September 21st, 2009

Hungarian Guard turns to Supreme Court over ban

The radical nationalist Hungarian Guard is turning to the country’s Supreme Court, asking it to review a ruling by an appeals court banning the organisation, a legal charity told MTI on Friday.

On July 2 a Budapest court of appeal issued a legally binding ruling banning the Hungarian Guard, the uniformed arm of the radical nationalist party Jobbik.

The decision applies to the Hungarian Guard Cultural Association for the Preserving of Traditions.

The appellate court upheld a decision of December 2007, not long after the Guard’s first of a series of anti-Roma marches in Tatarszentgyorgy, a village in central Hungary, which later became known for the murder of a Roma man and his young son and other anti-Roma violence.

The appeal court said the Guard’s activities had overstepped its rights as an association and curtailed Roma freedoms, both of which justify its banning.

Jobbik registered the Magyar Garda in June 2007 as a cultural organisation to “prepare youth spiritually and physically for extraordinary situations when it might be necessary to mobilise the people.” Guard members wear black uniforms and regularly hold military-style training.

Gabor Vona, leader of both Jobbik and the association, said after the ruling that they would appeal to the Supreme Court and the Strasbourg Court. He added that although the association had been banned, the guardsmen would continue their activities.

Visit www.hungarymatters.hu to receive Hungarian news agency MTI’s twice-daily newsletter.
Topics
Share
Please note that due to a large volume of trolling and false abuse flags, we are currently only accepting comments from logged-in users.
  • njMagyar

    Why are the Guarda still being referred to as “radical” when they are as radical as say, the Boy Scouts of the United States?

  • @njMagyar: 68% of Hungarians consider them to be extremists, so that is a fairly reasonable assessment of general opinions irrespective of individual attempts to play around with semantics. http://www.publicus.hu/blog/szelsoseges_konzervativ_jobbik

  • bobscountrybunker

    @Vándorló
    I really hate to be patronising, but may I suggest you supplement your education with this amusing comedy snippet?…
    Opinion Polls: Getting the results you want
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo
    Always remember that these same polling agencies are the ones who projected a Jobbik performance of 3-4% at the 2009 EP elections: and what was the result?
    Their methodology and motives are far from beyond question.

  • @Bobscoalbunker: If you really did hate to be patronizing you wouldn’t have italicized really.
    To patronize you right back try:
    I. Darrell Huff, “How to Lie with Statistics”, Norton, New York, 1954, ISBN 0393310728
    II. Best, Joel, Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists, University of California Press; 1 edition, 2001, ISBN: 0520219783
    Both of which are introductory texts.
    Don’t ever quote obvious shit to me about statistics unless you show on what basis, statistically and analytically, you specifically object to the data in question.
    You are simply not capable or fit to analyze data, so don’t pretend to be in an armchair-know-it-all-boring-old-fart-kind-of-way country squire.
    Having said that, Yes Minister (and Yes, Prime Minister) is always excellent to what. But you inarticulate point in only intelligible to people at your own low intellectual and educational level.
    Try harder.

  • bobscountrybunker

    @Vándorló
    “@Bobscoalbunker: If you really did hate to be patronizing you wouldn’t have italicized really.”
    I didn’t. Really I didn’t… A.G.F. is a big thing for me. But… considering the attitude you’ve taken I’ll definitely have a go now!
    To patronize you right back try:
    I. Darrell Huff, “How to Lie with Statistics”, Norton, New York, 1954, ISBN 0393310728
    II. Best, Joel, Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists, University of California Press; 1 edition, 2001, ISBN: 0520219783
    Both of which are introductory texts.

    All very good and lovely. But this was not the point being made. Read that last sentence REALLY slowly. Both those delightful volumes concern themselves with the manipulation of statistics. The video link I sent you: does not. It concerns itself with how to obtain the data you want in the actual process of conducting an opinion poll. Not statistical manipulation afterwards. Small point I know, concerning as it does the blitheringly obvious.
    Don’t ever quote obvious shit to me about statistics unless you show on what basis, statistically and analytically, you specifically object to the data in question.
    My my… someone’s really rattled your cage, haven’t they diddums? Well pay no attention to the nasty man. I’m sure he won’t ever “quote obvious shit” to you again.

  • bobscountrybunker

    cont’d…
    I’m sure he will not make it his express mission to repeatedly bombard you with a litany of obvious shit whenever the fact you are propagating total and utter nonsense is made patently obvious by, erm, obvious shit.
    Yes you really do seem to have some sort of perceptual problem with the plainly obvious, the nakedly self-evident, you know, stuff that all of us can patently see. Particularly when it contradicts entirely whatever piffling excuse for a cogent opinion you’ve barely managed to string together into a scarcely coherent sentence.
    By the way, “on what basis” I specifically object to the data in question, you ask? Well that basis would be that polling companies are employed to quantify things like support for political parties; and if they have an established track record of doing precisely that raison d’etre catastrophically wrong… I’d call that a fairly persuasive basis.
    In fact I think someone with slightly more than a grade-school education would. But then again: that’s just me.
    You are simply not capable or fit to analyze data, so don’t pretend to be in an armchair-know-it-all-boring-old-fart-kind-of-way country squire.
    Right, excluding the marvellous use of hyphenation in the second clause of that sentence and concentrating on the first clause:

  • bobscountrybunker

    cont’d…
    I await your scholarly explanation of why it is you believe a person you are entirely unacquainted with is neither fit, nor capable, of analyzing data… Incidentally, what data analysis? I didn’t mention any data analysis, can’t recall anyone doing any. Sure remember a discussion on results, and the collation of data… but actual data? Nope, I don’t think anyone was actually doing what you seem so obsessed with wittering on about. What life must be like on your planet, I can but only imagine.
    Ok I can’t help myself, now – including – the blizzard of hyphens at the end of this sentence: what in the name of holy blind fuckery are you talking about, you dolt? Are you speaking in some kind of moron-code or something?
    Having said that, Yes Minister (and Yes, Prime Minister) is always excellent to what. [sic!] But you inarticulate point in only intelligible [??] to people at your own low intellectual and educational level. Try harder.
    Woah! So after garnering all 7 brain cells into an enormous effort to chastise this utter swine for daring to send you a video clip… you praise it? Schizophrenia been in the family long, has it?

  • bobscountrybunker

    cont’d…
    Finally, a word to the wise. It’s never a good idea to make bold claims about another’s inarticulacy and intelligibility immediately after you’ve made a childish spelling mistake and within a sentence that doesn’t even grammatically scan. Just makes you look like a bit of a prat really, ask anyone. So I’ll see your two irrelevant (see above) book referrals; and raise you two you could probably actually do with consulting; particularly if you’re going to continue in this habit of talking semantic gibberish you might as well put a little effort into trying to make linguistic sense; because you sure as hell don’t at the moment pal.
    Fowler, H.W. (1998 ed.) Fowler’s Modern English Usage, OUP Oxford.
    Seely, J. (2009) Oxford A-Z of Grammar and Punctuation, OUP Oxford.

  • Kocsog

    MY TAKE way too heavy for me.

  • bobscountrybunker,
    Just for fun, would you care to mention an Hungarian polling institute/method that you would trust/recommend?
    Or your attitude is really that all and everything is just a big lie, past, now and in the future?

  • bobscountrybunker

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
    “The logical fallacy of false dilemma involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options… …When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.”
    Intentional use of false choice fallacies are a real hallmark of Viking’s style of argument, and are another insight into the intellectual dishonesty that characterize both him and the socio-liberalism he so avidly promotes. His last comment is a case in point, I quote:
    “Just for fun, would you care to mention an Hungarian polling institute/method that you would trust/recommend? Or your attitude is really that all and everything is just a big lie, past, now and in the future?”
    So the other party is presented with a negative self-defining non-choice. Affirming the self-evident truth of the left-wing/liberal bias of Hungarian pollsters (for which the evidence is more than sufficiently abundant e.g. the systematic under-polling of the Jobbik vote pre-June ’09) supposedly “traps” the opponent into describing themselves as some sort of crazed nationalist conspiracy theorist. Thereby, simply stating what is obvious, condemns you to a falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus characterisation.
    Yeah. Whatever.
    This kind of deceitful garbage would be deemed sub-standard in a school debating society.

  • justasking

    @ Viking;
    I think you have just been told!!!

  • @Bobs…: Apologies for the spelling mistakes, but what is your point about the survey/poll apart from the threadbare statement of there are lies, damn lies and statistics?
    Did you read it? Because it tells you who is polled, how when and where. Did you read it?
    Your first comment appeared to suggest that earlier polls had predicted much smaller numbers 3/4%.
    Let’s all agree that polls are rough measures, estimates based on available data and the vagaries of public opinion and people’s ability to actually make a reasonable assessment of their own current opinion and likely behaviour – all of it questionable given human nature.
    So given all the misgivings and the nature of sampling methods to statistically infer other people’s likely behaviour, what exactly was your point about the survey?
    The false dilemma doesn’t even apply here as the survey outlines the percentages of people sampled from each socioeconomic group.
    You seem to suggest that the current high level of support for Jobbik (29% wanting them to be a parliamentary party) was always there. Why would that be the case? Jobbik were an emerging force, people did not know their policies (non-existent, but still), leaders etc… More people do now.
    Otherwise, why were Jobbik so militant in getting their message out? Why all the posters etc… are you saying all that had no effect and Jobbik had all this support anyway?
    Concentrate on specifics, not specious generalisations when polls and opinion don’t reflect yours.

  • @Justasking, Bobswhatthefuck: The ‘false dilemma’ has nothing to do with the case in hand. Read the sodding survey http://www.publicus.hu/blog/szelsoseges_konzervativ_jobbik
    Read it!! It outlines a range of options, not two. It clearly states its terms and scope. There are problems with this survey, but your shallow comments don’t even come close.
    Or maybe the truth is that Bob and Justasking don’t read Hungarian, can’t read Hungarian and are just the same old useless expat-wannabe-hungarians?
    Read the survey and refer to something, anything specific. I dare you!

  • To save you both some time, here’s what is written at the end of the survey about the sampling methods and form of questionnaire:
    “A kérdőíves vizsgálatot 2009. június 15. és 30. között a Publicus Intézet készítette az ország felnőtt népességét reprezentáló 3500 fő személyes megkérdezésével. A mintavételből eredő torzulások a KSH Mikrocenzus 2005 adatain alapuló súlyozással korrigáltak. A felmérésbe bevont személyek nem, életkor, iskolai végzettség, valamint a lakóhely régiója és településtípusa szerinti összetétele megbízhatóan reprezentálja a hazai lakosság hasonló ismérvek szerinti összetételét. Az adott mintanagyság (3500 fő) mellett a vizsgálatban nyert adatokról 95 százalékos biztonsággal állítható, hogy legfeljebb +/-1,66 százalékponttal térnek el attól, amit az összes 18 éves vagy idősebb magyar lakos megkérdezésével kaptunk volna. Ez a mintahiba azonban meghaladhatja a +/-1,66 százalékpontot akkor, ha egy megoszlást nem a kérdezettek összességére, hanem annak kisebb alcsoportjára adunk meg.”
    I guess when only 20% of Jobbik supporters believe Jobbiks are intelligent they aren’t wrong.

  • bobscountrybunker

    @Vándorló
    You are getting all hot and bothered, and confused, again. The false dilemma exchange has to do with Viking’s dishonest style of argument; not why Hungarian polling is untrustworthy.
    Why call it untrustworthy? Because it has amply demonstrated itself to be so.
    (Now this is not going into the reasons this reality has developed. There are 100 and 1 motives which could explain why Hungarian polls are so consistently weighted against Nationalist sentiment and in favour of left-wing / liberal ones: some cynical, some sinister, others procedural, others still simply down to the background of the pollsters. E.g. In Hungary most such individuals/companies are the product of University political science departments; they are not actuaries or statisticians as in other European examples; what tacit political views are they most likely to hold? And their shareholders are no doubt looking forward to a bumper year in 2010 when so many international bodies will be desperate to pay for information about how the “great neo-Nazi threat” is developing; not that this later consideration might weight things in any direction.)
    However, there being so many possible reasons confuses the issue; because we are interested in symptoms not causes. There are three solid reasons for taking these results with a pinch of salt:

  • bobscountrybunker

    cont’d…
    1. When it comes to proven track record, their performance is abysmal e.g. the difference between the pre-EP polls and actual results. You can’t just dismiss it as, “let’s all agree that polls are rough measures,” the difference was a bloody chasm. Something, somewhere, is rotten.
    2. However, that’s just the relatively “easy” matter of asking who someone is going to vote for. A simple choice. This latest poll is about people’s feelings, in terms of adjectives. Infinitely more dodgy, there is no possibility of escaping some sort of bias; as any social scientist (and Sir Humphrey) will tell you. So what have we got so far? Bodies with a track record for extreme inaccuracy about a particular issue, are now attempting to measure the potentially misleading and the frequently vague. It hardly inspires confidence.
    3. This maybe a personal reason, but the one thing the recent glut of Hungarian polling has unequivocally demonstrated to me… is how little can be demonstrated. What successive polls all show is how discussions like this are actually operating on the statistical fringes. Enormous numbers put themselves down as undecideds. Which means either that there are a huge number of potential swing voters up for grabs, or, Hungarians are becoming increasingly determined about not being straightforward to pollsters about their true political views.

  • @Bobs…: So, in brief, you haven’t and aren’t going to read and discuss anything specific, just make the same mundane/inane generalisations that assert that your beliefs are to be given more credence than any survey that takes your displeasure.
    Can you read Hungarian Bob? If not, it is you that are at the mercy of the pollsters and opinion makers and stuck in your own inarticulate, uneducated ghetto.

  • @ Viking;
    I think you have just been told!!!
    justasking at September 22, 2009 10:10 AM

    And the answer was – ‘Wrong question’

    On the other hand Bob answers my question in:
    bobscountrybunker at September 22, 2009 11:26 AM

    And the answer is
    ‘Hungarian polls have always been bad, are bad and will continue to be bad’-type of answer if you take the short simple answer.

    You have to ask him why that was so hard to state in the first place, except he has of course publicly promised everyone to never speak with me.
    That is why he need to write 1st a post on my question and then later answer my question in an answer directed to someone else.
    Children…

  • Law

    @Vandal
    Simply Bobscountybunker has demonstrated to you how inaccurate you polls are? are you this THICK!!
    Go Get a life you manipulative Jew.

  • bobscountrybunker

    @Vándorló
    “just make the same mundane/inane generalisations that assert that your beliefs are to be given more credence than any survey that takes your displeasure”
    “Generalizations”? Yes. (By the way, isn’t an opinion poll, by definition, a type of generalization…)
    “Mundane/inane”? I don’t think so, and saying so doesn’t make it so.
    “Your beliefs”? Now who’s patronizing who? I must hand it to you, you certainly can flatter yourself… what on earth makes you think you have a clue what my beliefs are, sunshine?
    Írni, olvasni, vitatkozni, enni, kúrni, sajnos Magyarul is focizok.
    Also, seeing we’re on the subject of languages, I’d recommend your looking up the word “inarticulate” because that’s the second time you’ve used it about me and I think if you look it up you’ll find it really doesn’t apply to someone whose grammar, spelling, fluency, cogency and coherence, is superior to your own.
    Or maybe you’re anagramatically minded and are really objecting to my “italic nature”? Hmmm…

  • @Bob..:
    1. “isn’t an opinion poll, by definition, a type of generalization” Not in the way you want to portray it, no. It’s a statistical measure of certainty projected from clearly specified base rates, with clear measures of likely sample error and of the possibility of false positives/negatives. Not simply someone pulling ideas off the top of their head and assuming that everyone else should think like them as you do and proving no alternate evidence to support their assertions (aside from their mundane generalisations)
    2. ‘”Mundane/inane”? I don’t think so, and saying so doesn’t make it so.”‘ As you are happy to state and I relate in 1. you prefer to stick to (even insist on) simple generalisations rather than deal with specific questions. You make vacuous statements about a measured, statistical survey and pit that on a par with your own mundane thoughts. You provide no external or additional sources to lead us to believe your opinion over that expressed by 3,500 Hungarians. On numbers alone, I’d back the 3,500 until you deal with *any* specific point raised e.g. Of those that are Jobbik supporters why do only 20% consider ‘intelligence’ to be amongst their 3 most characteristic traits, rather than being ‘tough, brave and conservative’?
    3. “Magyarul is focizok” Talán kétballábasan, ha igen. Eddig, a szélsőségesség kérdése kapcsán, semmi érdekeset nem is szóltál, egy egyetlen büdös érdekes szót nem ejtettél ki.

  • justasking

    @ Vandorlo;
    Don’t you go shitting on my head because your pissed off at Bob!
    Go reread what he wrote to Viking and then tell me that you would not be proud of to have been the author of that if it were directed either Bob, Law or Mr.
    Temper, temper.
    @ Law;
    Hi there! How’s it going!!!

  • @Justasking: Bob didn’t answer Vikings question, he objected to its form and at the same time asserted that by asking the question in this way Viking way attempting to trick him (Bob) into labeling himself as an extremist.
    Viking asked two questions:
    1. “Just for fun, would you care to mention an Hungarian polling institute/method that you would trust/recommend?”
    2. “Or your attitude is really that all and everything is just a big lie, past, now and in the future?”
    The first is a real question, the second a leading question. You could have ignored the second, or answer as Bob did, but then at least answer the first.
    OK, let’s try another survey out today from a 1000 person telephone survey (balanced to match the general population characteristics, of course) conducted between 2-18th Sept by Századvég – Forsense.
    This shows that Jobbik support has solidified its position at around 12% and would clearly form a causus in parliament were the elections called.
    Was there sampling method biased? In what way?
    Given the combined indications of ongoing surveys from a range of institutes can we at least make tentative assumptions about the pattern of development of political and public opinion and likely future behaviour?
    If your and Bob’s answer to that question is ‘no’, ‘know one knows’, ‘you can’t possibly say’ then I say bollocks to any chance of holding any form of meaningful political discussion with either of you.
    Can we believe Századvég – Forsense? Why/why not?

  • justasking

    @ Vandorlo;
    Do not suck me into this argument! I just commented on a simple little responce directed towards Viking. I just like the way Bob writes. Thats it!
    I have not a bloody clue what the two of you are taking about, it way over my head.
    I would appreciate it if nobody ran with that last statement…I was just trying to make a point with Vandorlo.

All content © 2004-2015 The All Hungary Media Group. Articles, comments and other information on the All Hungary Media Group's network of sites are provided "as is" without guarantees, warranties, or representations of any kind, and the opinions and views expressed in such articles and columns are not necessarily those of the All Hungary Media Group.