@Alex_1987First things first, I'd like to point out that "repealed" might have been too strong of a word. "Amended" might better reflect my personal views on the matter. But it is not up to me to decide this, it is up to the Ukrainian people.
You said in #71:
> While I generally agree with your post a I would still like to make a little remark. Why would not you agree that the state language of independent sovereign Ukraine is Ukrainian?
I would agree with that. Ukrainian can and should be the official language of Ukraine (given that the majority of people of Ukraine are in favour of Ukrainian). It's a beautiful language.
That's not what's deemed to be problematic about the law. What's deemed to be problematic – as I understand it – is the lacklustre protection of minority language rights. I don't see a good way to avoid the impression that I am on my high horse here, pontificating upon and moralising the Ukrainian society in times of extreme foreign aggression towards them.
I don't know what my political stance would be if I had to walk a mile in your shoes. And I can easily see how any of the following objections to the 2019 law can seem ridiculous to someone who's recently lost family to one of Putin's airstrikes or even someone who's enduring freezing conditions as a result of destroyed heat and electricity infrastructure.
But that being said, what is being criticised (by Human Rights Watch and the Venice commission:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Commission) is for instance that the law – as I understand it – disallows publications to appear solely in a minority language without the parallel use of Ukrainian. Minority newspapers for instance must feature an Ukrainian translation in equal size, content and format next to the minority language articles according to the 2019 law (although it has to be said that there are exceptions to this rule for several languages).
That somewhat limits the freedom of press in the country. You go on to compare the situation to Germany or the US. There are no similar "German only" or "English only" laws in these countries as far as I'm aware. You can find lots of Spanish language newspapers in the US (containing not even a single English word). The same applies to Germany I presume.
I'll give you an illustrative example base on the UK: There's a (comparatively small) Turkish community in the UK and in London in particular. They can publish their own (print) media, some bilingual (English and Turkish, some solely in Turkish) without breaking any laws:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_community_of_London#Medialondragazete.comolaygazete.co.ukLikewise there are Arabic language newspapers in London:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Quds_Al-ArabiAnd that's despite the fact that Arabic (unlike Turkish) is not even among the recognised languages of the EU (and Turkish is not among the official languages of the EU). They are not forced to add an English translation.
> Can you finish a school in Germany without learning German for example? Or in USA without learning English? Yet, there are many minorities there, but all the citizens are supposed to know the state language. There is nothing extreme about it. Same in Ukraine.
Probably not very easily. I agree that everyone ideally should know and learn the official language. It's important to be able to partake in all spheres of public life.
> In Baltic countries people don't get citizenship without knowing a national language, and it is an excellent idea imo! In this way old russians who still live in soviet union but somehow stay in European countries despising their laws and traditions can not at least influence the political situation.
I'm not sure I agree with stripping people of their nationality (rendering them stateless?) and citizen rights (like voting rights) for not knowing a language, even if it is the official language of the country.
And while some people belonging to a minority group do in fact despise the society they live in, not all of them do. Usually the vast majority of them don't. Furthermore, there are some members of a majority (ethnic) group who still despise the society the live in and its values: Anti-democrats of all sorts for instance (and they are not expelled). A healthy democratic society needs to be able to tolerate the small number of people who despise it (without stripping them of their citizen rights). And needs to strive towards the perhaps unattainable goal of becoming a society that is more united, less exclusionary.
But I realise that I'm in the territory of hopeless utopian idealism now.
> Knowing the language of the country you are the citizen of is very normal.
Agreed. Ukrainian should be taught to every student in Ukraine. But that doesn't mean that minority language rights necessarily need to be infringed upon. Of course I understand that's hardly Ukraine's biggest concern right now and for good reason. Nobody expects Ukraine to focus on language laws while it's being invaded. And existing language laws do not in any way constitute an adequate justification for invasion.