What's really up in Hungary?

Kumin szidja a Tumblr-t, meg minden normálisan gondolkodó embert.

Readers of this blog are familiar with my frequent responses to biased or factually incorrect coverage of Hungary in the international press. It’s my duty to push back, especially when the reporting is particularly flimsy or one-sided.

But coverage has been improving. There’s a lot more information out there about the changes now underway in Hungary and with more information, we’re seeing better, more thoughtful coverage. It takes time, though. However off-base the mainstream coverage of a particular topic may be, once the story is established it tends to suck all the oxygen out of the room and other facts, stubborn but less popular, struggle for air.

It also takes good reporting. It means the correspondent has to be ready to seek out a number of sources and perhaps stand athwart the rest of the journalistic herd to take a different look at the topic. Let me show you what I mean.

Homelessness. It’s been one of the most frequent tag lines in international coverage of Hungary over the last few months. The vast majority followed the story line about the so-called ‘criminalization’ of the homeless in Hungary.

But The Economist, almost alone among the mainstream media, had a different take on the topic. In “How to Help the Homeless,” The Economist’s correspondent, Adam LeBor, took a step back from the other coverage of the subject, to have look at how “the government,” as the subtitle says, “is grappling with a very visible problem.”

Contrary to nearly every other article we’ve seen, The Economist’s piece leads with a paragraph about the very real public health and security concerns that are a part of this difficult issue. Yes, it concerns human rights and the problem of poverty, but it’s also about “public order, security, health and cultural values”.

Homelessness in Hungary has been swept under the carpet for years. But it has only recently become a topic of international conversation since the government introduced measures to outlaw “habitual living” in certain areas of cities (areas, according to the law, which are to be determined by the municipal councils). On one hand, the measure is not any harsher on the homeless than the widespread practice of banning urban camping in certain European and US cities, but importantly, it also opens a debate about the quantity and quality of shelters for homeless to spend the night and social programs for reintegration into society. On that subject, here’s a list.

As I have noted before, I am glad to see the discussion on homelessness finally shifting to a debate about the effectiveness of these programs, finally if slowly acknowledging the fact that bans on habitual living in certain public spaces are common to many cities. That’s a much smarter debate, one worth having.

Putting an emphasis on the "visibility" of homelessness, as a "problem to be solved" is exactly what is mostly wrong about everything the Hungarian government does. Their bottom line is that the main concern with the homeless in Budapest is that they are "disturbing" commuting civilians - aka. the majority - with their poverty.

This of course has to stop! We have to hide poverty under the big red carpet we made to greet foreign delegations and visitors, so they can die sooner, and without a disturbing sound there!

Here’s a real gem from last week’s press haul. Check out The Daily Mail’s “Hungary is anti-semitic and vile to the Roma. Don’t dare lecture us, Mr Commissioner.”

The Mail’s columnist, Michael Burleigh, was reacting to comments made by the Hungarian member of the European Commission, László Andor, who said that Britain risks becoming the “nasty country of Europe” amidst the ongoing discussion about limiting free movement from EU members states in eastern Europe to the UK.

It seems that Andor, who is commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion and was appointed to the Commission in the final months of the previous, Socialist-led government, touched a nerve with his comments. The Mail’s Burleigh really went off on Andor, letting loose with a 1,200-word screed about Jobbik, Roma, anti-Semitism and whatever other negative point he could think up about Hungary. Here’s a choice bit:

“[Andor] comes from a country with an increasingly undemocratic government — a country that really does have a record for nasty behaviour when it comes to racism and migrants. Hungary’s economy is in constant crisis, and its authoritarian Right-wing government, under the leadership of Viktor Orban, competes for votes with a hugely popular neo-Nazi party that is as malign as Britain’s BNP.”

The sensationalism and flimsy reporting aside, what does any of this have to do with Andor’s comments? Don’t ask me. Andor, as a member of the Commission doesn’t speak on behalf of Hungary, of course. As a commissioner, he speaks, well, as an EU commissioner and is prohibited from representing his own country. For example, when Commissioner Reding lectures Hungary, she does not represent Luxembourg but the Commission.

Never mind. Maybe he got wound up by British MP from the Labor Party, John Mann, who really went haywire over Andor’s words, calling for the commissioner’s resignation. Mann released a statement identifying Andor as a member of the far-right party Jobbik and managed to misspell both the commissioner’s and the party’s name. Here’s is Huffington Post’s summary. In fact, Andor is close to the Hungarian Socialist Party, Labor’s sister party, and sits on the party’s board of economic advisors. According to Mann’s press release:

“The level of their intent is exposed by the programmes teaching the Roma to speak English in order to encourage them to leave Hungary…Lazlo Ander [sic] should sort out his own back yard before criticising the UK, and should be sacked immediately as he is unfit for public office.”

Did you get that? Teaching the Roma to speak English is really a plot to encourage them to leave Hungary.

While others in London, like Home Secretary Theresa May or Tory MP Nick de Bois, responded correctly to Andor as a representative of the Commission, Mann and The Daily Mail attacked Andor’s nationality…and Hungary.

And as a correspondent for The Economist, Adam Lebor, pointed out in a tweet, just as The Daily Mail was slamming Hungary “as racist, quasi-dictatorship” it then “recommends Budapest as fab destination for holiday” in this piece.

Homelessness in Hungary is back in the news. Recently, the municipal government of Budapest approved a local ordinance that prohibits so-called “habitual living” in certain designated areas of the capital – mostly Budapest’s world heritage sites and parts of downtown.

Homelessness in Hungary is back in the news. Recently, the municipal government of Budapest approved a local ordinance that prohibits so-called “habitual living” in certain designated areas of the capital – mostly Budapest’s world heritage sites and parts of downtown.

A room at the LÉLEK (Soul) house, available for the LÉLEK reintegration program. Source:kormany.hu

I understand the controversy. Homelessness is a sensitive subject. But this legislation is not substantially different from those bans on ‘urban camping’ – or sleeping rough – that we find in dozens of other cities around the world. Nevertheless, the Hungarian legislation has become a choice target for civic organizations that claim that such prohibitions on habitual living on certain designated areas of the city are a cruel, inhuman action.

I’ve been through the argument a few times on this blog (see here and here), laying out why the government sees it differently. How is it inhuman or cruel to move homeless people off the streets, especially as winter approaches, and into shelters? Let us not even delve into the issues of health, security and public order.

Thankfully, the debate has shifted recently away from the legislation itself – can you prohibit people from sleeping on public property? – to the question of whether the national government and the local governments are doing enough to provide adequate shelter for the neediest. That’s a good debate to have.

“If needed, the Ministry of Interior is ready to double the number of places available for homeless people,” said Minister Sándor Pintér in a recent interview. “Currently there are ten thousand places ready to be used by those in need, but there will be no underpasses opened.” He added that in the coldest months of last year, approximately ten thousand people were in need of shelter.

Is the government doing enough? Let’s take a look at some numbers.

The number of places available at shelters in Hungary has increased by 35 percent, from 8,208 to 11,102. That’s the figure that Minister Pintér claims could be doubled if needed. In 2012, the government spent 8.5 billion HUF (approximately 28.6 million EUR) for services on the homeless and 9 billion HUF (30.3 million EUR) in 2013. In addition, the state gave 860 million HUF (2.9 million EUR) to civic organizations providing homeless care and services for accommodation, training and re-employment.

As part of Hungary’s development strategy, 917 million HUF (3 million EUR) was offered for tenders for housing and employment projects for homeless people.

Where does all this money go? Here are some examples: The ‘Heated Street Program’ increased the night shelter places available by 44 percent.  A new, high standard homeless shelter was built in the 13th district. The ‘Soul Program’ helps the homeless reintegrate into society by providing mental health services. The ‘Back from the Streets Program’ assists the reintegration of families affected by homelessness.

The policy of the previous Hungarian government – and the previous mayor of Budapest – seemed to be to ignore the homelessness problem in the name of human rights. They even closed a psychiatric hospital in Budapest, leaving many of the patients with nowhere to go but the streets. What kind of programs did they come up with to help and shelter the homeless rather than simply leave them to sleep on the streets?

Show me, and I’d be happy to see a debate about the effectiveness of those programs. Because that’s what we should be debating – what are the most effective programs to provide shelter and services to the homeless, one of modern society’s most difficult issues? It’s nonsense to suggest that a government – municipal or otherwise – is infringing upon some kind of sacred human right when it passes a law that says that a person – homeless or otherwise – does not have an absolute right to set up camp on public property.

Kumin claims, that the Orbán administration basically resolved the problem of homelessness in its entirety. Yet, independent statistics show, that for example, the number of people frozen in Hungary during winter continue to be disproportionate, signifying a large-scale disaster in handling basic social needs. There is not enough homeless-shelters, and the existing places are not offering a long-term, and secure solution to these people's problems. Oh, and of course unlike the "potemkin shelter" Kumin showed on his photo, most of them look more like this:

Living on the streets is 'deviant' and it is mostly connected with visible "uncivilized" behavior in the domestic public discourse. Even though we see government expenditures tentatively outlined here, these are mostly connected with activities that would help to turn the real estate crisis in this country virtually invisible. We have seen Western European city adminsitrations banning begging and urban camping in the tourist areas of a city (like in the case of Vienna a few years ago), yet no European example exists on what the Budapest Municipiality assembly just accepted.

THE LEGISLATION NOT ONLY BANS PUBLIC "HABITUAL LIVING" IN FREQUENTED AREAS, BUT LITERALLY BANS HOMELESS PEOPLE OUT OF ALL THE PUBLIC AREAS IN THE ENTIRE CAPITAL.

This situation occured because the bill itself has been amended by all the district councils of Budapest in a direction that mostly resembles the public administrative version of the "not in my backyard" doctrine, nobody wanted to free up space for the least powerful inhabitants, and therefore even all the sidewalks of the city are now forbidden for them. This means, that with this muncipial law, the capital penalized a whole social situation instead of certain activites. We have to note, that local Socialists district mayors and representatives were all cooperative with Fidesz in this regard, so this is by far not a partisan issue.

Even though we accept that the government has an integral strategy to handle the issue (this is of course not true, but let's assume), all of its efforts are in a general direction, that denies to acknowledge the problem of homelessness as connected to the overally real-estate crisis in the country. As in the case of heavy drug-addiction, their solution is to exclude all civil organizations that would raise these problems as connected to the crisis political and economic life.

As an example, one activist organization (The City is for All - AVM) suggested a general plan to fix the "right to residence" as a basic civil entitlement, and on the practical level to make availabel certain real estates to them, that would free up municipality-owned housing property space at their disposal (there is a lot of empty living space like that in the city). This is a solution favored for example, by the Paris administration, otherwise well-known for its conservative approach to social problems.

Human Rights Watch and Domestic Violence in Hungary

Last week, Human Rights Watch published a report on domestic violence issues in Hungary and that report has received some coverage, drawing attention to an important problem. But based on the report, some media channels published articles directing criticism at how the Hungarian system fails to address the problem. They don’t have all the facts.

Source:HRW.ORG

The report – as usual – is misinformed, misleading, and at times simply mistaken, as press releases from the police (available in Hungarian) and the Ministry of Human Resources (available here in English) have pointed out.

I’ve written on this blog about Human Rights Watch’s reports on Hungary several times before (see here, here, here, here and here) but to no avail. You see, the problem is that Human Rights Watch, at least its correspondent covering Hungary, are simply not interested in providing a full and balanced picture. Why do I say so? Because the author of the report essentially said so herself.

The Ministry of Human Resources spoke with Human Rights Watch about the report. When they confronted the correspondent with the incomplete information and factually incorrect data cited in the report, the HRW correspondent apparently responded something to the effect that Human Rights Watch did not attempt to provide a comprehensive view of the Hungarian legal environment, but, through some clear examples, to encourage the Government to introduce further measures.

Ah, I get it now. Human Rights Watch, at least its local correspondent, has an agenda with Hungary. If certain information or data don’t fit the narrative they want to tell, well, then those points don’t make it into the report.

If Hungary’s latest legal reforms detract from the story, then never mind. Keep driving the point to push that agenda. It seems Human Rights Watch is getting the facts wrong on purpose.

The Hungarian government and civic groups are on the same page about this issue. This is a serious problem and the plight of victims of domestic violence must be improved. The government, in fact, has done a lot since 2010, for example, making ‘domestic violence’ a potentially criminal offense.

Getting back to the topic, there is a reason, why HRW does not and probably will not present governmental sources as reliable. The Fidesz and the Christian Democratic People's Party are both notorious on making public statements also in the State Assembly, that not only don't condemn domestic violence, but - for just one example - claimed, that 'domestic violence cannot exist in a family environment' suggesting that this can only happen between unmarried couples, whom the new fundamental law declares inferior to married couples.

Furthermore, there were three cases in which Fidesz MP went farther than that concerning the issue, bordering the extreme right razor's edge.

1. in September 2012, István Varga, Fidesz rep. from Orosháza, Békés in a reflection to the issue of domestic violence, suggested that the lack of children a woman can 'produce' and the negligance of a woman's 'traditional role' as primarily a housewife are the main reason behind family violence. The comment provoked a serious outrage from female opposition MPs, feminist and liberal civil organizations organized a mass-demosntration at Kossuth tér, yet the Party protected Varga, going as far as rallying Fidesz's 'Women's Section' to protect him and his actions in a communiqué. No measures had been taken to amend this situation since then.

2. in May 2013, a public scandal erupted around the figure of Fidesz MP József Balogh, who caused severe injuries to his partner during a drunken rabble in a wedding party. After the case surfaced, Balogh defended himself with ridiculous excuses, and claimed, that his partner only fell through the family's 'blind comondor dog' in the dark, and he has nothing to do with the injuries. Of course, his lies has been confuted in a court case, and eventually the MP confessed his actions. His contestation before a public court lead to his exlusion from Fidesz, yet Balogh can still keep his seat in the Parliament as an 'independent' representative. In this case action has been taken, alas only several months after the case became self-evident for everyone.

3. in September 2013, a Hungarian state secretary (sort of a deputy minister), Zoltán Illés, responded to oppositionist LMP MP, Bernadett Szél with a sexist remark, on her call to condemn the Rosia Monatana actions. More precisely, he suggested to the female representative, that "the fact that you are pretty, does not mean that you are clever as well." Despite the outrage followed, Fidesz did nothing in response to the remarks. Illés was probably "too high target' to risk a shot.

My post late last week, ‘The ‘Magyar Garda’ Remains Illegal,’ met with a strong reaction on my Facebook page. Most of it was in Hungarian, which, unfortunately, excludes many of the international readers, but let’s just say that some of the feedback was quite critical – and colorful in language. Some of the criticism picked at details. For instance, I said it was the government that outlawed the organization when to be more precise I should have said that it was the parliament that approved an initiative submitted by the government to prohibit certain activities of these organizations. I take the point. But other criticism simply ignored the facts. So allow me to review some of those essential details.

Late last month, after a ten-year hiatus, the left-wing establishment in Hungary came together for what had become an annual tradition, the summer meeting at Balatonszárszó. Generally speaking, on this blog, I try to avoid political kibitzing, and I’ll try to steer clear of that in this post as well, but something about this year’s Balatonszárszó gathering deserves mention.

The gathering is well known among the chattering classes in Hungary as a distinctly partisan event. Featured among this year’s participants were the leading opposition figures, former Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai and Socialist Party President Attila Mesterházy. The two posed at the event mounted on BMX bikes, a play on the first initials of their last names – B for Bajnai, M for Mesterházy, X for the vote, I assume. That’s all perfectly fine, of course.

Paul Lendvai, Source: index.hu

But also present, rubbing elbows with the who’s who of today’s political opposition, were several prominent, public figures who appear frequently in the international media. Among others, Agnes Heller, professor of philosophy, Paul Lendvai, and the well-known Hungarian writer, György Konrád attended this year’s Balatonszárszó.  Personalities like these are often cited as sources on Hungary, authoritative and independent, and often without balance from the other side. Lendvai, for example, produces documentaries for the German-speaking media like this one that paints a horribly distorted picture of the country and appeared on Austrian state broadcaster ORF (it was later pulled from their website). Konrád, who is especially popular with the German media, reportedly even expressed openly his wish to see a particular opposition alliance. (His Wikipedia bio makes for interesting reading.)

Like-minded media were invited to the Szárszó event, which is to be expected for this kind of thing. But even they were critical. One of them, the very popular Gonzo-style index.hu was thrown out for posting an “inappropriate article” while at the happening (it’s in Hungarian but scroll down for the photos). Those who were allowed to stay for the whole event were not impressed either. The popular, relatively new 444.hu and liberal newsweekly Magyar Narancs pointed out that the meeting lacked any discussion of what the political opposition would do differently if they got elected.

Of course it’s perfectly fine to have a picnic with friends near the lake. Nothing wrong with that.

But seeing these personalities at this event, people like Konrád, who are quoted in the international media as some kind of independent sources on Hungary reinforces the point that we often make about why international media coverage of today’s Hungary is so woefully slanted. It’s because they’re using people like these as sources. Fine to talk to them, but don’t believe for a moment that the likes of Lendvai and Heller are apolitical, objective bystanders. Talk to Konrád about literature – he’s certainly an accomplished writer – but if the subject turns to Hungarian current affairs, know where he stands.

Is he and his colleagues so afraid of these few liberal, and who-knows-what-kind-of intellectuals, and opposition figures? Are they a real threat to power? Or is this just a last backside kick to a dying carnivore?

“I have no illusions regarding the vote tomorrow,” said Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in a debate yesterday in the European Parliament on the Tavares Report. “I know the Socialist, Liberal and Green MEPs will vote against Hungary and I know that Hungary’s friends will step up for Hungary.  I know my words can’t change that.” But the debate and vote on this report, said the prime minister, carry serious implications for the European Union itself.

Last month, the Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted a report about the Fourth Amendment to the Hungarian Fundamental Law. Known as the Tavares Report after Rui Tavares, the member of the European Parliament who drafted it, the report – which has always been political, as I wrote in a previous post – was adopted on a party-line vote of the committee, and then sent on to be debated before the plenary. That debate, which was quite lively, took place yesterday in Strasbourg before today’s vote.

 “The report being discussed here is a serious threat to Europe,” the prime minister said. “Not for Hungary. We are used to working against the wind. Your decision tomorrow represents a real threat to Europe’s future. The recommendation of the report violate the basic treaties of the EU because they attempt to establish an institution formerly not recognized by the treaties, an institution that would put one country of the European Union under monitoring and guardianship. This ignores the powers of the European Parliament, the functions distributed between the different EU institutions, and the legal balance between the member states and [the European] institutions.”

The Tavares Report, which may pass a vote of the parliament, attacks several changes the Hungarian government has carried out. What’s the problem with that? Two things: the content is political and, as the prime minister clearly stated, the procedure raises serious questions concerning violations of EU law.

On content, after the first draft of the Tavares document began circulating in early May, the Hungarian government issued a detailed position paper and then an array of MEPs – non-Hungarian and Hungarian – proposed more than 500 modifications to the draft. Most of these – even those that correct factual mistakes – were voted down by the left-wing majority of the committee.

But just as serious is the problem that, according to the EU’s own treaties, the European Parliament is not the body authorized to guard those treaties. That’s the European Commission’s job. And Hungary – as is entirely normal when a country undertakes so many legal changes during a period of reform – is engaged in an active and open discussion with the European Commission about new laws that may infringe upon EU laws. As a result of that back and forth, Hungary has even announced plans for a 5th Amendment to the Fundamental Law to tweak parts that have been criticized by the European Commission, a fact that Commission President José Manuel Barrosso himself pointed out yesterday when addressing the assembly.

Similarly, the Hungarian government requested an expert opinion from the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, while firmly opposing the Council’s Monitoring Committee. The reason for that is simple: the Hungarian government is open to fact-based, rational debates within the relevant international forums but does not accept politically motivated debates in international bodies on what are Hungary’s internal matters. In these incidents, we see the Monitoring Committee and the European Parliament being exploited for short-term political interests.

In case of the Tavares Report, it would establish a monitoring committee that is nowhere to be found in the EU’s basic treaties and give that committee power over a member state, Hungary. That would set a precedent that the government of any EU member would contest. All of this despite the fact that the Hungarian government is carrying out a fruitful discussion with the Commission, the EU institution that does have the authority under the treaties to oversee legislative harmonization.

Meanwhile, we can’t overlook the irony that all of this is taking place at a time when the European Union, even the euro itself, is threatened by one of the most serious financial crises that the Union has seen. Yet Hungary, as the prime minister pointed out, is one of the few that has managed to get its deficit under control and bring down its debt.

“Hungarians have struggled hard to get over the situation we were left with at the beginning of the crisis,” Prime Minister Orbán said during the debate. “The Hungarian economy was falling apart before the Greek economy was. We survived only on credit lines from the IMF and the EU. Today, there are only two countries that have been able to pull themselves out of the credit programs. One is Hungary. Now, we finance ourselves from the markets. We feel we have done our homework.”

While linking to a first draft of the report, Kumin again, failed to provide a link to the document's final version. Trying to argue about something that you leave for the reader to google for, is not very elegant, even if it is necessary to make fact-checking more difficult. So here it is, everyone is welcome to consult it.

In fact, the Portuguese MEP's report, while being generally well-informed, contains no novel accusations. The problems of the fourth amendment, it mentions the lack of democratic decision-making, transparency, mentions how the law will restrict multiple areas of civil rights and freedoms, and rendered the whole amendment contrary to generally accepted EU values (this might be the strongest statement of the whole document).

As we can see in the detailed (?) position paper issued by the government, they fail to address these conerns in detail, and try to create a reaction to what the report suggests as defensive measures against Hungary. These might be surprisingly rigid, not knowing that what is going on here is basic annihilation of checks and balances, and subsequently violating the right to education, restricting institutional autonomy on a regional and on a higher- and public education level, violating personal freedoms on the issue of centrally defining the notion of "family", violating religious freedom, and the right to equal treatment of all citizens before the law.

The amendment further accomplished to restrict the country's media law, and making precautions on the field of political advertising to make it very hard for the opposition to advertise during the campaign period.

The official answers to these grave accusations were insufficient: they either accused the report of violating "right to national self determination" (we do as we please in our country) or claiming that "rapid and funamental reforms in the state structure" required these many violations and they work toward the correction of it all in a "5th amendment".

While it is all clear, that the government was aware of the fact, that its ideas to banish all legal obstacles in its way- mostly taking advantage of a very weak domestic opposition - was well planned and worked out in advance as a script for their new semi-authoritarian party-state with a symbolic representation of other parties.

But they have been caught by the EU this time. This probably does not mean any immediate sanctions, maybe only a monitoring committee, but the side that should be the least surprised about this outcome is the Hungarian administration. Attempts to denigrate the EU as "an authoritarian power" tryin to "force stuff to our free nation" is extremely tacky in this context. Hungarians voted on joining the EU and subsequently on sustaining a political system that respects its basic values just as they vote on governments. 

The testimony of Paul A. Shapiro, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum | Hungarian Spectrum (via unitedpigeonsoflowermanhattan)

offering a little bit of a background to Prime Minister Orbán’s speech at the WJC Budapest Session last weekend