Wall Street Journal on EU: double standard for applying rules on Hungary

Remove all ads!

There are many reasons for that, one of them (at least in Eastern Europe) is socialism (pre-1989 era), which made them believe that they do not need to work, and they deserve support from the state "just because they are Roma". (Generally, on a side note, socialism made all people -- not just Roma -- believe that the state should look after the people, so whatever trouble they have, it's the state that should help. Yes, they got used to a very strong social security, so to say.)

Generally, the big problem is that they do not want to adapt to their environment, to the society where they live in. And no, adapting is not equal to losing culture. And this approach has been present for generations now: most of them teaches an image of enemy to their children, and many of them beats the child if the child doesn't bring home something stolen from the school.

Of course, it is the circle of devil, the trap of 22. People are indeed afraid to give them work, because of the many crimes they commit. And since they don't get a job, they are more inclined to commit crimes, due to the poverty. However, the common approach (especially of the former Hungarian socialist governments until 2010) that "they commit crimes because they live in poverty" is a totally wrong approach. Millions of examples prove in the world (and in Eastern Europe) that people can live honestly even when they are very poor, and they can teach their children properly. Of course, poverty is a factor when it's about committing crimes, but in the Roma case, it's not the only factor (they commit way too many crimes). The main factor is probably that they do not want to respect the majority nations at all (despite of the fact that their culture could be preserved in that way, too).

To sum up, I'm not an expert in the topic, but I think Socialism has to do with it, and that many governments solved the problem by aiding Roma with money, and they got used to it that they do not need to work.

School has an enormous role. If a teacher notices a talented Gypsy child, he/she should do everything to support the child (of course, this applies to all other children too). I know Gypsies who broke up with what their parents taught them, few of them even went to college. And I know honest Gypsies too, who are not educated at all, yet they work hard and are reliable. The problem is, people have negative experience with Gypsies in 99% of cases.

 

Er, no, not quite iirc. See, I've heard this tale before, closer to home. I'm not sure about all the details, but from what I understand under socialism everyone HAD to work. The state provided the workplace, but "not needing to work" was not an option - and iirc was criminal. A lot were working badly, the created workplaces were all but pointless and so on, but - at least here - most adult Roma had a job, and their children went to school. They literally had to. Communist states tended to have a very low tolerance for people who disregarded official policies. I doubt it was that different in Hungary.

Now, I'm not 101% how it worked in Hungary, I can tell you however how it works here: politicians want to buy votes. Ergo, they give some goodies to Roma during election years, try not to piss them off too badly the rest of the time, and nothing ever gets done. The whole EU angle, which makes most countries particularly sensitive to protests, doesn't help. Add in very high corruption levels on the aid schemes*, and yes, it doesn't work. However, I think that some government initiatives will be needed for better integration. Leaving it to chance doesn't strike me as the right answer.

*: Roma foundations are notorious, but in some ways, they have nothing on the Turkish-minority affiliated party and its schemes. Now that's a political mafia.

 

Actually, you may right, what I told is about Czechoslovakia (that is where I was born). In fact, about Hungary, a friend told me something similar as you did (that Gypsies needed to work too, as everyone). I was born some years before the end of the soviet era, so I don't know Gypsy-related situation of that time from my own experiences.

Nonetheless, it is possible then that the post-1990 era did that to them... The strong social security (e.g. getting money as an aid from the state when you are jobless), and all the other stuff.

The election issue (buying Roma votes) is familiar, it is present in Slovakia but in Hungary too. About the corruption and the rest of things, the situation was very bad in Hungary until Orbán came in 2010. Now, things are improving, due to the decreasing corruption and more clear structures and aiding systems.

 

So I have chosen to ignore parts of your post? Actually, I have summed up in a single sentence the essence of your 'points' in your last three or four posts.

Earlier in this thread, I referred to an ugly event where neo-nazi hoods laid siege to a village of gypsies, and which ended with the evacuation of the gypsies and not with the prosecution of the hoods. You answered to that with your first meandering rant about gypsies, and Slovakia, missing the point entirely that this is about a state, Hungary, tolerating vigilantism directed at gypsies, not whether gypsies are bad or not, or how bad they are, and in particular, it was not about Slovakia. Aah, why bother. To you it is, that suffices.

In essence you say that incidents in Hungary like that siege are irrelevant, because for one, 99% of all gypsies are bad (and so have it coming?), and then, that Slovaks treat their gypsies worse. While at it, you even manage to blame socialism along the way.

That means that I did get you right. You are saying that, since Slovakia treats their gypsies worse (to wit: they put them in de facto ghettos), Hungary tolerating vigilantes laying siege to them - with impunity for the siege party - is comparably better, and that thus everyone, who criticises Hungary for that, applies one of your omnipresent double standards - i.e. as long as there is a Slovakia all criticism of Hungary must be suspended, or at least, Slovakia must be mentioned, too. We're speaking of two turds, and one boasting his superiority over the other because it smells less. Remarkably, that's the sort of 'argument' that you make.

And naturally, the preposterous nature of that 'argument' doesn't bother you in the slightest. The icing on the cake is, just as naturally, that you're blissfully oblivious to all that and blame yours truly for ignoring your 'points'. Aah yes, that again.

 

You're a cheap liar, as in 99% of cases. E.g.:

I never stated that. I said that people have negative experience with gypsies in 99% of cases. Not the same.

No you didn't. You keep chewing my Slovakia point, and chose to ignore the Jaroka Livia one totally.

Every intelligent, educated person who reads my post with the statement of Livia Jaroka already sees the truth about the leftliberal hype. Just a simple question: if this Roma MEP (the only Roma MEP in entire Europe) lied about the situation, why the Roma people voted and vote for her? If you don't say she lies, then nothing else remains: you admit that she says the truth.

Yes, that is exactly what the leftliberals want Western Europe to believe, and you believe it like a small child.

The incident you refer to has been proved to be a provocation since then, sponsored by the American businessman Richard Field, as Budapest Times also wrote it. The Gypsies were told that they were being taken to an Easter vacation. Next time, learn before you write nonsense, Ragusa.

Moreover, as Livia Jaroka, the Gypsy MEP, also wrote:

But just keep believing lies, just like your funny fans who "thanked" you for your "worthy" post. After all, being stupid is not a crime, it's only a disadvantage.

 

Even if it's not technically the same, that is still an unfair stereotype by any measure. Where is your data sample from which you are drawing such conclusions? I have a feeling there is none and it all comes down to personal bias. While we're on the subject of personal biases, i've tried to remain relatively quiet on the debates you post about Hungary since I simply have no experience with politics in the region, but i'm detecting a certain narrative that makes me suspicious of your analysis:

And finally:

I wonder how much of the above quotes would be considered ideologically motivated attacks. Sorry, one more:

With all due respect, I think you are guilty of this more than anyone else in this debate.

 

Who would know more about it than you.

[Warning issued. -Tal]

 

Guys, seriously, chill. It's been a while since the last time things have been so personal.

 

I think it was "overdiscussed", my major argument closed it (statements of Lívia Jaróka, a Roma/Gypsy MEP elected by Romani people).

By the way, a little note to American (U.S.) readers here: due to the international leftliberal campaign against Orbán's government, it's possible that your tax will be used in this "crusade" against Orbán. Yes, the money of American taxpayers:

While I don't think this will happen, it is not a negligible thing either -- Mark Palmer and Charles Gati aren't nobody's: they have good relations with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and the American government.

The source of the below quote is the National Review. The first paragraph of the article:

 

Baronius, this is the kind of thing I was trying to point out in my previous post. I find it extremely hard to believe that all the criticisms of Orban and his government are simply ideologically motivated. Ragusa has brought up some good points about the undemocratic changes made by Orban, and any outside spectator, "leftliberal" or not, would conclude that undemocratic changes are a bad thing. The difference between accountability and no accountability isn't an ideological issue, it's an issue of the protection of basic human rights and freedoms. It doesn't need to be said that a lack of oversight and accountability in government institutions is undesirable and opens the doors for abuses of power. I'm not saying that all criticisms of Hungary are justified, but categorically dismissing them as all ideologically motivated is intellectually dishonest, IMHO.

 

"Undemocratic" is a rubber word, something very general and thus subjective.
Accountability is a more concrete criticism, yes. It is ensured in Hungary. As far as the restriction of the Constitutional Court in tax cases is concerned, it's not a question of freedom rights or fundamental rights; it's a financial matter, which is supported by arguments as well, not just counter-arguments.

You seem to be (left)liberal, because you quoted a part of my post in an unusual interpretation. Honestly, which American would think it correct that his or her tax is used for putting pressure on a country such as Hungary based on supposed "undemocratic" changes?

And as I said, "undemocratic" is a rubber word, and should only be examined inside the traditions of the given country as well. The world and EU isn't constantly complaining and crying about certain U.S. laws or about Guantanamo. Noone is complaining that USA is having "undemocratic elements".

Basically, in terms of Eastern Europe, "undemocratic" has always been a rubber word which certain people and powers use when their interests demand so. Fortunately, recently, Poland and Czech Republic indicated their support for Hungary. So if the Western part of the EU want to put such unacceptable pressure on Hungary, they will have to face an ally of countries.

 

How exactly is accountability ensured in Hungary when the court is restricted from tax cases? Are the citizens supposed to just take their word for it? Also, undemocratic is not as subjective as you make it out to be. If decisions are made in a top-down manner and the ability to redress your grievances is subdued, that's pretty undemocratic by any honest measure.

I'm not going to speak for other Americans, but if a government was taking away the rights of citizens I wouldn't mind it too much.

How exactly is it not a question of rights? If the court can't rule on it, how exactly will citizens have the ability to have their interests protected and their voices heard? The taxing of 98% of severance pay for former administration officials could also be construed as a purely financial decision with no political motivations at all, but that doesn't make it the case.

 

Not accurate. Read more about it.

Every severance pay before a certain date was taxed, no condition stated that it must be related in any way to the former administration, governing party, etc. (And the new-from-2010 , i.e. current government put a wage limit on state wages, but this was just a side note.)

By the way, this 98% extra-tax of (otherwise usually outrageous, unreasoned*) severance payments is one of the few things which I didn't find a good idea. It had little advantage, and needed too much effort. Yes, I'm critical with the government, too. But it has no better alternative (and in MAJOR things, they reached great improvements, just like between 1998-2002). Therefore, they have my support. Yes, I'm inclined to be more forgiving in minor cases, as long as general accountability and the clear, transparent operation of the state is guaranteed. And in these areas, things have actually improved, i.e. there is bigger democracy now here than during the previous government (and unlike in 2006, policemen aren't shooting out the eye of peaceful people who were walking home, who had nothing to do with the small group of true hooligans). The EU stayed silent in 2006. It's double standard, even the blind can see. The EU Commission puts pressure on Hungary when the interests of certain infuential groups are endangered. Many facts prove this, 2006 is just one of them. If anything, THAT was the ruining of democracy.

 

i.e. it is a procedural issue. Rights without procedure to properly enforce them are meaningless because they exist on paper only.

Orbán's changes about tax laws and the jurisdiction of the constitutional court have taken away from the court all cases regarding violations of the right to property and equal treatment under the law as a result of tax laws - causes important for conservatives and libertarians alike. It is now in Hungary legally absolutely possible, even in open and flagrant violation of the Hungarian constitution, to levy a special poll tax on Baronius, Socialists, Jews or Gypsies - Orbán's changes have made sure that there now is no recourse.

Procedurally the legal changes are bad precisely because of that result. If any serious emphasis would have been given to the protection and enforcement of the rights the procedure would have been different - alas, it wasn't, and that tells something important right there.

Baronius,
the severance pay was enacted in a legal manner. It doesn't matter whether you like it or whether you find it unreasoned. That peculiar tax on severance pay wasn't found unconstitutional by accident.

Remarkably, and tellingly, Orbán's troupe then chose to not change the law so it would become constitutional, they chose to change the constitution, so the court could no longer hear such cases. That again is something telling right there.

 

I gave you a question, which you evaded with some personal attack or irony, in another thread. So again I ask you:
Is a constitution always perfect? If it's not, who should be allowed to change it?
Who else than the democratically elected parliament majority should get the right to change it? Fidesz told before the elections: they're going to touch it. People knew it, and voted for Fidesz.

 

That may at least help to explain why you spend your time aruging with conservatives on this board, rather than those who are moderates. or are a little left of center. Think about it.

 

Nonetheless, Hungary is going to the good direction and that is what matters to me. It's enough that I know that it's a bigger democracy than it was before, and it's enough that the nation feels it.

As far as laws and their examination democracy-wise is concerned, the following is a fact:

In Baldur's Gate, I would be Chaotic Good (like Minsc), with the difference that, of course, I firmly support law and a law-based society/state, just in a less pragmatic way.
Ragusa (and some others) would be Lawful Good (like Ajantis).

So what I say is that Hungary needs more "Chaotic Good" now, until the state of democratic thinking (which socialists lack the most) reaches the level of Western states. Once Hungary has established this very well, it can move to "Lawful Good" state. Because the society will be ready to accept it. (In other words, I support Orbán's overkill steps against socialists: former communists must be defated and (politically) removed once and for all. That is, you can't fight with purely democratic tools against those who carry dictature in their "blood". Later, when things are consolidated, we can move to "Lawful Good" state. Nonetheless, certainly this doesn't mean I agree that Orbán is doing anything of generally undemocratic nature. People still have the same freedom rights, in fact some rights were elevated.)

 

Baronius, you generally make good points regarding Hungary, and it's people's right to self-determination, and to be free of outside interference, and believe me, man, no one is more on your side than I am regarding those points. But Ragusa sees things within the larger scope, the larger framework of constitutional law, and I agree with him that hungary is headed down a dangerous path. I think you can see that much of his points.

 

Baronius,
don't obfuscate the matter by asking for perfection in constitution. I ask for much less: Functionality in a constitution's ability to safeguard rights. You don't eat soup well with a fork. The changes Orbán made are an open barn door inviting abuse. That's not just imperfect law, it's seriously flawed law, and it is a deliberately enacted seriously flawed law i.e. the flaw is a feature not a bug.

That the Orbán administration was willing to go after the last administration with an unconstitutional confiscatory special tax on earnings legally obtained tells you that they are vindictive. That they changed the law, not to make that constitutional but to remove legal recourse for such laws, tells you that they want to take a shot at it again - they don't want to be constrained by the constitution in the future. Also, they don't want courts checking on them. That are clear and troubling signs from a rule of law point of view.

A constitution is a safety net. If rights are to mean something, the webbing ought to be tightly knit. When you see people making far reaching changes, and make those law choices deliberately, i.e. open larger gaps in the fabric - in particular after failing with an unconstitutional special tax for the last administration - and rush them through parliament without debate despite a two third majority, they are up to something - like permanent partisan advantage. They're stacking the deck. When people institutionalise partisan advantage to the extent Orbán does, that's a troubling development for democracy, that's undemocratic. That criticism is perfectly legitimate.

Ignore that all you want, but don't insult your readers intelligence by telling them that a pig with lipstick is a pretty girl. They can tell the difference, thank you, and don't even need to travel to Hungary for that. You're selling a bill of goods - your highly partisan narrative.

It becomes hilariously unhinged since you insist to view the entire rest of the world through the scarred prism of your obviously highly rancorous and bitter domestic politics. All the criticisms I have voiced above are coming from legal, libertarian or conservative angles. They are al left-liberal-socialist to you all the same, just as all criticism is part of the global left-liberal-socialist-global-capital crusade against Orbán. Really, spare us, get a life.