Roma rights activist László Kállai is walking from Jászladány, central Hungary to Budapest in protest against “the destructive discrimination of Roma”.
Kállai said he wants to arrive at Heroes’ Square next Sunday at the head of thousands of demonstrators, with whom he will march to the Sándor Palace to present President László Sólyom with a petition supporting the abolition of educational segregation.
He also plans to protest exclusion in justice, health care, media and other areas.
The All Hungary Media Group is firmly committed to freedom of expression and therefore applies a mostly "hands off" approach to comment moderation. Comments left by readers represent their own views and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of the staff, editors or owner of the All Hungary Media Group, who nonetheless reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic or which moderators consider to constitute "hate speech." Also note that in order to prevent spam we generally close entries off to comments several days after publication.
In keeping with Roma tradition Mr Kállai’s Nike’s are being paid for by the Magyar taxpayer.
as usual (bobscountrybunker) racists show thier stupidity and intelectual level.
@ ukguy;
I fail to see how sarcasim can be mistaken for racism?
@ukguy
And as usual liberals can’t take a joke, and would scream “Waycist! Waycist! Waycist!” when such a witticism encapsulates the realities better than their own platitudes.
With 90%+ of the Roma population unemployed, how is it, dear Sir, that you suggest that they purchase their footwear? Perhaps you believe that they weave them out of farts and other socialist hot air, or are instead possessed of handsome inherited trust funds?
Had I suggested that their purchase was funded by crime, the racist slander against me would perhaps have had relevance; but to reiterate, at a 90%+ unemployment level, suggesting that they are funded by the Magyar taxpayer (through state benefits) is a plain statement of the simple facts – and if you weren’t blinded by your own prejudicial desire to label anyone who’d dare disagree with your viewpoint a thought criminal, the self-evident would not be such a foreign territory to you.
Give that a little ponder before you consider castigating the “stupidity” and decrying the low “intelectual” [sic] level of others; in doing so you merely bring attention to your own.
@Bobárnyékszéke: “…a plain statement of the simple facts…” added to your “…90%+ of the Roma population unemployed…”. Bobs talking bollocks again.
You’re as strong on facts as you are on logic. Since you claim fluency in Hungarian chew on this data and you’ll be a lot more interesting to talk to: http://index.hu/belfold/2009/09/07/a_ciganyok_nem_szeretnek_dolgozni/
n.b. You might also want to look up what KSH have on ‘munkaerő-felvételek’ and NEKI on ‘Romák a munkaerőpiacon’. Lots of other stuff you could look at instead of spouting your usual.
@Vándorlóváteszimagát
“You’re as strong on facts as you are on logic. Since you claim fluency in Hungarian chew on this data”
@Robert: ‘…Oh what the f*ck, you’re not going to go in to yet another Leftist, “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” rant’ No I’m not, because unlike you and your comrades I don’t spout shite and *never* use argumentum ad ignorantiam – though pretty much all of your crew has at some time or other.
No, I just wanted you to make it clear that you were just making up stuff whilst telling others they were providing “a plain statement of the simple facts”, which you took the trouble to embolden. Preaching all the time to others.
Yes I read the articles. The facts are what they are. To the best of everyone’s knowledge the employment rate for Roma males between ages 15-49 is 39%, *not 90+%* as you stated. The employment rate for Roma females is an alarming 20%.
Just let the facts speak for themselves jack ass.
Glad you bothered to read the article anyway. From other sources the employment rate has largely remain the same since 2003. You might also want to make sure you understand those figures on the numbers and proportions claiming family support compared to the generally exaggerated figures you and your like prefer to state. Also on the nature of the black and gray economy and the Romas place in it.
p.s. There was nothing funny about any of your previous statements. Believe me, you are completely humourless.
@Bobby-lad: Just to rewrite that to make the comparison equal:
To the best of everyone’s knowledge the employment rate for Roma males between ages 15-49 is 39%, *not* >10% as you stated (90+% unemployed). The employment rate for Roma females is an alarming 20%.
@Vándorló
“I don’t spout shite and *never* use argumentum ad ignorantiam.”
Bobs. and Van.
You two are arguing about Latin Grammar. This is way cooler than ever I thought it would be!!! But please don’t cut out the little guy.
“P.S.: Within the grammar of that sentence you need the plural, so it should be “argumenta ad ignorantiam,”
Before Van. comes back with a reply I understand even less, why, Bobs., does the Latin have to be plural? What constraints for code-switching are you implying here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_switching#Mechanics_of_code-switching
@Sophist
No specialist code-switching (nice catch!), because we are not messing around with the morpheme, it remains intact; just correctly using (grammatical) number.
Let’s look at Vandorló’s implausible, but original sentence:
“I don’t spout shite and *never* use argumentum ad ignorantiam.”
If we give this a verbatim rendering in English, we get? “I don’t spout shite and never use argument from ignorance.”
But Vándorló clearly means to use the plural, he wishes to say, “I don’t spout shite and never use arguments from ignorance.”Hence he has two options: (a) He could introduce an indefinite article (in this case “an”) before his original argumentum; but that doesn’t really scan unless we make it a conditional sentence. Or, (b) he could use the correct plural argumenta instead of argumentum, thus giving him the meaning he was actually attempting to convey.
Choice of language doesn’t really come into it, it’s just number. Take the sentence, “Kierkegaard was famous for using several nom de plume.” This should similarly be more correctly worded as , “…several noms de plume.” Etc. etc.
Like this sentence I just found from the Wikipedia article List of districts in Budapest:
“Budapest, the capital of Hungary has 23 “kerület” or districts, each with its own municipal government.”
Just makes you want to change it right now!
Wow! All this for a simple pair of running shoes!
@justasking
Tell me about it!
I think I better retire for the evening to listen to some Jazz… Hmmm… “Mingus Ah Um”?
@ Bob;
Never could get my head around jazz. As for the other part of your comment…What?
@justasking
One of the best albums of the American Jazz legend, Charles Mingus, is his 1959 album “Mingus Ah Um”, from which the most famous track is probably “Boogie Stop Shuffle”… give it a listen…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePMvgRGm73U
The title of the album is a Latin play on his surname. I quote the wikipedia article:
“The title of Mingus Ah Um is derived from a Latin study form. It is common for Latin students to memorize Latin adjectives of the first and second declensions by first saying the masculine nominative singular form (usually ending in “-us”), then the feminine nominative singular ending (“-a”), and finally the neuter nominative singular ending (“-um”). Thus the adjective “magnus” (big, great) is memorized as “magnus”, “-a”, “-um”; this would be pronounced like “magnus ah um”.
So it was a Latin gag, not a very good one. But this shouldn’t surprise you, as Vándorló will tell you I am “completely humourless.”
He on the other had, makes me laugh almost constantly.
@ Bob;
Nope, still don’t like it. The closest I get to Jazz is Glenn Miller and the Andre Sisters.
Bobs.,
“Hence he has two options: (a) He could introduce an indefinite article (in this case “an”) before his original argumentum; but that doesn’t really scan unless we make it a conditional sentence. Or, (b) he could use the correct plural argumenta instead of argumentum, thus giving him the meaning he was actually attempting to convey.”
Not sure I agree with this. The indefinite article is part of the English noun phrase “an argument from ignorance”, since there are no articles in Latin “argumentum ad ignorantiam” seems entirely equivalent.
Even if you eliminate the code switching aspect entirely and consider “argumentum ad ignorantiam” as an assimilated English rather than a Latin noun phrase. It indeterminate whether Van. was using it as a count noun, a non-count noun or a proper noun. As a proper noun, the article is not required, as in this similar usage from wiki:
“This is also called argumentum ad populum.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantium
In fact since Van. also used “shite” – a non-count noun – in the same sentence, using “argumentum ad ignorantiam” without an article preserves the parallelism of his sentence which is usually seen as a good thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelism_(rhetoric)
@Sohpist
As I said initially in the excerpt you quoted, option (a), i.e. the use of the article, would be the imperfect alternative. Which is why I plumped for option (b) and believe Vádorló should have too. You prove my point.
@Bobsfullhouse: I appreciate the correction, who wouldn’t. I am at the same time torn between accepting the correction and arguing that when one speaks of the general class of an abstract noun/concept one often uses the singular (the plural is implied).
Like I say I accept the correction, but like Sophist I am torn and don’t want want to reiterate Sophist’s points too much.
With the use of the indefinite article, you do not use an article when you are speaking about things in general. ‘Argument’ vs ‘an argument’, there is a difference.
Also with the distinction of count/countable (pocal) versus mass/uncountable (compt). Argument is an abstract noun derived from a verb and is normally countable, but argument also can be used as an uncountable noun in contexts such as ‘without argument’ and ‘for the sake of argument’ etc.. The difference is brought out if you were to start a sentence with “The use of argumentum ad ignorantiam/verecundiam/baculum…” and contrast this with “The use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam/verecundiam/baculum…” The former refers to its general use (misuse) whereas the latter speaks of a specific case.
So they are related, though refer to quite different things. The question is to what extent such casuistries (countable/uncountable) spread to/extend from latin and my latin just isn’t up to it – as you have pointed out so cruelly.
Whatever, I’ll bow my head and say ‘thanks’.
@Sophist: I really like your point about parallelism.
@Sophist: I took your reference to language register (code-switching) more broadly to be talking not just about the Hungarian/English, but also mixing academic with the prole prose, mixing the expletives in with an exegesis, rubbing dirt into a disquisition.
I have to admit I was reading your exchange over at She-who-cant-be-named’s blog about the use and misuse of register, foul language and the counter play between the creative versus the dulling aspects of expletives in discourse. I am, as you would expect, a keen advocate of the potential linguistic creativity of a carefully crafted expletive.
This is also a clear marker of register or code-switching and in most cases the hoi polloi and the haughtily posh have an awful lot in common in terms of language, swearing and degenerate behaviour, as well as abuse or overuse of stimulants. There was an article in the economist some weeks ago pointing this out http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14380648
Also your discussion (here and there) reminded me of Robert Graves’s ‘Lars Porsena: On the Future of Swearing’ written back in the 20/30/40′s. In it he laments the decline of swearing and foul language in England. He makes a strong case for its creative potential to enliven discourse. And I’m inclined to agree with him. Moreover, the decline of language is a topic passed down to use from antiquity so I remain sceptical about any long lasting damage to our ability communicate.
@Sophist: The problem is expletives in the wrong hands simply become insults rather and boring. They have the same numbing quality as teenagers’ overuse of ‘like’ or an Glaswegian’s linguistic tick of “de’y'ken?”.
In relation to Hungarian discourse the problem isn’t the misuse of expletives it’s the lack of real argument. Bobscountrybunker is an ideal example of what it sounds like in English (sans expletives) where he presents ‘facts’ and you are supposed to accept them. You are not allowed to use data, surveys and statistics as clearly all data is subject to some mysterious bias, though he would never be drawn on details.
You are, though, free to make up whatever generalisations and statistics you like as clearly your own transitory opinions are just as valid as any scientific survey.
Repeat those newly invented facts in a chorus and hey presto that’s Hungarian political dialogue these days.
n.b. I do accept that the government deliberate decision not to collect and collate certain types of data hardly helps anyone. More likely it is a sign that they had no intention of acting and helping those in need so simply decided to try to hide the extent and depth of the problems. After all, why would a socialist government want to collect data to demonstrate unequivocally how socially impotent they are/have been?
i know its late , but then i tend to check here once a day, not spedefending my racist nonsense (bobscuntry bumker).
Because he is Roma, you for the sake of your joke assume he’s unemployed, and assume the rest of us would find it funny that you point this out?
and you claim this as humour? get to the back of the class dumbo.
To call you a racist, is not some childish cry, its based on your comments, if you were at all honest you would admit it, and then allow a sensible discussion, but no, another hungarian racist hiding behind ‘humour’ or as vandorlo has pointed out dodgy ‘facts’.
@ ukguy;
Bob was not “assuming” because the guy was Roma that he was unemployeed. You were “assuming” that is what he meant. He commented on a pair of running shoes!! If he was making fun of a mentally handicapped Roma, I agree I would have found that in poor taste, but he did’nt.
His slap stick humour was no different when that article about the “Jobbtaxi” company starting up and somebody posted the comment wondering if the taxi company would be making left turns. Both in my opinion were funny in an irnoc sort of way.
As for Vandorlo and Bob, they go back and forth constantly, one is always trying to one up the other. What suprised me this time was Vandorlo admited to possibly being wrong. I say hats off to both of them for sticking up for themselves.
I see a lot of people on this site making a lot of fun of a real danger to approach this city next Sunday! “Thousands” of gypsies to march to the sacred statues of our nation? Even a hundred a this is too much! They have to be stopped with any price, and not with chatting on the web! Magyars, what hapened to you? Your politicians are traitors, then take action into your own hands! Do not forget, yoy are the chosen pe4ople of this country!
I think you are perfectly right to be alarmed, as many of people in this country are without telling it (and I don’t know why!). The “numerous” gypsies who will march along boulevards in Budapest are well organized, as anyone can see (by whom? no one can tell!). As it happened with the homosexuals (a category rejected by the very founding principles of magyar people) shamelessly marching some weeks ago, if anybody will dare to oppose those other guys (who are really dangerous to magyar people, in fact), he will be harassed by the police. The police will defend those gypsies’ right to freely demonstrate, will not they? If somebody will dare to oppose the gypsies, all foreign press and foreign politicians will cry again: “Look at those fascist Hungarians”! We need honest citizens here, not demonstrations organized by “independent” groups! This thing is to be understood until it is too late.
I put forth the following news item and video clip from the BBC for the purpose of promoting futher comment and discussion.
“Citizen patrols hit Italy streets”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8291187.stm
When it comes to crime, ethnicity and security issues, Hungary is not alone. Italy, which is much further developed industrially and economically than Hungary, nonetheless has some daunting problems.
Be it by accident or by design, it’s a sheer stroke of public relations genius to have a woman like Maria Antonietta Cannizzaro as spokesperson for the group and to face the foreign press. It helps to make it all look less like a storm trooper/goon squad, and more like a group of concerned citizens. (She walks patrol in high heels!) In terms of image, the participation of women makes a lot of sense. If such a thing should happen here, I would like to see attractive and stylishly dressed women join in. It looks better when you are on the BBC!
That such patrols will be inevitably denounced by the left as neo-nazi in nature, is a foregone conclusion. The best thing I can suggest is that such groups, wherever they are formed, avoid the fashion faux-pas that can add fuel to such an accusation: brownish or black shirts, along armbands of any color, are “out of season”!
Citizen patrols are as old as history itself. The best way to ensure that they don’t form is for the govt to do it’s job and control crime and provide security.
@ukguy
“spedefending [sic!!] my racist nonsense (bobscuntry bumker)”
So now Hungarians, claiming to be part of the Roma minority, should not be allowed to march to Budapest. They must be stopped, like the Pride Parade claims our resident ‘we-know-who’.
Given proper licenses they should of course have the right to hold a demo, even in Budapest, why not?
Where did all this ‘Free Speech’ go away?
Before these guys claimed that the Pride Parade was not an expression for ‘Free Speech’, so on what grounds should these Hungarian citizens be forbidden to march?
@ Laci;
Watched the video and agree, it’s hard to accuse Hungary of being the only country with “issues” with minorities/immigrants and “it all being in our heads”.
I do not agree that Hungary should only be for the “tiszta Magyar” I agree with immigration, countries need people especially with declining birthrates and increased elderly population. I believe that nationalities/culture need to be protected. Yes we are all equal, but we are all different and that is okay. When there is an issue of increasing violance/crime within a certian “group” of people, resentment will inevitably follow if excuses are given as justification for the crimes or if a people(natives of a country) are asked to “try and understand” what they (immigrants)are going through. In my “rose coloured glasses” world, it is irrelevant what nationality, religion or past problem a person has that “made” you do the crime. Yes I know there are always exceptions, that is not my point.
When do people start accepting responsibility for their actions? When are people going to realise that there are consequences for their actions?
I support a Roma march on Budapest, but not for reasons that the Roma would envision.
The problem has been simmering for a long time, on a small scale, scattered throughout the country. It’s time for things to come to the fore, and to get off from the “backburner” and instead in the forefront where it belongs. Having a large concentration of Roma march on Budapest should be a very turbulent, but revealing experience.
Three things can come about as a result of such a demonstration:
1)That legitimate Roma concerns will begin be adressed
2)We will see abundant need to crack down on Roma crime
3)All of the above; my favorite option.
No more “sweeping under the rug”; no more pretending from our leaders. Let’s have it out.
Hi Zsuzsa,
The problem that the Italians have with Africans is that being the closest to Africa, they are the destination point for the African continent’s economic refugees. These blacks come from the worst governed nations on earth, with no money, no education, and so they become disproportionately involved with drug dealing, crime and prostitution. Being so conspicuous makes them targets for resentment.
I agree with your views. I would support a responsible immigration policy that filters people based upon what constructive contribution they can bring. This can mean asking for people with certain education, certain occupation groups that are needed here (why turn away doctors or engineers?), or requiring that a certain amount of money be banked here. It’s our show, let’s run it.
@ Farkas Laszlo
Shame you were not our Prime Minister in the 70′s when the new Immigtration Law came into effect instead of Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
If you were, maybe Canada’s economy would not have had the strain on welfare costs, health costs, education, criminal justice system etc etc
Maybe we’d even have money to deal with the poverty of our First Nation – as it stands we just offer band-aid solutions “Charity begins at home” was not Mr. Trudeau’s motto
I believe immigration should be be “colour blind” but not blind to differentiating between immigrants being assets and not liabilities
I’d even be ok with a limited number of liabilities, Canada’s contribution to the other countries’ disadvantaged (very limited) – but opening the floodgates was a huge mistake that cannot be reversed