ZGram - 1/10/2004 - "No Revisionist doldrums in Hungary!"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

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

January 11, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

This past year, many people have wondered out loud if Revisionism has 
maybe hit the skids, since except for Ernst's arrest and brutal 
treatment at the hands of a viciously bail-sabotaging system, nothing 
much seems to be happening. 

Well, guess again.  All it takes is a Revisionist coming to town - 
and watch the feathers fly!

The article below is written by an enemy, of course - but read 
between the lines.  I guess you have had to have lived under 
Communist rule for a while to know how to appreciate Freedom!

[START]

Drawing Red Lines

by Balint Molnar

Central Europe Review | 9 January 2004

Many Hungarian liberals and conservatives will be glad if the
Constitutional Court rejects a new hate-speech law. But the problem of
inflammatory and racist language will remain.

One can always count on the unpasteurized politics of Hungary to throw up,
every now and then, an unhealthy dose of vicious vituperation directed at
minority groups. Since its successful transition to a multi-party
democracy, Hungary's public discourse has been sadly infected by
expressions of anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia, mainly from the far
right.

But what should the medicine be? Until now, the Alliance of Free Democrats
(SZDSZ), Hungary's only bona fide liberal party and the junior coalition
partner in the current Socialist-led government, has resisted the zeal of
the Socialist Party, which has been pushing for the current law on hate
speech to be toughened. With respectable high-mindedness, the Free
Democrats had argued that tougher laws would impinge on the constitutional
right of free speech.

But two recent events and the ensuing uproar on the part of the party's
core constituents--combined with some rousing punditry--seem to have
changed their minds. Parliament passed a new hate-speech bill in December.
It is now up to the Constitutional Court to decide whether it should become
law.

THE LANGUAGE OF HATE

In early November, many were stunned speechless when the notorious
Holocaust denier David Irving was interviewed on Hungary's state-owned
television channel in the late-night show Ejjeli Menedek (Night Shelter)
which was already notorious among liberal viewers for its unabashed
right-wing slant. Irving, who is banned from entering a number of European
countries, was invited to Hungary by Istvan Csurka, the truculent leader of
the Hungarian Justice and Life Party (MIEP), which remains the most
noticeable purveyor of anti-Semitic, racist, and xenophobic statements on
the political scene even though it failed to win seats in the 2002
parliamentary elections.

In the interview, Irving explained that the 1956 Hungarian revolution was,
in fact, a workers' uprising-cum-pogrom against the Jewish-dominated
Communist government.

Pouncing quickly, and no doubt spurred by the Socialist government, the
public broadcaster's management canceled the show. With its demise, the
right has lost has lost one of the few media bastions to have remained in
its control after the conservative Fidesz party lost the 2002 elections. In
typically controversial remarks, former Prime Minister Viktor Orban
expressed his consternation over the pulling of the show, saying that it
was a transmitter of "Christian values."

The waves had barely receded when, a few days later, a Budapest court
caused an outcry from the liberal public and media after it repealed the
sentence of Lorant Hegedus, a prominent member of MIEP. Hegedus, who heads
the party's list for the upcoming elections to the European Parliament, was
given a suspended 18-month jail sentence in December 2002 after being found
guilty of "inciting hatred against a community" for publishing an article
in which he called for the elimination of the "Galician hordes"--a
not-so-thinly veiled reference to Jews--from Hungarian public life.
Hegedus's victory was splashed all over the print and electronic media; his
supporters carried the Reformist Church minister from the courthouse on
their shoulders, followed by photographers and TV crews.

LAW AND DISORDER?

The decision prompted immediate calls for legal changes. "I do not want to
question the verdict of an independent court, but I believe that this
decision calls on all of us to try and formulate legislation capable of
outlawing the kind of racism and xenophobia seen in this case," said
Foreign Minister and Socialist Party chairman Laszlo Kovacs commenting on
the Hegedus verdict.

Eighty-four leading Hungarian intellectuals signed a letter condemning the
verdict. "We view the court's decision with dismay and outrage; the
decision's message is that in Hungary discrimination, racism, and
anti-Semitism are normal parts of public life. However, this is
incompatible with democracy and the rule of law," read the letter, which
ran in two dailies. Among the signatories were leaders of Hungary's
80,000-strong Jewish community.

In a separate press release, the Alliance of Hungarian Jewish Communities,
an umbrella body representing all Hungarian Jewish communities, reiterated
their support for a tighter law. Some went even further. Miklos
Tamas-Gaspar, a left-wing philosopher and pugnacious pundit, argued in an
article in the daily Magyar Hirlap that the decision reflected the deeply
embedded anti-Semitism and racism that is rampant in Hungary's
upper-middle-class judiciary.

On 8 December, parliament voted by a tiny majority (184:180, with two
abstentions) to tighten the legislation, making it much easier to charge
and convict people who say offensive things in public or publish them in
the media.

Under the previous hate-speech law, the key legal criterion for bringing a
charge of incitement was the "clear and present danger" standard. Put
simply, this required that the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt
that verbal or written attacks directed at any specific group led directly
to physical danger for the group.

The new law effectively eliminates the "clear and present danger"
criterion. Any person who publicly incites hatred "toward any nation, or
national, ethnic, racial or religious group" could now face three years in
prison. In addition, someone who "publicly insults the dignity of a person
because of his or her national, racial, ethnic or religious affiliation"
could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and sent to prison for up to two
years.

But many leading liberal intellectuals, and almost half the members of the
SZDSZ's 20-member parliamentary faction, took positions that placed them
squarely in opposition to the prevailing mood among liberal voters and
their coalition partner. In a long article published in Hungary's leading
daily, Nepszabadsag, a former president of the Constitutional Court, Laszlo
Solyom, and political scientist Janos Kis--once the president of
SZDSZ--came out strongly against the amendments, saying that the new law
would be unconstitutional since it would stifle free speech.

In a separate article that appeared in the liberal and highly respected
weekly Elet es Irodalom, Kis explained that the proposed law could also
open the door to a slew of tit-for-tat lawsuits in which enterprising
representatives of the Hungarian right would drag liberal intellectuals to
court, in effect abusing the spirit of the new law, if not necessarily its
letter. Kis used as an example one of Tamas-Gaspar's own articles, which,
on account of its strikingly bad-tempered language, could hypothetically
become a basis for lawsuits under the proposed law.

Eight prominent members of SZDSZ's parliamentary faction voted against the
bill, citing the party's long-held adherence to the core liberal principle
of freedom of speech. Two abstained. The other 10, feeling the heat from
their voters, decided to back the new law with several provisos. Chief
among them is the request, put to President Ferenc Madl by SZDSZ chairman
Gabor Kuncze, that the proposal be submitted to the Constitutional Court
for review.

President Ferenc Madl predictably heeded the request, formally submitting
the law to the Constitutional Court on 22 December.

The law is very likely to meet with the judges' disfavor. The court has in
the past struck down a number of new bills aimed at toughening hate-speech
and incitement laws, precisely because they would have limited Hungarians'
right to express their views freely, however repugnant they might be.

FAINT RED LINES

Whatever the fate of the new hate-speech legislation, most observers agree
that there is no quick way to remove unsavory language from Hungary's
public life. Many suspect the new law will not only fail to solve the
problem. It will, some believe, highlight the political elite's
ineffectiveness in relegating hate speech to the margins of society, and
could potentially create a legal and political nightmare of frivolous--but
legally admissible--lawsuits from right-wing extremists. (This has already
started with a lawsuit filed by JOBBIK, a recently formed right-wing party,
after a controversial remark by a broadcaster on Radio Tilos--an extreme
left-wing station--that he would gladly exterminate all Christians. The man
was quickly dismissed by the radio's board that also publicly apologized
for his behavior, something right-wing hate-mongers rarely do.) So what to
do to avoid these pitfalls and lower the pitch of hatred in Hungarian
politics?

One who thinks that tougher legislation is not the way to go is the
executive director of Hungary's new Holocaust Museum, Andras Daranyi.
Indeed, his refusal to side with the official Jewish Community and sign
their petition caused some consternation. "Using the force of law is the
last resort for a state," said Daranyi, a lawyer by training, several weeks
before the vote in parliament. "There needs to be a consensus across the
political and social spectrum on what is and isn't acceptable. We need to
agree on certain red lines," he said. "Dragging people to court will not
solve this problem."

This is essentially the same argument made by liberal opponents of the law.
Yet, they all lament that the largest opposition party Fidesz and its
leader, former Prime Minister Orban, have done little or nothing to draw
red lines for their followers. As Kis wrote in his Elet es Irodalom
article: "Orban clearly believes that he cannot win elections without votes
from the extreme right and for this, if for no other reason, he is very
reluctant to turn decisively against anti-Semitic hate-mongering."

A faint red line may be emerging. On 25 November, a well-known lawyer
defending a Hungarian neo-Nazi asked the presiding judge whether she was
Jewish. To reporters, the lawyer, Laszlo Grespik--a notorious xenophobe and
the former government-appointed chief administrator of Budapest (a post
different from the mayor's)--explained that he had only wanted to ascertain
whether the judge was impartial.

Condemnations quickly poured down from all the usual corners: Supreme Court
Chief Justice Zoltan Lomnici denounced the episode, saying that members of
the judiciary must be protected from such offensive remarks; the Budapest
Bar Association launched an inquiry into the incident; and, of course, both
coalition parties came out strongly against Grespik, who in the past had
appeared to relish and, indeed, actively cultivate his role as the
whipping-boy of the liberal left.

But this time, there was another voice. On 2 December, Orban, who remains
the oracle of most Hungarian conservatives, condemned Grespik's remarks.
"Grespik's comments are unacceptable. It is inconceivable the one would
consider discriminating between people based on their ethnicity, religion,
or political position," Orban told reporters after a meeting with European
Union ambassadors.

Could this be the red line so many on the liberal side are waiting for? It
could indeed be a good start, but, given Orban's record, don't bet on it
just yet.

"Drawing Red Lines"

Balint Molnar is political analyst and journalist based, alternately, in
Ottawa and Budapest.

http://www.tol.cz/look/CER/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=14&NrIssue
=56&NrSection=4&NrArticle=11417

[END]