INDOK
The Hungarian Information and Documentation Center was founded with the contribution of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Dutch Helsinki Foundation. INDOK primarily focuses on creating an extensive database of documents on human rights, organizing conferences, professional trainings and public debates, publishing books, all of which aim to train and inform professionals and individuals on human rights issues and to strengthen the general attitudes that help shape both national and international human rights standards. Four times a year INDOK publishes Fundamentum. INDOK gives advice in cases concerning human rights, but it does not represent clients. It provides legal assistance in filing petitions to the Hungarian Constitutional Court, to the Parliamentary Commmissioners, or to the European Court of Human Rights. Gabor Halmai, Director of INDOK is a member of the Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights.
THE NETWORK
The European Commission set up the E.U. Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights upon the request of the European Parliament. It monitors the situation of fundamental rights in the Member States and in the Union, on the basis of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It issues reports on the situation of fundamental rights in the Member States and in the Union, as well as opinions on specific issues related to the protection of fundamental rights in the Union.
Following the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002)[1] the European Commission has adopted Communications addressing the areas of Preparedness, Prevention and Response relating to counter terrorism.[2] These have dealt with Critical Infrastructure Protection in the fight against Terrorism[3] and the Preparedness and Consequence Management in the fight against Terrorism.[4] This document intends to add to the work on the prevention of terrorism, and it complements the Commission's Communication on the financing of terrorist activities[5] and, more recently, on explosives and firearms (subject to adoption). The aim is to look at potential reasons and factors that contribute to leading people to commit terrorist acts. The Communication addressed to the Network of Independent Experts seeks to raise issues in order to work in the following directions: to help understand how terrorist recruitment might take place; to suggest preventive measures that in trying to find out more about the factors that might contribute terrorist recruitment; and to look at what is meant by "violent radicalisation".
The European Commission provisionally defines "violent radicalisation" as being "the phenomenon of people embracing opinions, views and ideas which could lead to acts of terrorism or other acts of violence against others within society". Therefore it might apply to a wide range of movements, organisations and struggles, based on political, religious, national and ethnic motivations. The term might also cover some activities that exist as a combination of these factors, or it might sometimes merely describe a reaction based on feelings of frustration, disadvantage or injustice. Radicalisation is rapidly becoming an important subject of exploration due to its link to combating terrorism and to understanding the origins of terrorism at the ground level and due o its contribution to the overall debate on the root causes of terrorism.
However, it is important to maintain the crucial balance between different fundamental rights in this area, particularly the security objectives (the right to security and life), on the one hand, and the right to freedom of expression and privacy (including personal data protection), on the other. This is a vital area where the EU can use its legislative and policy processes to lead the way.
Therefore, the Commission asked the members of the Network to answer a questionnaire concerning the situation of violent radicalisation in their own country.
According to Article 269 of the Criminal Code, Act No. IV of 1978 which defines an offence called Incitement Against Community, "A person who incites the general public to hatred for a) the Hungarian nation, b) any national, ethnic, racial group or certain groups of the population, shall be punishable for a felony offence with an imprisonment of up to three years."
The freedom of expression jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as: "HCC") concerning the limitations on hate speech is extensive, and the HCC has dealt with the matter several times. Elements of both American jurisprudence as well as those of the European model can be traced. The latter system is more restrictive to free speech and gives more weight to the concept of militant democracy.
The Hungarian Constitutional Court first encountered this problem in examining the constitutionality of the provision in the Hungarian Criminal Code concerning public incitement. Article 269 of the Criminal Code had regulated the facts by defining two easily distinguishable forms of incitement whose only common element was their being committed in public. While the facts of the more serious (criminal) offence under paragraph (1) included incitement of hatred against "the Hungarian nation, any other nationality, people, religion, race or certain groups among the general population", paragraph (2) provided for the prosecution of those who use an offensive or a disparaging expression against "the Hungarian nation, any other nationality, people, religion, or race", or those who commit similar acts. As is apparent, the facts of the two paragraphs differed not only in respect to the protected legal subjects [i.e. indi-
- 85/86 -
vidual groups within the general population do not figured in paragraph (2)], but also in the behaviour inherent to the act committed. While the incitement of hatred has the potential to disturb the public peace because it embodies the danger of violence or of making violent threats, this cannot be said of the Criminal Code's definition of defamation, a milder form of the incitement of hatred.
In its decision 30/1992. AB of the 29[th] of March 1992, the HCC found the facts of the crime of inciting hatred, as spelled out in Article 269 (1) of the Criminal Code, to be constitutional and annulled the form of defamation laid down in paragraph (2) of the same article. Its reasoning was based on the notion that the freedom of expression has a distinguished role among other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, that it is in fact a sort of a "mother right" of the so-called rights of "communication". According to the HCC justices, the right to the freedom of expression protects opinion without regard to its content in terms of value and truth, for it is only in maintaining this condition that we can hope to live up to the ideological neutrality of the Constitution. In confirming the constitutionality of the elements of the crime of incitement, the justices apparently reasoned on grounds similar to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous test of "clear and present danger" in Schenck versus U.S. At the same time, it must be said that the "danger" attached by the Hungarian Constitutional Court justices as a condition of constitutionality is more distant and contingent than the sort their erstwhile American peers had in mind. Presumably this is why the Constitutional Court elaborated on its decision by explaining that the "unavoidable social tensions of system-change" (i.e. the post-1989 political-economic transition) significantly increase the danger of the incitement of hatred against certain groups in front of large public audiences.
The main reason for declaring defamation unconstitutional was, however, that in this case, the Hungarian Parliament had in fact made its qualification on the basis of the value content of the opinion expressed. In other words, the violation of public peace was attached to defamation only on the basis of presumption and statistical probability. Moreover, the HCC pointed out that not even the public peace is independent of the degree of freedom of expression that prevails in society. Indeed, in countries where people can encounter numerous different opinions, public opinion becomes more tolerant, whereas, in closed societies, particular instances in which people express opinions that are out of the norm have far more potential to disturb public peace. Further, the needless and disproportionate limitation of the freedom of expression has a detrimental effect on an open society. At the same time, they added that the need to protect the "dignity of communities" might constitute a valid constitutional limitation on the freedom of expression. Thus, the Court decision does not rule out the possibility that Hungary's lawmakers might establish such protection under criminal law even beyond the scope of the incitement of hatred.
In the spring of 1996 the statutory regulation of incitement once again came to centre stage in Hungary, after the Penal Division of Budapest City Court acquitted the infamous neo-fascist party leader Albert Szabó and his associates of charges of public incitement and of the public display of symbols of autocratic rule, another crime that had meanwhile been added to the Criminal Code. The reasoning of the decision was more or less in line with that of the Constitutional Court's 1992 decision: "Public incitement is realised only when someone incites passions to a degree capable of summoning hatred and of leading to the disturbance of the public peace." Until the time when such danger prevails, "the free expression of opinion also embraces thoughts and views that are offensive, shocking, or that cause distress".
The acquittal generated a public furore of a magnitude that has not been seen in Hungary in a long time. The Hungarian Parliament amended the legal provision against public incitement, supplementing the crime of the incitement of hatred with the addition of "another action capable of inciting hatred". Even without explicitly spelling out the aim of this new provision, it was well suited to ensuring that, for example, even those who deny the Holocaust out of sheer ignorance are liable to prosecution. Indeed, this revision of the provisions of public incitement created questions as to whether or not it met the criteria set down in the Constitutional Court's 1992 decision.
Decision 12/1999. AB of May 21[st] 1999 of the HCC was based on a petition filed before the Court
- 86/87 -
directly after Parliament had amended the incitement law. In applying the criterion of "defamation" and in complementing it with the argument that "indefinite utterances" violate legal security, this decision annulled the newly introduced legal text, thus reviving the situation of 1992.[6]
In December 2003, the Government again initiated the modification of the hate-speech provision of the Criminal Code for three reasons. First, the modification of the hate speech provision was partly a reaction to the acquittal of priest Loránt Hegedűs, the Vice President of the Hungarian Truth and Justice Party (MIÉP) and member of Parliament, who published an article in ÉBRESZTŐ, 16[th] District of Budapest organization party's journal, under the title "Christian Hungarian State". Appearing on the front page of the journal, which was delivered to letterboxes throughout the district, the article included statements such as, "SHUT THEM OUT! IF YOU DON'T DO IT TO THEM, THEY'LL DO IT TO YOU! This we know from a thousand years of torture, from the remaining legacy 'on high' of our country that has been stolen and looted thousands of times, and not in the least by the stone-throwing sons of Ramallah."
Second, according to the Government's reasoning, the application of Article 269 of the Criminal Court by the ordinary courts[7] was so divergent that it raised legal certainty concerns.[8] Third, the Government also referred to the constitutional duty of Hungary to harmonize its domestic laws with its international obligations.[9] It was the Government's view that Parliament had not yet fulfilled its obligation in the area of hate speech.
On the 8[th] of December 2003, the Hungarian Parliament voted with a slight majority (184:180) for the modification of the Criminal Code. According to the Bill, hate speech criminalisation would have become stricter. Any incitement of hatred against any nation, national, ethnic, racial or religious minority, or calling for violent acts before the general public would have been a felony offence punishable by imprisonment of up to three years. Violating other people's human dignity by disparaging or humiliating them because of their national, ethnic, racial or religious origin would have been a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment of up to two years.
The adopted bill prescribed publicity for the incitement of hatred. The word "nation" was a new element. Before the amendment, one could commit this crime against the Hungarian nation, while, according to the new bill, the crime could have been committed with regard to any nation. The lawmaker argued that in order to avoid the trap of being restrictive on content-based consideration, it is not the speech itself but the degree of fierceness created by it that should be the decisive factor in punishment.
Because the President of the Republic considered the already adopted but not yet signed Act on amending the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional, he submitted it to the Constitution Court for ex ante constitutional review on the 22[nd] of December 2003.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the adopted but not yet enacted amendment to the Criminal Code was unconstitutional.[10] The HCC applied its 1992 precedent in deciding the constitutionality of the amendment. The Court emphasised again that it would not accept content-based restriction of communication. According to the Constitutional Court, communication can only be punished if it directly and foreseeable threatens individual (constitutional) rights. Since the amendment would have punished certain communications whose effects on their audiences would fall below this threshold, the amendment would restrict free speech unnecessarily, disproportionately and, thus, unconstitutionally.
Because of this jurisprudence, it is very likely that the Hungarian constitutional judges would also oppose the planned EU Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. It is for this reason that the Hungarian Government planned a constitutional amendment. After the failure of the
- 87/88 -
Framework decision, however, the constitutional amendment is no longer an important issue.
After the changes in 1989, there have been attempts to attach a new role to Article 156 of Act IV of 1978, the Hungarian Criminal Code. In the Skinhead trials, prosecutors bring charges against skinheads on the basis of this provision. Article 156 reads as follows: "The person causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group commits a felony that shall be punishable with two to eight years of imprisonment."
The hate crime charge was, however, reduced to the lesser charge of aggravated battery, or the attempt thereof, which is committed, partly as principal co-perpetrators and partly as accessories, for a base reason.[11] In practice, this meant that only a few perpetrators were sent to prison, and even those sent to prison served short sentences. In order to tackle this problem, a new provision has been inserted into the Criminal Code through a modification that entered into force on the 15[th] of June 1996. The same Act also invalidated Article 156.
According to the new Article 174/B paragraph (1) on violence against a member of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, "The person who assaults somebody else because he belongs or is believed to belong to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or coerces him with violence or menace into doing or not doing or into enduring something, commits a felony that shall be punishable with imprisonment of up to five years."
The punishment is, however, two to eight years imprisonment under the following conditions: if the crime has been committed by force of arms or in an armed manner; if it has caused considerable harm in interest or torment to the injured party, or if it was committed in a groups or a criminal conspiracy.
Despite the numerous crimes of racial animus committed, this article was not invoked until May 1997. On the night of the 11[th] of May 1997, a victim went home accompanied by his friends, when they met a group of app. 9-10 people. They were singing Nazi songs, and shouting anti-Semitic slogans. When the victim and his friends passed by the other larger group the victim said: "What is your problem with Jews? I am a Jew myself." The victim, who was not a practising Jew but intended to express that he found the anti-Semitic songs reprehensible, was beaten up and his nose was broken.
The most recent case is that of József Patai, a fifteen-year-old Roma youth, who was stabbed in the stomach by one of a group of six persons shortly after he boarded a bus in Budapest with his friends on the 8[th] of May 2005. The members of the group of six persons, including the suspect, were dressed in military uniforms, helmets and boots, and some of them were reportedly equipped with shields, while others were armed with wooden swords. The suspect carried a metal sword. He singled out József Patai, asked him "What are you staring at?" and then stabbed him. When one of the victim's friends shouted for help, the bus driver opened the doors of the bus, which was just about to leave, and the passengers, along with the suspect and his fellows, exited the bus. József Patai suffered serious injuries. Leaders of the Hungarian parliamentary parties and human rights NGOs reacted by expressing concerns about the growing number of actions of extremist groups. The Prime Minister said in Parliament that, "It is not possible to ignore in this case that this crime was motivated by racism." The police, however, rejected the argument that the crime had been perpetrated out of racial animus. The suspect was caught shortly after the crime had been committed. As newspapers reported, the suspect considers himself to be Roma. According to Article 1 paragraph (1) of the Act LXXVII of 1993 on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities those considering themselves members of any national or ethnic minority are to be regarded as members of that community. The police investigation of the case has not yet been finished.
According to Act II of 1989 on the Right of Association, the right to association must not infringe the separation of powers and the principles according to which political parties may not exercise public power directly, and on the basis of which no single party may exercise exclusive control of a government body. The objective of any society must be in line with the Hungarian Constitution, and armed associations must not be established. The right to association and the exercise of the right to assembly based on Act III of 1989 on the Right of Assembly must not enable the realisation of crimes, appeals to commit a crime, and they must not lead to the infringement of other persons' rights and freedoms.
- 88/89 -
The Capital City Public Prosecutor Office has brought an action against the Blood and Honour Cultural Association [Vér és Becsület Kulturális Egyesület] that aims at its dissolution. The reasons behind the action, according the Prosecutor's Office, are that, contrary to what was contained in the basic rules of the association, its members were committed to neo-fascist views, the association has not functioned in reality since last January and it did not have the required minimum of 10 members. In December 2004, the court of first instance dissolved the association because, during the programs organised by the association, statements that are offensive to other persons' dignity were expressed. In October 2005 the court of second instance upheld this decision.
2112/2004. (V. 7.) Government Decree lists the tasks in the fight against terrorism. The National Action Plan Against Terrorism is based on the declaration of the European Council on combating terrorism of 25 March 2004.
2073/2004. (IV. 15.) Government Decree lays down the national security strategy of Hungary.
Act CXXX of 2003 deals with Co-operation with the Member States of the European Union in Criminal Matters.
A modification to Article 261 of Act IV of 1978 of the Criminal Code, through Act II of 2003 criminalizes terrorism and all forms of financing terrorism. This includes providing funds or collecting funds for terrorist actions or facilitating or supporting such actions by any means. The penalty for such crimes is imprisonment of five to fifteen years. The punishment for acts of terrorism is imprisonment of ten years to fifteen years or for life, depending on the nature of the crime.
On the 30[th] of November 2001, the Republic of Hungary signed the International Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of December 9[th], 1999. It became part of the Hungarian legal system through Act LIX of 2002.
On the 13[th] of November 2001 the Hungarian Parliament ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15[th], 1997 through Act XXV of 2002.
The Hungarian Parliament adopted Act LXXXIII. of 2001 on Combating Terrorism, Tightening the Provisions on Impeding Money Laundering and on the Ordering of Restricting Measures.
Prior to 2000, Hungary has ratified the following international instruments relating to terrorism:
The protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, which is supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on February 24[th], 1988 through Act XXXVII of 2004.
The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, signed in Rome on March 10[th], 1988 and the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, signed in Rome on March 10[th], 1988 through Act LXVIII of 2003.
The Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, signed in Montreal on March 1[st], 1991 through Act LXVI of 2003.
The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, concluded in Strasbourg on January 27[th], 1977 through Act XCIII of 1997.
The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 17[th], 1979 through Law decree No. 24 of 1987.
The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, signed in Vienna on March 3[rd], 1980 though Law decree 8 of 1987.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 14[th], 1973 through Law decree 22 of 1977.
The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed in Montreal on September 23[rd], 1971 through Law decree 17 of 1973.
The Convention for the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16[th], 1970 through Law decree No. 24 of 1972.
The Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, signed in Tokyo on September 14[th], 1963 through Law decree No. 24 of 1971.
- 89/90 -
Hungary has also concluded numerous bilateral international agreements on co-operation in the fight against crime and more specifically against organised crime, terrorism, illegal trafficking in drugs, and money laundering during the last decade.
Act I of 1996 on Radio and Television Broadcasting mentions the prohibition of hate speech as one of the primary principles. According to Article 3 paragraph (2), "The broadcaster shall respect the constitutional order of the Republic of Hungary, its activity may not violate human rights and may not be suitable for inciting hatred against individuals, sexes, peoples, nations, national, ethnic, linguistic and other minorities, and church or religious groups." Paragraph (3) of the same article expressly refers to minorities: "Broadcasting may not aim, openly or in a concealed manner, at insulting or excluding any minority or majority, or at presenting and discriminating against them on the basis of racial considerations."
Article 5 of the Act declares that, if the programming contains images or sound effects that could violate religious convictions or beliefs or if it contains images and sound effects are capable of disturbing public order in a violent manner or otherwise, the attention of the public has to be drawn to that fact prior to broadcasting. Article 23 paragraph (1) makes the burden on public broadcasters is higher. The public broadcasters are obliged to respect the dignity and basic interests of the nation, as well as those of the national, ethnic, linguistic and other minorities, and they may not offend the dignity of other nations.
The above provisions of the on Radio and Television Broadcasting are to be enforced by the National Radio and Television Commission [Országos Rádió és Televízió Testület]. The sanctions that can be applied are listed in Article 112 paragraph (1). The National Radio and Television Board may call upon the broadcaster to terminate the injurious conduct; establish the violation of the law in a written warning, and it may call upon the broadcaster to terminate the violation of the law and to abstain from the violation of the law in future; the Board may suspend the exercise of the broadcasting rights for a set period of time and for a maximum period of thirty days; the Board may enforce the penalty defined in the contract; it can impose a fine in the case of a public service broadcaster or upon the initiative of the Complaint Committee; or terminate the contract with immediate effect.
Typical measures are not of a criminal nature. See the media, freedom of assembly and freedom of association aspects supra. There are however certain cases where criminal law has been invoked in order to tackle the problem of radicalisation. As for Hungarian criminal measures, please see the answers to question 1 concerning the definition of violent radicalisation. A recent related case will be discussed infra.
The Hungarian police arrested three persons, a Hungarian citizen of Palestinian origin and two Syrian men, who are suspected to have planned to bomb Hungary's new Holocaust museum during a visit by Israeli President Moshe Katsav.
An Israeli analyst suggested the plot might have been motivated by Israel's assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin on the 22[nd] of March 2004, who was the founder of the Islamic militant group Hamas. Although a motive has been attributed to Hamas, which vowed revenge against Israeli leaders, the Hungarian police said they found no link to them. The police also denied a link between Katsav's visit and the planned attack.
For months, authorities monitored phone calls by one suspect, a Palestinian dentist who became a naturalised Hungarian citizen and who has also been a spiritual leader of an Islamic community in Budapest. The suspect had been asking acquaintances to get explosives. During one phone call, he allegedly asked someone to use explosives to blow up a Jewish museum. The only permanent Jewish museum in the capital is the Holocaust Memorial Centre, which was scheduled to be inaugurated on the 15[th] of April 2004 by the Israeli President.
The two Syrians were charged with preparing for a crime against property. The investigations have been stopped due to the lack of evidence against the suspects.
There is no research, which explicitly targets violent radicalisation, but there are several research projects and other monitoring activities on other related topics.
- 90/91 -
In 1998 István Murányi, within the framework of the Institute of Political Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, conducted a research project that focused on the attitude of Hungarians towards aliens[12] and, more specifically, examined the role of socio-cultural and territorial factors in influencing the prejudices of the young people between age 10 and 17. The research project sought to answer three questions. First, are the young people of this age biased and if yes how much? Second, how much are the prejudices different in the various groups as a result of socio-cultural and territorial factors? Finally, how much are preconceptions influenced by these factors? The project included questions regarding different social and minority groups, like Roma, aliens (also foreigners and refugees), drug addicts, alcoholics, homosexuals and Jews. Murányi found that prejudices had a significant link to religious belief and age. With regard to the prejudices against ethnic minorities, factors such as perceptions of minorities, interaction with the minority communities and acquired experiences should be also taken into account. He found that there was no linear relationship between the number of Roma living in a certain area and the prejudices of the local young people.
In 1999 Endre Sik, within the framework of the social research centre TÁRKI, examined the situation of foreigners in Hungary and the attitude towards them in the local authorities. Sik found that the quality of life in the local societies largely depends on the people's tolerance towards "outsiders" and on the ability to handle inter-group conflicts. In the period under scrutiny, the proportion of foreigners did not increase. The local authorities thought that the advantages and disadvantages of social inclusion of foreigners were balanced. However, the willingness to segregate Roma was very high: half of the officers believed that the local population would not have allowed Gypsies to settle down in their neighborhood.
The Minority Research Centre of the Minoritás Foundation [Minoritás Alapítvány Kisebbségkutató Intézete] organized a conference in June 2003 on the relationship between hate and politics.[13] The collection of essays written from the presentations deal with the following topics: the Austrian and German experiences of handling racism; the rhetoric of the weekly Hungarian Forum [Magyar Fórum], one of the major Hungarian sources of hate speech that targets Jews and Roma; the relationship between hate speech and other social phenomena; hate speech in American popular culture; xenophobia and Western European radical right wing groups; and the French experiences with minorities.
The International Migration and Refugee Research Centre operating within the framework of Minority Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences published the findings of several researches on the migration of Roma people.[14] András Kováts examined the Hungarian society's attitude towards questions concerning the migration of Roma, e.g. the increasing number of Roma applying for refugee status in Western European countries. The majority in every age-group considered that they were not persecuted in Hungary. Gábor Miklósi described the story of a woman who worked as a nurse before migrating to Canada.
After 2000 and 2001 a report documenting anti-Semitic discourse was published by B'nai B'rith Budapest Lodge in 2004. The volume contains essays, which draw attention to the wide spread use of anti-Semitic discourse both in written and oral form in the Hungarian press. The goal of the editors was to point out the characteristics of the events of 2002 and 2003. They found first that the number of openly anti-Semitic manifestations decreased after the 2002 parliamentary election, and secondly, that such manifestations were pushed back to certain well-definable fora of public life.[15]
In September 2003, research was made public on the changes of the prejudices towards Roma and Jews in the previous ten years. The Hungarian Gallup Institute in Budapest carried out the public poll and the analysis.[16] The research - due to financial constraints - covers only the openly confessed prejudices. The findings show that open anti-Semitic feelings dropped from 14-15% to 6-7% between 1993 and 2003, as this attitude was widely rejected by the Hungarian population. While the prejudices towards Roma also decreased, the positive change was not as significant as in the case of Jews. In the period between 1993-1995, 40-42% of Hungarians answered that they openly dislike Roma people. In 1999, this number reached 50%, while in 2001-2003 it was only 36-38%. Despite the fact that the decrease in the number of those who openly dislike Roma was statistically significant, it was much less than in case of Jews.
In 2004, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) published the empirical findings of the SIREN research project on right wing populism.[17] The research involved Hungary as well. The aim of the SIREN project was to analyse subjective perceptions of, and individual reactions to, recent socio-economic changes and, in particular, changes in working life. The research also
- 91/92 -
aimed to establish how experiences in working life influence political orientations and to what extent the threat of social decline and precarious living conditions contribute to the rise of right-wing populism in many European countries. Regarding the relation between changes in work and political orientation, no simple relation emerged from the survey data: no clear correlation could be found between negative changes and attraction to right-wing populism.[18]
In 2005, the Strategic Defence Research Centre of Zrínyi Miklós National Defence University [Zrínyi Miklós Nemzetvédelmi Egyetem, Stratégiai Védelmi Kutatóközpont] prepared a study on the Hungarian society's relationship to terrorism.[19] The research shows that Hungarians consider security threats as real dangers, as is the case in other Western European countries. The public poll shows, however, that terrorism - even though it appears in the media more often - is not one of the three major security threats. People evaluate security threats in three different dimensions: public safety, environmental safety and economic safety. Terrorism is a more serious threat for the country than the return of dictatorship or a regional conflict. It is definitely on people's mind, but the meaning and content of terrorism is not clear to those questioned. With regard to people's beliefs about the causes of terrorism, historical and political reasons, globalisation and the increasing role of the U.S. in foreign policy dominate. Hungarians believe that a successful fight against terrorist organisations rests on the secret services, while they do not think that military intervention is necessary and appropriate.
The University of Szeged in cooperation with the Minority Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the Hungarian Human Rights Information and Documentation Centre (INDOK) in the Sixth Framework Programme (The Changing Landscape of European Liberty and Security -"Challenge") carries out a research with the title "New approaches to security and the role of Europe". The main topics of the research are the following: the theoretical issues of terrorism and the limitation on fundamental rights in the light of the U.S. jurisprudence; the available state measures against civil airplanes used for terrorist purposes -constitutional and international law aspects; the legislation on police and security services in the light of terrorism; the changes in the alien policing and refugee procedures as a result of terrorist threats; the difficulties in analysing ethnic identities; and the changes to the concept of torture that are caused by terrorism. The findings of the research were discussed at a conference in the autumn of 2005.
The Hungarian National Security Office [Nemzetbiztonsági Hivatal] constantly monitors the actions of radical organizations and groups.[20] Although, the radical, national socialist and "Hungarianist" groups have been present since the transition, none of them constitute a real threat to the Hungarian constitutional system and order. None of them has enough public support at the moment to pass the 5%-hurdle in the parliamentary elections. According to the Office, all of these groups and organizations are aware of the fact that all of their goals - the creation of a Hungarianist labour state as proposed by Szálasi, or the revision of the peace treaty of Trianon - are of a utopian nature. Their only aim, then, is to appear before the public and to recruit members. Their propaganda mainly involves public appearances, such as demonstrations, and maintaining Internet sites and publications.
The Hungarian Future Group [Magyar Jövő Csoport] appeared in Hungarian public life in autumn 2004. The national security service and the police followed the activities of the Group, especially those of its leader, who was taken into custody in October before a planned group demonstration could take place. Later she was also expelled from her university. The successful fight against these radical groups - according to analysis of the National Security Office - is large due to the outcry of the public, the media and the civil society.
In Hungary the activity of radical religious groups or persons is not significant. Apart from the arrest of a dentist of Arabic origin for allegedly organizing attacks against Israeli targets in Budapest, no incident was reported.
In 2003, the Government ordered the establishment of the Anti-Terror Coordination Committee, whose task is to coordinate the actions of the different military and police organizations. According to the above-mentioned analysis of the National Security Office, there is no direct terrorist threat in Hungary.
In Hungary no such link is identifiable.
- 92/93 -
The Hungarian radical groups and organisations have two primary target-groups: Roma and Jews. As the research detailed under question 5 shows, these two minorities are mostly affected by racist and violent atrocities. Anti-Semitism is mainly linked to the radical right wing party and the surrounding groups: anti-Semitic speech and direct calls for violence are both present. The websites of two radical right-wing parties: MIÉP[21] and JOBBIK[22] permanently contain anti-Semitic statements and articles inciting the hatred of Roma.
A young man maintaining an anti-Roma website got significant media attention. Although, his blog openly calls for violence against Roma, no procedure has been initiated against him.[23] The skinhead group, Healthy Scalp [Egészséges Fejbőr] performed one of their songs, whose lyrics include, "White Christmas, I so much hate filthy Gipsies, white Christmas", at several public events. Only a local minority self-government officer commenced a criminal procedure against them in April 2004. A game whose aim is to destroy the Roma minority in each of Hungary's counties was released in February and then again in May. In both cases a criminal investigation was started. The creator and distributor of the game has not been made public, but it was most likely an individual action that cannot be linked to any of the above-mentioned radical groups. ■
NOTES
[1] 2002/475/JHA (OJ L 164/3 of 22 June 2002).
[2] Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Prevention, preparedness and response to terrorist attacks. COM (2004) 698 final.
[3] Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Critical Infrastructure Protection and the fight against terrorism. COM (2004) 702 final.
[4] Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Preparedness and Consequence Management in the fight against Terrorism. COM (2004) 701 final.
[5] Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the Prevention of and the Fight against Terrorist Financing. (2004) 700 final.
[6] More detailed see Gábor Halmai, "Changing Patterns and Measures: The Freedom of Expression in the Jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court." In Constitution Found? (ed. Gábor Halmai). BookWorld Publications, 2001.
[7] I mean "ordinary courts" as opposed to the Constitutional Court. Some experts contend that ordinary courts do not take into consideration the Constitutional Court 1992 ruling [30/1992. (V. 26.) AB] in the course of interpretation and application of Section 269 of the Criminal Code.
[8] See the reasoning of Bill No. T/5179 [a T/5179. számú törvényjavaslat indokolása].
[9] The reasoning of the Bill explicitly referred to Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the ECRI.
[10] 18/2004. (V. 25.) AB.
[11] Decision of the Supreme Court. BH 1994. 299.
[12] See Idegenek Magyarországon [Aliens in Hungary] (eds. SIK Endre - Tóth Judit). Budapest: MTA Politikatudományi Intézet, 1998.
[13] The essays were published: Gyűlölet és politika [Hate and Policy] (eds. Csepeli György - Örkény Antal). Budapest: Minoritás Alapítvány Kisebbségkutató Intézet, 2002.
[14] Roma migráció [Roma migration] (ed. Kováts András). Budapest: MTA Kisebbségkutató Intézet - Nemzetközi Migrációs és Menekültügyi Kutatóközpont, 2002.
[15] János Dési - András Gerő - Tibor Szeszlér - László Varga, Anti-Semitic Discourse in Hungary in 2002-2003: Report and Documentation. Budapest: B'nai B'rith Budapest Lodge, 2004.
[16] The full text of the research is available in Hungarian at http://www.gallup.hu/Gallup/releas/eloitelet030919.htm.
[17] Roads to Right Wing Populism and back. The text available at www.siren.at.
[18] For the relation of socio-economic change and radicalism see: Yves De Weerdt - Hans De Witte - Patrizia Catellani - Patrizia Milesi, Turning Right? Socio-Economic Change and the Receptiveness of European Workers to the Extreme Right. www.siren.at.
[19] Gyimesi Gyula - Molnár Ferenc, "A magyar társadalom viszonya a terrorizmushoz" [The Relationship of the Hungarian Society to Terrorism]. Elemzések, ZMNE Stratégiai Védelmi Kutató Központ, 2/2005, http://zacs.freeweb.hu/zmnesvkk.htm.
[20] All the documents are available in Hungarian: http://www.nbh.hu.
[21] http://www.miep.hu.
[22] www.jobbik.net.
Visszaugrás
