ZGram - 12/30/2003 - "Hungarian President refuses to sign Legislation Outlawing Criticism of Jews"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

December 30, 2003

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

A President with backbone - believe it or not!

Enjoy!

[START]

December 30, 2003

Hungarian President refuses to sign Legislation Outlawing Criticism of Jews

December 25, 2003 -- Recently, Jews living in Hungary were able to 
push through a law, adopted earlier this month by parliament, 
stipulating that any person who publicly expresses hatred toward Jews 
could face three years in prison. And, someone who publicly insults a 
Jew could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and sentenced to up to two 
years of imprisonment.

The Jews were very disappointed that the law was accepted by only a 
slim majority of just four votes with 184 parliamentarians saying 
yes, while 180 said no. Now, in a surprise development, President 
Ferenc Madl said he refuses to sign the hate speech legislation 
because the bill could "restrict freedom to a greater extent than is 
constitutionally permissible." . . .

Full story: 
<http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/12/Hungary_FreeSpeech.html>fpp.co.uk   

*  *  *

Commentary by Mel Fowler:

Almost never do I see this issue correctly, or honestly, analyzed. 
That is to say, analyzed in a manner to identify the excruciatingly 
elementary truth underlying efforts to suppress freedom of 
speech.   The endeavor to limit freedom of speech always acts on a 
wish to silence, thereby to  disable and defeat, opposition.   That 
is ALL  it is.   Of course, those who endeavor to impose legal 
limitations upon the freedom of speech of others never identify their 
true objective.   That always remains unspoken and unacknowledged. 
The objective is always falsified as something else:  It is not nice 
to say things that may hurt someone's feelings;  When directed toward 
certain individuals or groups,  harsh, rude, prejudiced, uncivil, 
unfair, dishonest, or otherwise objectionable speech, it is 
argued,  should be criminalized. 

All such deceptive arguments boil down to the silly notion that 
people should be permitted to say naughty things only when such 
speech is not directed toward "protected" persons or 
groups.  Laws providing civil remedies for defamation are deemed not 
adequate because they don't block free speech as such, and because 
they do not criminalize the categories of speech sought to be 
suppressed.   So called "hate speech" laws which criminalize speech 
deemed hateful when directed toward the persons or groups these laws 
are intended to benefit, formally render invisible the true purpose 
of such laws, which can then be described only by a deception.   Read 
again the statement above attributed to President Ferenc Madl, who 
said he refused to sign the hate speech legislation because it could 
"restrict freedom to a greater extent than is constitutionally 
permissible."   He tactfully chooses not to say that the proposed law 
would be constitutionally impermissible because it is intended to 
silence, thereby to  disable and defeat, opposition to 
certain persons and groups the legislation is intended to benefit.  

I shouldn't have to point out that only those with supreme political 
power as well as stupendous audacity and arrogance could even 
contemplate seeking such a law by which to protect themselves from 
those who oppose them.   It should be seen as the law of despotism, 
for despots have always relied on such laws to protect themselves 
from their enemies.  

[end]