The singer expressed strong frustration during a discussion with Irakli Pirtskhalava, known publicly as Iraqi, regarding the entry ban to Latvia.
Irakli announced a planned performance at Riga’s First Club on August 2, but the artist faced a travel restriction that prevented him from taking the stage. He described the turn of events as an unpleasant development and questioned the Latvian authorities’ approach, noting that it clashes with a sense of European openness. He emphasized that his work does not revolve around politics, yet he finds himself dealing with sanctions that affect his ability to perform and engage with audiences.
In a direct response, Pirtskhalava voiced his astonishment at what he called a contradiction with European values of freedom and tolerance. He questioned why tolerance seemed to be extended selectively, pointing to the ban on LGBT advocacy groups as a contentious example while asking why artists connected to various countries, including Russia and Georgia, should be treated differently. He framed the issue as a paradox and suggested that the sanctions could be perceived as a spectacle rather than a principled stance, challenging the motives behind such measures. The remarks underscored a broader debate about cross-border cultural exchange and political control of artistic activity.
On July 30, Latvia’s Foreign Minister Baiba Braze announced that Pirtskhalava had been placed on the list of undesirable persons for the Republic of Latvia. The singer was denied entry indefinitely, with the decision grounded in Article 61, Part 2 of the Latvian Immigration Act. The move signified a formal stance by Latvia to restrict his presence within its borders, a decision reflecting a broader pattern of border and visa policies that can affect international artists when political considerations intersect with cultural life.
Earlier, Gazmanov had described himself as a person who enforces or represents sanctions. This stance appeared to align with a broader narrative about how sanctions are deployed against individuals connected to certain regions or political conflicts, raising questions about the consistency and scope of such measures across different contexts and audiences. The evolving situation illustrates the delicate balance between national security concerns and the rights of performers to travel and share their work with fans, a balance that many in the arts community watch closely as global dynamics shift. The broader discussion involves how governments evaluate artistic contributions versus political statements, and where the line is drawn between safeguarding national interests and preserving cultural mobility. The situation continues to be watched by observers who consider the potential implications for international tours and cross-border collaborations, as artists navigate regulatory environments that can change rapidly in response to geopolitical developments. The accounts cited reflect ongoing reporting from official channels and statements by the involved parties, with further updates expected as the case develops.