""The right to assemble in order to restrict the freedoms of others with the intention of using violence is not a basic right," Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány told reporters after his talks with the nation’s four other most senior officials in Parliament on Thursday."

That is absolutely correct!

Joe,

"absolutely correct"

Now hold on, I'm a little worried by "All of us have a duty and common responsibility to take action against violent deeds and opinions that exclude others."

What exactly is a 'violent' opinion? And what action needs to be taken against an opinion?

Is this a translation issue? because its scary if it isn't.

It may be a translation issue but when I read that "a local court in Budapest ruled that egg-throwing is a form of protected political speech, provided people cut it out if the cops tell them to,"
I start to wonder if that's what is meant by violent opinion.

Joe only cares about the gay parade. Of course he/she/it is from Canada, home of transvstite lumberjacks and other oddities. Go away Joe, march in peace in Montreal. We have to live with this no-good-for-nothing Gyurcsany for some time. Now he's posing as the defender of rights, when he's only trying to defend his own behind.
You like him because you believe he's good for your one-day gay-parade visit to Budapest. Let us worry about him ruining the country for everyone.
He didn't use stolen money to buy 3 more water cannons from Israel to defend anyone else but himself. There goes another 300 million. Add it to his 200 million propaganda website and the few hundred billions wasted and stolen during his years in office, and the 100 million gay march seems to be a cheap publicity stunt.

Stan,

Do you realize people are laughing at you?

No?

Didn't think so....

Adrian D, Joe

"Violent opinions" might also mean incitements to violence. The statement "These people should be attacked" might qualify as violent opinion.
As the writer of this interesting little essay
http://hvg.hu/english/20080710_kuruc_info_hungarist_portal_offline.aspx
on the unplugging of kuruc.info puts it: "extremist opinions are not a crime, but inciting extremist actions is".

Thanks, kincs. I read that this morning.

It's really too bad that several hundred magyar misfits (I sure hope there aren't more than that) can cause so much trouble. But then, they've always been a part of the Hungarian fabric for as long as I can remember.

A nagy "hős" magyarok. :-(

Kincs,

Surely the article "extremist opinions are not a crime, but inciting extremist actions is" makes a clear distinction between opinion and incitement.
-
On a less linguistic issue there is a comment I left for you on Hungarian Spectrum:
http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/2008/07/the-hungarian-judges-try-to-explain-things-away.html#comment-121748596

I would like to read your response to.

acjbuck wrote ‘Surely the article "extremist opinions are not a crime, but inciting extremist actions is" makes a clear distinction between opinion and incitement’.
Yes, it does. But the distinction collapses in statements such as “These people should be attacked”. I’m sure there are other examples.
I can’t find your comment over on the Spectrum site.

Kincs,

Sorry, in a fit of wine induced absent mindedness I used the wrong ID. The comment can be found by hitting the link - the comment is posted by "Adrian", I have to use "Adrian D." here to distinguish myself from Adrian Courage.

On the subject of distinction I disagree that "But the distinction collapses in statements such as “These people should be attacked”. Although the sentence could be colloquially regarded as an opinion, is clearly more than just a statement about the world as it is: "should" rather than "is". It wouldn't be beyond forensic linguistics to make a legally useful distinction.

However, I'm not sure that in itself “These people should be attacked" is incitement, but is an expression of preference - obviously context is of ultimate significance here. You would have to establish that the audience for this kind of remark would 1) understand it as a command, and 2) be likely to act on it.

Without these kinds of restriction, Gyurcsany's suggestions could lead to a major erosion of free speech.

Adrian D. (acjbuck) wrote:

"Sorry, in a fit of wine induced absent mindedness I used the wrong ID."

--been there, done that. ;-))

Regarding your post, I seriously doubt the extremists care about linguistic subtleties or nuances. That kind of stuff interests only us, the chattering class.

Violence and hate speech and invitations to violence should be criminalized.

I fear the extremists much more than Gyurcsány's suggestions.

You kids are about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.

Dumb and dumber: Boy Joe and A.D.D. Adrian.

Thinking is not for everyone, don't hurt yourself.

Stan, who is a couple of French fries short of a Happy Meal, sure seems to miss Pan (Stan és Pan).

The country is crashing around our heads and the architect of the disaster is concentrating on holding yet more parades and demonstartions?

This is the nonsense that fuels racism!

Stan,

"A.D.D. Adrian" - your best yet!

Joe,
May be Hungarians should emulate the degenerate Canadian Human Right Commission who are initiating "legal procedures" against anybody who is not toeing the neo-Marxist party line, like Mark Stein.

But don't worry, the Hungarian communist are far ahead of you, the newest "Hate speech" law punishes up to 2 years in prison those who make a "hand a gesture that can be interpreted as offensive to some, even if there is no such intention of any kind in that gesture".

Hungarian Communists have long history of bloody persecution - 1919, 1948, 1956, come to mind - so they will unleash the police and beat to death everybody on the spot.
If you are a fag, you will be last to be thrown under the bus but eventually you will: Commies don't like you but now they need you for propaganda purposes.

Béla,

Why don't you live in the present, in the 'here and now,' before you die?

1919, 1948, and 1956 were a long time ago. And the last time I checked, the communists were not in power in Hungary.

Joe
I assume you are of Canadian nationality thus you are not well versed in the Hungarian reality. The current Hungarian political landscape is formed by the bloody Communist rule what the victim side shall never forget nor forgive.
The butchers are still living among us and enjoying untold privileges.
You probably did not see the outburst of rage on the 50th. anniversary of the revolution that ended in violence. Only for YOU is an old event not for us!
Everybody in the current ruling party was a hardcore Communist Party apparatchnik before they renamed themselves and became capitalist and "democratic", it's fair to call these scumbags as such.
Why are countries still prosecuting Nazi war criminals? - all that happened over 60 years ago...
Not a single Commie butcher was ever held to account for crimes against humanity...now they try to curtail our limited freedom again.
Please, file complaint at the Canadian Human Right Commission for "feeling offended". Alberta is is good place, they are sympathetic to you plight.

Back to the original story guys, does anyone really believe that FastFrankyBoy is some kind of evil Stalin-loving dictator who's going to try to rewrite the almighty Hungarian Constitution (quickly written on the back of old envelope in '89) to enforce a totalitarian state? Of course not, he's far too much of a weedy geek. So this meeting was really just a PR stunt.
But talking about clarifying the Constitution, that really is a good idea. Maybe the bits giving politicians freedom from prosecution and letting them run companies could do with 'being clarified' first.
There is one fundamental flaw in many almighty (yes, i'm being cynical here) Constitutions, from many countries (here's looking at you in particular, USA)...They're usually written in times of political/social/economical upheaval in a rush and are just not up to sratch. But why do people who have to live with the consequences of crappy, quick-fix Constitutions (I think you can buy them from Tesco now) not just say "Who needs this Constitution nonsense? It's a silly French idea anyway. Let's go British, they don't have one and they seem to be doing fine, don't they guvna".
Seriously though, the Hungarian Constitution and legal framework is messy and basically in need of serious 'clarification'.

"but some regulations need to be clarified" - that would be
clarified by using a large stick to beat them over the head and
do as they are told, I suspect.
" And the last time I checked, the communists were not in
power in Hungary"
Joe - are you quite sure? Wouldn't like to go and check whose
running the MSZMP - sorry, MSZP? No Old Timers in there at all?
Are you sure?
And as for 1919, 1948, and 1956 being a long time ago - in the
Hungarian mind this was yesterday! Go into a bar and shout out
that "Triannon was a good thing" and see what happens.
Clueless prat - your opinions are worthless as they are based on
a fundamental misunderstanding and an inability to grasp the
simplest of facts. The government see it as their right and duty
to suppress thoughts, opinions and actions that are contrary to
their own, by whatever means they can get away with.
Understand that if nothing else.

quatermass - What is the problem that politicians were active before 1990? The were still elected in a free General Election, as free as any US Presidential election. That you, like me, did not vote for them does not mean anything.

The average point of view in Hungary today is that they are not Communists, probably never been, just people who like to be politicians. Pre-1990 they were the only game in town. Many of the older politicians in Fidesz belonged to the same Communist Party/KISZ, so why do you prefer one over the other?

Do you have evidence for your claim "The government see it as their right and duty
to suppress thoughts, opinions and actions that are contrary to their own, by whatever means they can get away with." If you did not know all laws that restrict civil liberties need 75% majority in the Parliament, so Fidesz need to agree.

Viking,
You are great:
"What is the problem that politicians were active before 1990?"
What a poetic word to cover up all the horrors that the Communists committed worldwide! Are you a shill and an apologist for Bolshevik crimes?
Are you still spawning Marxism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
If so there is nothing we can discus about since no one expects a rabid Commie to accept the Evil nature of his actions.

"The average point of view in Hungary today is that they are not Communists" - really? May be according to Thurmer and you. Hungary is ruled by the 2nd. generation Communists akin to N.Korea: Kim Ir Sen Sr. and now the son, Kim junior.
And let me say this: I believe the Fidesz is not much different: anybody who was permitted to be active was a lackey of the Party or else.

All those who never gave in were my cell mates on the 5th. floor (political ward) of the prison, called back then the dreaded "Suttogó".

The first thing that every Leftist gov. implement is the suppression of the free speech "to protect the people" so they say those scoundrel scumbags.

So your conclusion is that every Gov't after 1990 has just been a continuation of the pre-1990 Communist Regime. That the Soviets left and there have been (confirmed by international organizations) free elections, do not change anything, we are still living in the past.

Who has contact with reality?

That is how the communist takeover started in 1945. Between 1945 and 1948 the communists slowly, but surely restricted more and more basic civil rights of the population, including the right to express opinion and the right to free assembly.
Mr Gyurcsany and his regime is desperately clinging on to their power and they do whatever it takes to hold on to it. This suggestion of restricting free assembly is the first step toward dictatorship. Hopefully the normal people will reject this.
"The right to assemble in order to restrict the freedoms of others with the intention of using violence is not a basic right". The biggest problem with this sentence is this: Who will decide what the freedoms of others are? Why does that certain person has the right to judge that instead of someone else? How does this person know what the 'intentions' of some others are? By just looking at them> By the way they talk or dress? So basically this would mean that certain groups will have more rights than others? This looks like an outright attempt to cut basic freedoms for everybody eventually.
Gyurcsany and his branch need to go, simple as that.

Kevin:

1. Gyurcsány and his regime are not "desperately clinging on to their power and doing whatever it takes to hold on to it": they are a freely elected government serving out their four-year term.

2. "This suggestion of restricting free assembly is the first step toward dictatorship. Hopefully the normal people will reject this."

Nobody is talking about taking away anyone’s right to free assembly. What people are talking about – and I hope doing something about – is the ridiculous situation whereby permits were granted for an assembly and then another assembly by a hostile group at the same time and place. It is this nonsense that normal people reject – a poll conducted last week found that 63% of the public think the regulations are entirely or partly to blame for the chaos at the gay parade.

Viking,
Have you ever heard of the "Denazification Process" when active Nazis of Hitler's wider entourage were excluded from public offices?
Do you know that in Poland and the Czech Rep. exposed Communist were barred from offices?

Can you show me ONE Communist official who was excluded from power in Hungary? Not even ONE was guilty of crimes? Have you ever visited the House of terror? That's is all mendacious fiction for you isn't it?

"So your conclusion is that every Gov't after 1990 has just been a continuation of the pre-1990 Communist Regime."

No I never said that. What I said is that the Communist butcher individuals changed their colors and now obfuscating what they did before and as if nothing happened preaching democracy and assuming power again.
How about the Pufajkas Horn? - among the thousands who are proud to have ordered gunfire on people in 56.

The same happened in reverse when most of the Nyilas became stalwart Commie overnight.
Same with the Apro family, from Piroska all the way to Klara the same shit like Kim Ir Sen.

Kincs:
The Gyurcsany government basically committed election fraud in 2006 in Hungary just like the Bush government in 2000 in the US. The actual ways and methods of cheating and defrauding people were different, but the purpose of was the same: grabbing the power that they otherwise could not get. So the Gyurcsany government is illegitimate from the beginning. Now, it is a minority government, making matters even worse. The only thing they can do is to step down. That is the only way democracy in Hungary can be preserved.
I am really sick of people calling names and judging other groups of people. I cannot stand when a minority uses a group of people to obtain political advantage for itself whether they come from the left or from the right.
"Nobody is talking about taking away anyone’s right to free assembly."
Not yet. But the suggestion Mr Gyurcsany made is the first step getting there.
"ridiculous situation whereby permits were granted for an assembly and then another assembly by a hostile group at the same time and place"
If you look around and examine how other democratic nations deal with this, you will find out that this practice (two opposing interest groups holding demonstrations at the same time) is very common. And if you look at what actually happened here you find out that the police actually lied a lot. Nobody was killed and nobody got hurt seriously. Where is the hostility? Who has the right to judge which group is hostile?
The Gyurcsany lies need to stop.

Gyurcsany is kept in power by the EU's Marxist-Leninists who rule Brussels. Without the Socialist International of which Gyurcsany is a high ranking official he would have been toast after his infamous speech 2 years ago.

Kevin and Bela,

I am not in favour of restricting people's right to express themselves, so I am normally not in favour of different "Hate Speach" laws or other limitations. If you would understand how Representative Democracy works, you would understand that any changes to this fundament in Hungary today would demand active acceptance from Fidesz, then 75% of the total Parliament (not just in that day) need to approve any changes. So it will never happen with this Parliament. Please read the Hungarian Constitution.

The question is how the existing laws should be implemented in reality, this is something the Gov't can influence. The Fidesz' opinion is that the Gov't should have a much harder/stricter implementation.

If the 2 of you would also understand how EU laws/regulations actually superseedes Hungarian law, you would understand that there is definitively no legal way to implement any dictatorship in Hungary or other EU-countries. OK illegally then? Hardly, only in your minds, not in reality.

Bela can of course explain how the EU can keep the current PM at power, that is just a new argument that is so bad it is funny. Just shows how totally off reality you are.

Kevin should ask the old MDF Gov't (1990-1994) why they did not run a proper "de-Communist" process. As I understand it was part of the deal to have a peaceful transition from the pre-1990 regime to the current situation. It can be discussed, but this is hardly the right thread for that.

Kevin:

"The Gyurcsany government basically committed election fraud in 2006 in Hungary just like the Bush government in 2000 in the US. The actual ways and methods of cheating and defrauding people were different, but the purpose of was the same: grabbing the power that they otherwise could not get."

Gyurcsány won a free and fair election. The Republicans in 2000 may have played around with ballots in Florida and obtained a favourable but very questionable ruling from the Supreme Court.
The fact that Gyurcsány lied during the campaign hardly distinguishes him from Viktor Orbán or most Western political leaders.

Kevin
(by the way, that was me in the previous post as well):

“So the Gyurcsany government is illegitimate from the beginning. Now, it is a minority government, making matters even worse. The only thing they can do is to step down. That is the only way democracy in Hungary can be preserved.”

Hungary has a representative parliamentary democracy with scheduled elections every four years. That means that the MPs are elected representatives of the people who voted for them and have a mandate to do as they see fit until the next elections. Doing as they see fit might mean unseating the prime minister or it might mean supporting a minority government from outside, as the SZDSZ seem to be doing.
If voters don’t like what their MPs are doing, they can vote for someone else next time. It is often frustrating that voters can’t get rid of them in the meantime, but defined terms of office are what stable democracies are built on.
One alternative might be to rewrite the Constitution so that elections are held whenever the opposition parties are higher in the polls, or whenever a disgrun-tled mob takes to the streets. But I don’t think that would be an improvement.

"Gyurcsány won a free and fair election".

Never mind "free" or "fair".

"L'État, c'est moi".

- Francois Gyurcsány

Kevin,
From the Financial Times:

"But Mr Gyurcsany’s admission that he won an election through bare-faced deceit - recorded on tape as he spoke to socialist MPs about the need to face up to painful reforms - has won him a surprising amount of support around Brussels."
...................................................
"no wonder Joaqun Almunia, the EU monetary affairs commissioner, privately hopes the Hungarian prime minister will survive politically to deliver on the rhetoric."
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2006/09/gyurcsanys-fullhtml/
..........................................................
There are many article on the Web showing the Neo-Marxist EU conspiracy to suppress free speech but it's beyond this forum framework.

I have an idea. What if we combine a lie detector with an electric chair. Every now and then politicians would be invited to sit in this contraption and people could ask questions.

Example:

"Do you, Mr. Politician support tax increase on tobacco products?".
If he says no, and he's lying, the lie detector will turn the electric chair on, and smokes the liar.
If he say no, and it's the truth, we give him a medal and let him go.

Is this brilliant or what?