Hey Europe: sorry about my PM + The Unconstitutional Constitution
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/the-unconstitutional-constitution/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/world/europe/rare-opposition-protests-in-hungary.html
Tagged: Hungary RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
mazsa
-
mazsa
Bloody Fight in Gyongyospata, Hungary / Ungarn: Neonazis terrorisieren Roma-Dorf
English:
Deutsch:
Scuffle in Gyongyospata, the original version of the police:
-
mazsa
Video: “Mit der heute verabschiedeten Verfassung hat sich Ungarn aus der Gemeinschaft demokratischer Staaten verabschiedet. Der Rechtsstaat ist weitgehend abgeschafft. In dieser Verfassung gehört Ungarn nicht in die EU. Es ist eine Schande für Europa.”:
-
mazsa
Münchausen:
Die Presse, April 8, 2010:
Will the conservatives change the constitution?
Navracsics [present minister of justice, Hungary]: No
["Würden die Konservativen Verfassungsänderungen vornehmen?
Navracsics: Nein."]WSJ, April 19, 2011, Navracsics:
A new constitution was a key pledge in this government’s April 2010 election campaign.
[Via]
-
mazsa
“Hungary Is a Disgrace for Europe”:
[...] It’s strange, the more some countries profit from the European Union, the more prone they are to anti-European sentiments. The constitutional state has largely been abolished, future elections are effectively meaningless, the media are being whipped into line, as are theaters and museums and everything else that could shape the nation’s culture.
Barely a trace remains of pluralism, of variety, of the basic features of a free society. If you talk to people in Hungary about politics these days, you’re confronted with fear, like in the days of East Germany. In this state, Hungary no longer belongs in the EU. It is a disgrace for Europe. But Europe is saying nothing. [...]
-
mazsa
I know that there is some international concern. I would welcome the government to seek advice and recommendation from others, both from within Hungary and from the Council of Europe and the United Nations. While any country was free to draft its own constitution, it had to be in line with international rules and norms. When such laws are adopted, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that they comply with all relevant international agreements, including the protection of the freedom of media and expression.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon -
mazsa
WSJ – Best summary on 1party constitution in Hungary: http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2011/04/18/hungary-passes-new-constitution-amid-concerns/
“According to a survey by Median last week, 57 percent of Hungarians believed the new constitution would need to be confirmed by a referendum, and only 29 percent said it was sufficient for a two-thirds parliament majority to approve it.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/18/hungary-constitution-idUSLDE73H0TT20110418?pageNumber=2
-
mazsa
Hungary’s parliament passes controversial new constitution: it is the government’s attempt to cement its power beyond its term, eliminates the system of checks and balances, forces its Christian ideology on the country and limits civil liberties.
“The new constitution’s preamble is laden with references to God, Christianity, the fatherland, the “Holy Crown of Hungary,” and traditional family values, raising opposition fears about the future rights of Hungary’s atheists, homosexuals and single-parent families. [...]” http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14998392,00.html
-
mazsa
We are observing developments in Hungary with much attention and some worry. The media law adopted at the start of the year shows an attitude towards fundamental rights which – despite some amendments – is hardly compatible with European Union values. Our worries over the media law are made worse, not better, by today’s adoption of the constitution and its future implementation.
Werner Hoyer, Minister of State, Germany -
mazsa
NYRB: Hungary has become a one party state http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/apr/28/hungary-threat/
Free access text: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53112498/Hungary-The-Threat-by-Istvan-Deak
Summary in Hungarian: http://nepszava.com/2011/04/magyarorszag/deak-istvan-magyarorszag-egyparti-allam-lett.html
-
admin
Protests ahead of vote on new Hungary constitution
“Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:56am EDT
- Parliament to vote on new [1party] constitution on April 18.
- Civil society groups plan protest in Budapest
- Rights groups say new law will weaken checks and balances” http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/15/hungary-constitution-idUSLDE73D11420110415
Video [in Hungarian]:
-
mazsa
The state of democracy in Hungary: ‘The illness has advanced to a new stage’
A gypsy girl of maybe eight, nine years old holds onto her little brother tightly. Looking out over the chicken-wire fence at the end of their mud garden in the Roma ghetto in the village of Hejoszalonta, they stare at the around 600 members of Hungary’s fascist party, Jobbik, and its paramilitary wing, the Magyar Garda, dressed in black or camouflage or just leather jackets, marching right past where they live with torches aloft and nationalist heavy metal music blasting. [...]
The protest, which took place on Saturday (2 April), is the second such demonstration by the far-right vigilantes in a month. At the beginning of March, Jobbik and its allied blackshirts went to the village of Gyongyospata, also claiming to protect it from the crimes allegedly perpetrated by their Roma inhabitants. There the numbers were larger. According to human rights groups, quoting the local community, some 2-3000 marched repeatedly up and down the streets of the town with torches and whips. [...]
Meanwhile, the governing Fidesz-Christian Democrat coalition has remained “strangely silent”, [Judit] Kenda continued.
“By letting these armed groups roam freely, the state has abandoned its monopoly on the use of force,” she added, a line that is frequently repeated by human rights groups.
The police have stopped the human rights campaigners and the LMP from forming a human chain protecting the Roma houses, modest shacks with irregular, warping roofs and unfinished windows, ostensibly because the road through the village is “too narrow” to hold two demonstrations.
Nonetheless, the activists are relieved that at least the police are here this time. [...]
Fidesz won a two-thirds majority in the country’s 2010 general election, enough to make changes to the country’s constitution, and the party is wasting no time exploiting this power. A new constitution was submitted to parliament on 21 March after the house speaker declared the existing text void. [...]
Miklos Haraszti, until last year the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s press freedom watchdog and a co-founder in 1976 of the Hungarian Democratic Opposition Movement, told the conference: “For the first time, it is possible that Hungary will lose its freedom by throwing democracy away with simple democratic tools.” [...]
Istvan Elek, a journalist from the same generation, said: “Hungarian democracy is very ill. It was already ill in 2010, but has now advanced to a more serious stage of the illness.” [...]
Cohn-Bendit too warned that something is rotten in the state of Hungary: “If we allow a tremendous shift away from democracy in one member state, then this will happen in another member state and another.” [...]
David Dorosz [hopes] that the European Union takes some sort of action to protect Hungarian democracy, but they are not holding their breath.
“The EU should address these problems, but the EU has a very weak history in this … Our greatest fear is that Europe will lose interest in what is going on here, with everyone paying attention to Libya, Japan and so on.”
“Pressure from the EU is so important. We cannot have the EU do our job for us, but we do need their support.”
The European Commission for its part says its hands are tied as it has no legal power over the crafting of national constitutions.
“We really think it’s up to Hungarians themselves. It’s their constitution,” EU justice spokesman Matthew Newman told EUobserver. “If there are any complaints about fundamental rights violations, they should be addressed by the national authorities.”
One EU source said that in principle, the commission and parliament do have the ‘nuclear option’ at their disposal – the application of Article 7 of the EU Treaty, which requires the suspension of voting rights of a member state found to be in “serious breach” of EU “founding values” such as democracy, human rights and the protection of minorities.
“But this is meant for the suspension of habeas corpus or the institution of martial law or one-party rule. Hungary is nowhere near any of this. The country is still a constitutional democracy.”
The European Union has no sanction it can deploy in cases of governments in that murky grey area somewhere between functioning liberal democracies and outright dictatorships.
-
mazsa
OPINION ON [...] THE NEW CONSTITUTION OF HUNGARY, EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION):
“[...] IV. The process of the adoption of a new Constitution
14. At the date of the visit of its delegation, the text of the draft Constitution had not yet been
released. The Commission was informed that the draft was being finalised and it was
envisaged to present it very soon to the majority’s parliamentary group (FIDESZ) and to
subsequently submit it to Parliament (by 15 March 2011). The adoption of the Constitution
was foreseen for 18 April 2011. – 5 – CDL-AD(2011)00115. The Venice Commission notes that, while initially associated to this process in the
framework of the Ad-hoc Committee for Drafting the Constitution, the opposition forces were
for several months not participating in the elaboration of the draft and that there was no longer
a dialogue between the majority and the opposition in this regard. It understands that the
opposition’s decision to withdraw from the process was in particular linked to the limitation of
the powers of the Constitutional Court with regard to the constitutionality of Acts and Bills on
state budget and taxes, adopted by the Hungarian parliament in November 2010.16. Moreover, concerns have been raised within the civil society over the lack of transparency
of the process and the inadequate consultation of the Hungarian society on the main
constitutional challenges to be addressed in this context. Since the draft was only submitted to
the Parliament on 14 March 2011, only limited public debate could take place on the changes
and novelties that the future Constitution might introduce.17. The tight schedule established for its adoption is also a serious source of concern and has
been raised by most of the interlocutors of the Commission.18. The Commission would like to recall that transparency, openness and inclusiveness,
adequate timeframe and conditions allowing pluralism of views and proper debate of
controversial issues, are key requirements of a democratic Constitution-making process.19. In its opinion, a wide and substantive debate involving the various political forces, nongovernment organisations and citizens associations, the academia and the media is an
important prerequisite for adopting a sustainable text, acceptable for the whole of the society
and in line with democratic standards. Too rigid time constraints should be avoided and the
calendar of the adoption of the new Constitution should follow the progress made in its debate. [...]” http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD(2011)001-e.pdf -
mazsa
[Video:] Demonstration for saving Tűzraktér in Budapest
in English: http://tuzrakter.hu/eng.html
-
mazsa
“THE BASIC LAW OF HUNGARY (draft): GOD, BLESS HUNGARIANS! National Credo: [...]“:
http://www.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/BRNEDA224_004970.pdf
http://www.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/CONSTITUTION_in_English__DRAFT.pdf
-
mazsa
“Hundreds of people were reportedly paid to watch and applaud Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s speech on the March 15 national holiday. Several youngsters told reporters that an undisclosed company would give them and 500 others between Ft 1,500-2,000 following the event – which was held at he National Museum – for listening to the PM’s speech. Some said their duty was only to stand and watch, while others said they were asked to clap. The press chief of the PM’s office said the sight of people standing on the steps of the museum was part of the program.” http://www.politics.hu/20110316/orbans-march-15-speech-worth-every-forint-at-least-for-the-people-paid-to-listen-to-it
-
admin
-
admin
Zsolt Kárász and if th epeople (zemberek:) believe in government and in its promises (aaand there are lot of promises, much more than believable btw) without any real evidence – why should anybody expect anything?
-
-
-
mazsa
European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2011 on media law in Hungary
[Press release: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/pressroom/content/20110310IPR15259/html/Hungarian-media-needs-to-be-changed-further-says-European-Parliament ]
[Original:]
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0094
Media law in Hungary
European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2011 on media law in HungaryThe European Parliament,
– having regard to Articles 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Articles 49, 56, 114, 167 and 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) relating to respect for and the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression and information and the right to media pluralism,
– having regard to Directive 2010/13/EU of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive – AVMSD),
– having regard to the European Charter on Freedom of the Press of 25 May 2009, to the Commission’s working document on media pluralism in EU Member States (SEC(2007)0032), to the ‘three-step approach to media pluralism’ defined by the Commission, and to the independent study carried out on behalf of the Commission and finalised in 2009,
– having regard to its resolutions of 22 April 2004 on the risks of violation in the European Union and particularly in Italy of freedom of expression and information [OJ C 104 E, 30.4.2004, p. 1026.], of 25 September 2008 on concentration and pluralism in the media in the European Union [Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0459.], and of 7 September 2010 on journalism and new media – creating a public sphere in Europe,
– having regard to the statements by the Commission, to the parliamentary questions tabled and debates held in the European Parliament on 8 October 2009, regarding freedom of information in Italy, and on 8 September 2010, and to the discussions held in the joint meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee) and the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT Committee) on 17 January 2011 regarding the Hungarian media law,
– having regard to the decision by the LIBE Committee to request the Fundamental Rights Agency to issue an annual comparative report on the situation with regard to media freedom, pluralism and independent governance in the EU Member States, including indicators,
– having regard to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, in particular Articles 5(2), 7, and 11 thereof,
– having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,A. whereas the European Union is founded on the values of democracy and the rule of law, as stipulated in Article 2 TEU, and consequently guarantees and promotes freedom of expression and of information, as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in Article 10 of the ECHR, and recognises the legal value of the rights, freedoms and principles as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which it has also demonstrated by acceding to the ECHR, for which media freedom and pluralism are essential prerequisites, and whereas these rights include freedom to express opinions and freedom to receive and communicate information without control, interference or pressure from public authorities,
B. whereas media pluralism and freedom continue to be matters of grave concern in the EU and its Member States, notably in Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic and Estonia, as highlighted by the recent criticism of the media law and constitutional changes enacted in Hungary between June and December 2010 which has been voiced by international organisations, such as the OSCE and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, by a large number of international and national journalists’ organisations, by editors and publishers, by NGOs active in the areas of human rights and civil liberties, and by Member States and the Commission,
C. whereas the Commission raised concerns and requested information from the Hungarian Government regarding the conformity of the Hungarian media law with the AVMSD and the acquis communautaire in general, notably in relation to the obligation to offer balanced coverage applicable to all audiovisual media service providers, and also questioned whether that law complied with the principle of proportionality and respected the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the country-of-origin principle and registration requirements, and whereas the Hungarian Government responded by providing further information and by commencing the process of amending the law to address the points raised by the Commission,
D. whereas the OSCE expressed serious reservations regarding the scope of the Hungarian laws (material and territorial scope), freedom of expression and the regulation of content, the appointment of one person to act as the national media and telecommunications authority, and compliance with the principles governing public-service broadcasting [Analysis and assessment of a package of Hungarian legislation and draft legislation on media and telecommunications, prepared by Dr Karol Jakubowicz for the OSCE.], indicating that the new legislation undermined media pluralism, abolished the political and financial independence of the public-service media and cemented the negative features for the free media in the long term, and that the Media Authority and Media Council were politically homogeneous [Letter of 14 January 2010 from the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media to the Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.] and exerted pervasive and centralised governmental and political control over all media; whereas further concerns included the disproportionate and extreme penalties imposed for debatable and undefined reasons, the lack of an automatic procedure for suspending penalties in the event of an appeal to the courts against a Media Authority ruling, the violation of the principle of the confidentiality of journalistic sources and the protection of family values,
E. sharing the serious reservations expressed by the OSCE in relation to the politically homogeneous composition of the Media Authority and Media Council, the timeframe, the exertion of a pervasive and centralised governmental, judicial and political control over all media, the fact that the most problematic features of the legislation contravene OSCE and international standards on freedom of expression, for example by doing away with the political and financial independence of public-service media, the scope of the regulation (material and territorial), and the decision not to define key terms, making it impossible for journalists to know when they may be breaking the law,
F. whereas the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights called on the Hungarian authorities, when reviewing the media law, to take account of Council of Europe standards on freedom of expression and media pluralism, the relevant recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and, in particular, the binding standards set out in the ECHR and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights; whereas he referred to the use of unclear definitions which are open to misinterpretation, the establishment of politically unbalanced regulatory machinery with disproportionate powers which is not subject to full judicial supervision, threats to the independence of public-service broadcast media, and erosion of the protection of journalists’ sources; whereas he also stressed the need for all relevant stakeholders, including opposition parties and civil society, to be able to participate in a meaningful manner in the review of this legislation, which regulates such a fundamental aspect of the functioning of a democratic society [ http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/News/2011/110201Hungary_en.asp ],
G. whereas, in a second opinion issued on 25 February 2011, the Commissioner for Human Rights recommends a ‘wholesale review’ of the Hungarian media law package, with the objectives, inter alia, of reinstating precise legislation promoting a pluralistic and independent media, and strengthening the guarantees that media regulatory mechanisms will be immune from political influence [ https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1751289 ]; whereas he further states that the media in Hungary must be able to perform their role as watchdog in a pluralistic democratic society and that in order to achieve this, Hungary should abide by its commitments as a member state of the Council of Europe and make the most of that organisation’s expertise in the fields of freedom of expression and media independence and pluralism,
H. whereas the Hungarian media law should consequently be suspended as a matter of urgency and reviewed on the basis of the Commission’s, OSCE’s and Council of Europe’s comments and proposals, in order to ensure that it is fully in conformity with EU law and European values and standards on media freedom, pluralism and independent media governance,
I. whereas, despite repeated calls by Parliament for a directive on media freedom, pluralism and independent governance, the Commission has up to now delayed this proposal, which has become increasingly necessary and urgent,
J. whereas the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership, as established in June 1993 at the Copenhagen European Council, relating to freedom of the press and freedom of expression should be upheld by all EU Member States and enforced through relevant EU legislation,
K. whereas, in paragraphs 45 and 46 of its judgment in joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P, the Court of Justice has held that access to information enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system and that it ‘is a precondition for the effective exercise of citizens’ democratic rights’,1. Calls on the Hungarian authorities to restore the independence of media governance and halt state interference with freedom of expression and ‘balanced coverage’, and believes that over-regulation of the media is counterproductive, jeopardising effective pluralism in the public sphere;
2. Welcomes the Commission’s cooperation with the Hungarian authorities to bring Hungarian media law into conformity with EU Treaties and law, and the commencement of the amending process at national level;
3. Deplores the Commission’s decision to target only three points in connection with the implementation of the acquis communautaire by Hungary and the lack of any reference to Article 30 of the AVMSD, which has the effect of limiting the Commission’s own competence to scrutinise Hungary’s compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights when implementing EU law; urges the Commission to examine Hungary’s compliance with the liability arrangements laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce and Hungary’s transposition of the EU framework decisions on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (2008/913/JHA) and on combating terrorism (2008/919/JHA), which include references to freedom of expression and circumventions of the rules on media freedom;
4. Calls on the Commission to continue the close monitoring and assessment of the conformity of Hungarian media law as amended in accordance with European legislation, particularly with the Charter on Fundamental Rights;
5. Calls on the Hungarian authorities to involve all stakeholders in the revision of the media law and of the Constitution, which is the basis for a democratic society founded on the rule of law, with appropriate checks and balances to safeguard the fundamental rights of the minority against the risk of the tyranny of the majority;
6. Calls on the Commission to act, on the basis of Article 265 TFEU, by proposing a legislative initiative pursuant to Article 225 TFEU on media freedom, pluralism and independent governance before the end of the year, thereby overcoming the inadequacies of the EU’s legislative framework on the media, making use of its competences in the fields of the internal market, audiovisual policy, competition, telecommunications, State subsidies, the public-service obligation and the fundamental rights of every person resident on EU territory, with a view to defining at least the minimum essential standards that all Member States must meet and respect in national legislation in order to ensure, guarantee and promote freedom of information and an adequate level of media pluralism and independent media governance;
7. Calls on the Hungarian authorities to review the media law further on the basis of the comments and proposals made by the European Parliament, the Commission, the OSCE and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the case law of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights and, in the event that it is found to be incompatible with the letter or spirit of the Treaties or EU law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the ECHR, to repeal and not to apply the law or those elements thereof that are found to be incompatible;
8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Council of Europe, the governments and parliaments of Member States, the Fundamental Rights Agency, the OSCE and the Council of Europe.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=EN&type=TA&reference=20110310&secondRef=TOC
-
mazsa
Censorship law, Hungary: Letter to Neelie Kroes, European Digital Agenda Commissioner
The HCLU [Hungarian Civil Liberties Union] wrote a letter to Neelie Kroes to express our grave concern about the amendment proposed to the Hungarian Press and Media Act and the Media Services and Mass Media Act by the Hungarian government which it has been said is supported by Commissioner Kroes.
The HCLU’s position is that Hungarian media laws constitute violations of European Directives in many details as well as that of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore some points of the proposed amendments are even more restrictive on freedom of the press than the earlier versions. http://tasz.hu/en/freedom-of-speech/letter-neelie-kroes-european-digital-agenda-commissioner
Letter to Neelie Kroes download: http://tasz.hu/files/tasz/imce/kroes_letter_0223.pdf
-
mazsa
European Parliament: joint motion for a resolution on censorship law in Hungary
The four parties (see below) have 358 votes (48% of the total 736 votes; 50%+1: 11 votes are missing).
Voting: tomorrow, 12-13h
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
14.2.2011pursuant to Rule 110(4) of the Rules of Procedure
replacing the motions by the following groups:
Verts/ALE (B7‑0103/2011)
ALDE (B7‑0104/2011)
GUE/NGL (B7‑0107/2011)
S&D (B7‑0112/2011)on media law in Hungary
[...]
European Parliament resolution on media law in Hungary
The European Parliament,
[...]
1. Calls on the Hungarian authorities to restore the independence of media governance and halt state interference with freedom of expression and balanced media coverage, and believes that over-regulation of the media is counterproductive, jeopardising effective pluralism in the public sphere;
2. Welcomes the Commission initiative to request clarifications on the Hungarian media law and its conformity with EU Treaties and law and the announcement made by the Hungarian authorities in relation to their readiness to amend the law;
3. Deplores the Commission’s decision to target only three points in connection with the implementation of the acquis communautaire by Hungary and the lack of any reference to Article 30 of the AVMSD, which has the effect of limiting the Commission’s own competence to scrutinise Hungary’s compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights when implementing EU law; urges the Commission to examine Hungary’s compliance with the liability arrangements laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce and Hungary’s transposition of the EU framework decisions on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (2008/913/JHA) and on combating terrorism (2008/919/JHA), which include references to freedom of expression and circumventions of the rules on media freedom;
4. Calls on the Commission to proceed in a swift and timely manner with its thorough examination of the issue of bringing the Hungarian media law into conformity with European legislation, particularly the Charter on Fundamental Rights, to set a tight deadline for the Hungarian authorities to change the law, and should the deadline not be met, initiate infringement proceedings;
5. Calls on the Hungarian authorities to involve all stakeholders in the revision of the media law and of the Constitution, which is the basis for a democratic society founded on the rule of law, with appropriate checks and balances to safeguard the fundamental rights of the minority against the risk of the tyranny of the majority;
6. Calls on the Commission to act, on the basis of Article 265 TFEU, by proposing a legislative initiative pursuant to Article 225 TFEU on media freedom, pluralism and independent governance before the end of the year, thereby overcoming the inadequacies of the EU’s legislative framework on the media, making use of its competences in the fields of the internal market, audiovisual policy, competition, telecommunications, State subsidies, the public-service obligation and the fundamental rights of every person resident on EU territory, with a view to defining at least the minimum essential standards that all Member States must meet and respect in national legislation in order to ensure, guarantee and promote freedom of information and an adequate level of media pluralism and independent media governance;
7. Calls on the Hungarian authorities, in the event that the media law is found to be incompatible with the letter or spirit of the Treaties or EU law, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to repeal and not to apply the law or those elements thereof that are found to be incompatible, in accordance with the comments and proposals made by the European Parliament, the Commission, the OSCE and the Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights, the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the case-law of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights;
8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Council of Europe, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Fundamental Rights Agency, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P7-RC-2011-0103&language=EN
-
mazsa
IMF: Hungarian strategy risky – without nationalized private pension assets 2011 budget gap would be huge
Summary: http://www.portfolio.hu/en/cikkek.tdp?k=2&i=21690
Original: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2011/cr1135.pdf
-
mazsa
Guardian: Orban was threatening the EU “Orbán made clear he would cause maximum embarrassment if Brussels insisted on meddling in his domestic policies. “If you mix up the two, obviously I am ready to fight … It won’t just be detrimental or damaging to Hungary alone but … to the EU as a whole,” he said in Strasbourg. It was an extraordinary statement: in effect, the EU’s standard-bearer was threatening the EU. [...]
The impact of Orbán’s behaviour on EU influence in the world is another worrying issue. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, has warned Europe’s collective authority in dealing with abusive regimes could be undermined. If Hungary’s flouting of EU standards goes unpunished, other EU states with questionable human rights and civil liberties practices may feel encouraged to persist. And what is EU candidate Turkey, often accused of curtailing media freedoms, to make of it all? [...]
The controversy has sparked an overdue discussion about maintaining common standards, Dennison said. “Until recently EU governments and the Commission have found it inappropriate to discuss domestic affairs at a European level, and certainly not in public … Instead they operate a gentlemen’s club …” she said in an ECFR analysis. But now, outrage over Orbán’s antics suggested “the long-standing civil society message [is] finally being heard: that breaches of the EU’s fundamental values, even in only one member state, are still a source of collective shame.” ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/20/hungary-eu-media-law
-
mazsa
Thank you Mr. Ambassador!
“Statement by Ambassador Kelly on Media Freedom in Hungary
United States Mission to the OSCE
As delivered by Ambassador Ian Kelly
to the Permanent Council, Vienna
January 20, 2011Statement on Media Freedom in Hungary
The United States wishes to register its concern over the new media law in Hungary. As a close ally and friend, we call on Hungary to uphold media freedom at home and throughout the region given its participation in the OSCE and as current President of the European Union. The passage of the new media law has raised significant international concern about the future of freedom of expression in Hungary. We note the visit to Budapest earlier this week of OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatovic and the concerns she previously outlined regarding media pluralism and possible risks to the financial, political, and editorial independence of media outlets under this new law. The United States cares deeply about freedom of expression, including press freedom, as a right that is central to democracy.
We therefore urge Hungarian officials to consider the concerns raised about the law, including those cited by Ms. Mijatovic, and ensure that freedom of expression, including media freedom, is fully respected in Hungary – a country long recognized as a leader in the fight against totalitarianism.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.”
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2011/January/20110120145809su2.721369e-02.html
[Via Karli Gyula Sámuel]
-
mazsa
Censorship law, European Union (Hungary): quotations & comments
Almost full text of
- the “Act on [...] the fundamental rules on media content” http://www.kim.gov.hu/misc/letoltheto/act_civ_media_content.pdf and
- the “Act on media services and mass media” http://www.kim.gov.hu/misc/letoltheto/media_law_04012011.pdf
Quotations:
Act on the freedom of the press (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak ) and the fundamental rules on media content:
“TITLE I DEFINITION OF TERMS
Article 1 [...] 6. Printed press materials: Individual issues of daily newspapers and other periodicals as well as on-line newspapers and news portals provided as a service for profit, for the content of which a natural or legal person or a business association without legal personality bears editorial responsibility, the primary objective of which is to distribute textual or image contents to the public for information, entertainment or training purposes in a printed form or via an electronic communications network.” -i.e., blogs with ads are “printed press materials”.
“TITLE II SCOPE OF THE ACT
Article 2 (1) This Act shall apply to media services and printed press materials provided by a media content provider established in the Republic of Hungary.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a media content provider shall be deemed as established in the Republic of Hungary when it meets the following criteria: [...]
c) when either the central seat of executive management or the place where editorial decisions are made is located in the territory of the Republic of Hungary, with the majority of the media content provider’s staff being employed in the territory of the Republic of Hungary”“Article 3 [...] (4) In case of violation of this Act, the Media Council of the National Media and Infocommunications Authority may proceed and apply sanctions in accordance with the provisions of the Media Act on official proceedings.” –
Only Fidesz nominees were elected to the Media Council, meaning that no places were left for the opposition or the Fidesz alliance (KDNP) party.
“TITLE III FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Article 4 [...] (3) The exercise of the freedom of the press may not [...] violate public morals [...].” -i.e., sensibility of churches and of the majority.
“Article 5 (1) The Act may set official registration as a precondition for [...] the publication of printed press materials.” -
e.g. blogs, see the definition above
“Article 6 – (3) In exceptionally justified cases, courts or authorities may – in the interest of protecting national security and public order or uncovering or preventing criminal acts – require the media service provider and any person employed by or engaged, in any other legal relationship intended for the performance of work, with the media content provider to reveal the identity of the informant.”
“TITLE VI OBLIGATIONS OF THE PRESS
Article 13 (1) All media content providers shall provide authentic, rapid and accurate information on local, national and EU affairs and on any event that bears relevance to the citizens of the Republic of Hungary and members of the Hungarian nation.
(2) Linear and on-demand media content providers engaged in news coverage operations shall provide comprehensive, factual, up-to-date, objective and balanced coverage on local, national and European issues that may be of interest for the general public and on any event bearing relevance to the citizens of the Republic of Hungary and members of the Hungarian nation.”“Article 16
The media content provider shall respect the constitutional order of the Republic of Hungary [...].” -the ruling Fidesz party, based on its supermajority in Parliament, have radically limited the scope of constitutional supervision in the country, effectively suspending what was a constitutional democratic republic
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ac8db2a-f1af-11df-bb5a-00144feab49a.html , and de facto pushing national-corporatist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism values on us. Actually, they are creating a new constitution for Hungary, alone, based on de jure these values as well.Should we respect a national-corporatist order, be it however constitutional?
“Article 17 [...] (2) The media content may not offend [...] against – whether expressedly or by implication – [...] any majority as well as any church or religious groups.” – no comment.
Act on media services and mass media:
[No comment]:
“General Provisions
Article 41 [...] (4) The Authority shall keep an administrative register of [...]
i) online media products and news portals.”“Article 187
(1) In case of repeated infringement, the Media Council and the Agency shall have the right to impose a fine on the senior officer of the infringing entity in an amount not exceeding HUF 2,000,000 [EUR 7,000], in line with the gravity, nature of the infringement and the circumstances of the particular case. [...]Cf. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=GDP/capita+Hugary+/+GDP/capita+UK
(3) The Media Council and the Agency [...] shall have the right to impose the following legal consequences: [...]
b) it may impose a fine on the infringer in line with the following limits:
ba) in case of infringement by a JBE media service provider and the media service provider under the regulations on the limitation of media market concentration, the fine shall be of an amount not exceeding HUF 200,000,000 [more than EUR 700,000]; [...]
bc) in case of a newspaper of nationwide distribution, the fine shall be of an amount not exceeding HUF 25,000,000 [EUR 90,000]; [...]
bf) in case of an online media product, the fine shall be of an amount not exceeding HUF 25,000,000 [EUR 90,000];
bg) in case of a broadcaster, the fine shall be an amount not exceeding HUF 5,000,000;
bh) in case of an intermediary service provider, the fine shall be of an amount not exceeding HUF 3,000,000 [...]
d) it may suspend the exercise of the media service provision right for a specific period of time”“Responsibility of the broadcasters and intermediary service providers for the broadcasting of media services and media products
Article 188
(1) The broadcaster and the intermediary service provider shall be responsible for the broadcasting of media services and media products in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2)-(4) and Article 189.
(2) The broadcaster may be obliged to suspend or terminate the broadcasting of media services in accordance with Article 189.
(3) The intermediary service provider may be obliged to suspend the broadcasting of media services and online media products in accordance with Article 189.
(4) The broadcaster shall not be responsible for the content of the programme of the media service provider resident in a state party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and European Convention on Transborder Television and in its supplementary Protocol signed in Strasbourg on 5 May 1989 and promulgated by Act 49 of 1998. The broadcaster, however, may be obliged to suspend the broadcasting of the media service under Article 189, taking into account of the provisions of Articles 176–180.Article 189
(1) When the Media Council resorts to the legal consequence against the media service provider [...] the broadcaster shall [...] terminate the broadcasting of the media service covered in the resolution as defined in the request.
(2) When [...] the [...] the media service provider fails to fulfil the terms of the final and executable resolution specifying also legal consequences at the request of the Media Council or the Agency, the broadcaster [...] shall suspend the broadcasting of the media service covered in the resolution as defined in the request. [...]
(4) When — in case of an online media product — [...] the publisher fails to fulfil the terms of the final and
executable resolution specifying also legal consequences at the request of the Media Council or the Agency, the broadcaster [...] shall suspend the broadcasting of the media product covered in the resolution as defined in the request. [...]
(6) When the broadcaster and/or the intermediary service provider fails to fulfil the provisions of the request defined in paragraph (1)–(4), the Media Council or the Agency shall institute ex officio administrative proceedings against the broadcaster or the intermediary service provider and shall have the right to apply the legal consequences defined in Article 187 (3) (bg) or (bh).”INTERPRETATION
Section 203 [...]
30. Intermediary service provider shall mean the service provider providing services in connection with the information society, which
a) is engaged in the transmission of the information supplied by the recipient of services through a telecommunications network or the provision access to the telecommunications network (mere conduit and network-access);
b) [...] (caching);
c) is engaged in the storage of the information supplied by the recipient of the service (hosting);
d) [...] (search services). [...]42. Media content shall mean any content offered in the course of media services and in media products. [...]
60. Media product shall mean individual issues of dailies or other periodical papers, internet newspapers or news portals, which are offered as a business service, for the contents of which a natural or legal person, or a business entity with no legal personality has editorial responsibility, and the primary purpose of which is to convey contents consisting of text or images to the general public with the aim of providing information, pleasure or education, in a printed format or through any electronic telecommunications network. [...]”
In Hungarian:
-
mazsa
PM Viktor Orban: “If the European Union says that Hungary’s new media law needs to be changed, the government will accept that and adhere to it. We are part of the EU, there are rules of the game.” http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE7050DR20110106
-
mazsa
Rightwing populist Viktor Orban is the last person in Europe suited to hosting the EU rotating presidency [...] Hungary, now effectively under one-party rule, can be populist, isolationist and poor, or it can seek foreign investment. But it cannot do both. [...] Criticism from Europe may not frighten the prime minister, but the spotlight is now on his whole country.
The Guardian, Editorial -
mazsa
Websites Black-out as Drastic Internet Censorship is Introduced in Hungary
Will the upcoming Hungarian Presidency of the EU attack the Net?
A new media law in Hungary creates a powerful censorship authority without oversight and excessive powers under control of the governing party, which endangers the freedom of speech, the Internet and journalism as a whole. Citizens are called to black-out the Internet from the 5th January – when Hungary is taking over the EU presidency on the 6th January 2011.
Budapest, January 2nd 2011 – The new Hungarian media law entered into force on January the 1st 2011. This law enables the ruling party to gain control of the Internet through the creation of a powerful censorship authority. While destroying journalistic source protection the text also fails to distinguish between different types of media, mixing online platforms and traditional broadcasters and making them obey the same standards. The Hungarian ruling party deliberately avoided public consultation on the new media law. It is plain to see their will to control and censor the Internet while bypassing democracy and suppressing dissent, opposition and transparency.
Concerned citizens’ opinion is confirmed by the joint analysis of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, the Eötvös Károly Institute and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, who observe that
“…the Bill will enact a compulsory registration system for all content providers. The maximum amount of fines for national television broadcaster is set to 200 million HUF [around 800 000 euro], and to 25 million HUF [around 100 000 euro] for national printed and online newspapers (including blogs with advertisements). The media authority will have the power to suspend or even shut down Internet websites that does not meet the requirements. The Bill will establish legal responsibility beyond the press for intermediary providers. This shift would be in sharp contrast with EU regulation. According to the original plans, decisions of the authority may be subject to judicial review, but submitting a motion to the court would not have any suspending effect as far as the execution of sentences is concerned.”
Hungary will take over the EU presidency on the 6th of January, while various Member States are attempting to impose Internet censorship, amongst widespread local and international protest about the new media legislation. As the “Child Protection” EU directive will attempt to sneakily impose censorship of the Net, it is now very likely that the Hungarian Presidency will participate in the global EU effort of censoring the Internet.
“All citizens, in Hungary and beyond, should react to this blatant attack against the Internet! When the Hungarian government opens the box of Net censorship, after the French and the Italian ones, it’s all of EU should be afraid. We must warn EU citizens and reject any scheme of Internet censorship altogether!” conludes Vince Kovács, spokesperson of blackout4hungary.
Citizens of Blackout4Hungary call on everyone on the Hungarian Internet and beyond, to oppose Internet censorship by displaying an image, or turning their whole website black (examples and images are available on blackout4hungary.net) from January the 5th.
About blackout4hungary
blackout4hungary is a group of concerned internet citizens with strong ties to Hungary and Freedom.
Contact and Press
Vince Kovács info@blackout4hungary.net
@blackout4hu -
mazsa
Front page of Népszabadság: The freedom of the press in Hungary comes to an end
Titelseite der Népszabadság: In Ungarn wurde die Pressefreiheit aufgehoben
-
mazsa
Blackout for Hungary
“We ask everyone concerned about fundamental rights and free speech to black out its online presence on the 5th January 2011 for 24 hours. To show your outrage and solidarity with the Hungarian media please include this HTML snippet into your site, this will automatically add similar black splashscreen as seen on this site [...]“: http://www.blackout4hungary.net/en/
-
mazsa
working on “Hungarian Citizens for European Referendum on Europen Bill of Rights” http://pad.telecomix.org/mitpadus
-
mazsa
Censoring Ice-T: The first attack by the Hungarian censorship authority
“The Hungarian equivalent of FCC established that the Budapest based community radio Tilos endangered the mental, emotional and sexual development of Hungarian children under 16 by airing ICE-T’s It’s On before 9pm. The regulatory body asserts that children understood the lyrics, the ghetto-slang, and were directly influenced by them, and therefore objectify women and glorify violence.” Balázs Bodó
Original: http://hirek.tilos.hu/?p=1745 [in Hungarian]
admin is discussing. 
Peter Földiák Is this really true?
7 órája · Tetszik
reportedly. this is the orignal report (in Hungarian): http://www.origo.hu/itthon/20110315-penzert-szerveztek-kozonseget-a-marcius-15ei-unnepsegre.html
kb. egy órája · Tetszik
Peter Földiák OK, but how believable is it. Is there some real evidence for it? (I keep disbelieving stuff, but often the unbelievable turns out to be true)
kb. egy órája · Tetszik
how would real evidence look like?
pár másodperce · Tetszik
Peter Földiák I have just watched the video. And they seem to have admitted it anyway.
kb. egy órája ·