people not abusing these rights. That’s why when someone hits a person with a fist, the victim can’t respond the attacker with a gun under the right for self defense. Both sides were arguing whether the society is ready to face Nazi and communist symbols and whether it would be beneficial for people who faced the actions of these regimes in real life to be exposed to them. Even if some people understand these symbols representing jobs for everyone or equality between social classes, the majority sees these symbols to be representing something unpleasant either it’s war, illegal occupation or anti Jew policy. Important is how society overall perceives these symbols, not what meaning a single individual wanted to put in it. And to clarify, both sides also agree today that symbols have a meaning, mentioned in the argument how allowance of symbols would deal with extremist groups. The opposition tried to prove that society is ready for these symbols in real life. First, people older than 20 experienced the Soviet times in real life – time when shops were empty, people couldn’t freely cross the border and couldn’t argue against the policies of the government. Even if there were some benefits in these regimes as jobs for everyone, these ideas could be represented in other manner as it was mentioned in our rebuttal – for example, by wearing a t-shirt that says “planned economy”. We believe that these ideas should be left in the level of education and not brought up to public where it could harm people. That’s why we still allow displaying these symbols in textbooks or museums where people deliberately agree to be exposed to them. Also, there was a ridiculous idea from the opposition, which stated that in order to cure some psychological traumas, people should be exposed to unpleasant events causing these traumas again. Although there was a reference to a scientific source, we do not trust it. By following this logic, it seems that to cure the trauma from being raped, a person should be raped several times again. May be the trauma from the first single rape then will be smaller, but the trauma from being raped for several times will outweigh it. Opposition brought up a point about international relationships and how bad it would impact the relations of Baltic states with our Big Eastern Neighbor. Both sides agree that these relations are tense and there must be some improvement or at least an incentive to do it. What the opposition fails to understand is that the model they are proposing doesn’t work. They didn’t bring any reason why Russia will dislike our plan. Then, even if it dislikes it and responds by creating an opposition to it we say that so called cooperation has never worked so far. Latvia has introduced the reformation of Russian schools, although Russia was against that, and Estonia has removed the Bronze Statue. The opposition called it to be examples of bad diplomacy, we say that these are examples when states do actions beneficial for them without the consensus from Russia. In both these cases Russia had created a severe opposition to the actions of Latvia or Estonia, but Baltic countries still implemented their plans, because they were beneficial for them. We don’t think that the world model where Russia dictates everybody what to do is the best one to live there. There are more important things than few economic benefits coming from Russia, for example the protection of our own citizens that would live in fear from being attacked on the streets by activists from extremist group or being exposed to symbols causing unpleasant feelings in their hearts. The most sensible discussion was about extremist organizations and oppositions failed to understand how these groups work. Neo-Nazi organizations are clearly dependent on these symbols because they represent their ideas. We agree that by banning these symbols they will become a forbidden fruit, but this will give us a reason to punish these groups as there is no way how to deal with them now. We also believe that these organizations do not only physically harm people, but psychologically as well by using symbols that most of society associates with something evil. Under the status quo we can’t fight against it as long as they didn’t use the hate speech. We believe that the government has to protect its citizens even if the harms are only on psychological level, and that’s why we propose this plan. If these groups find a substitution for symbols banned, we believe that this will make them weaker. Substituting a powerful symbol with great historical meaning for a new one that nobody in society knows or has any associations with, definitely will be harmful for these organizations. We believe that in order to protect minorities, build society as a whole, and deal with extremism in general, we have to implement this plan. That’s why we are proud to propose it today!