Police have launched an investigation to see if remarks by Bela Biszku, who had a role in the retributions following Hungary’s anti-Soviet 1956 revolution, were in breach of the law, Magyar Nemzet daily reported on Thursday.
Biszku, a former interior minister, told public television channel Duna TV in an August 4 interview that the retributions, which included the execution of former prime minister Imre Nagy, among others, had been lawful and that the events of 1956 had not been a revolution.
Gyorgy Szilagyi, an MP for the radical nationalist Jobbik party, has asked for an investigation against Biszku on grounds of a new law forbidding the denial of communist crimes.
A law condemning the denial of Nazi crimes was expanded to include the crimes of communism and was passed by parliament on June 8. It took effect 30 days later, the paper said.
Biszku, who had not given any interviews since the regime change two decades ago, recently came into the public eye as his family initially tried to prevent the screening of a documentary on his life, which they later approved. In the film Biszku reveals that he had not felt any regret or remorse for the death penalties meted out during the post-1956 retaliations.
I still wonder:
Why didn’t someone take him to court after 1989 ?
Regulating free speech is almost always a bad idea. It sets a bad precedent.
Instead of regulating free speech, why not use try these soundrels on crimes against humanity?
@ American
Free speech does not trump Hate speech but Democratic countries will figure out how they want to enact laws.
If this article is correct, I don’t see why the main focus is on Biszku’s “lack of remorse” or his “denial” of the revolution
If he had a role in the “retributions”, should he not be tried for a lot more serious crimes than the article states ?
I suppose being charged with “denial” is better than getting away with murder but the article clearly states that more serious charges are warranted
@ American
sorry , that was ambiguous. I meant being charged with denial was better than not being charged at all but people can be charged with a whole array of criminal charges at the same time and the Curt will decide the appropriate ” guilty” or “not guilty” on each charge
it appears that “denial” would be the least serious charge he should get away with. – so I meant it was better than “nothing”
American is correct……..Regulating free speech is almost always a bad idea. It sets a bad precedent. I would add especially speech regarding politics. Europe is letting their past crimes cloud their current laws.
good question wolfie. why had there been NO call for an accounting at all?? instead the same faces were pushed around into new posts and all went on as before…change of regime my beautiful white ass.
@Zionazi in Budapest at August 12, 2010 5:38 PM
Regulating free speech is almost always a bad idea
—
What do yo mean “almost always”?
How about the hololaws?
Did you protest when the Jews in the MSZP/SZDSZ government pushed true the hololaw?
good question wolfie. why had there been NO call for an accounting at all?? instead the same faces were pushed around into new posts and all went on as before…change of regime my beautiful white ass.
klara at August 13, 2010 1:35 PM
—
Sloppy but correct. The first Parliament passed a law holding to account the Communist murderers but the Constitutional Court, headed by Solyom struck it down. Stinking Communists protected other stinking Communists.
Do we not have a distinction between publicly stating that:
1) “There were no extermination camps in Nazi-Germany”, to
2) “It was good that ‘unwanted elements’ were killed off in extermination camps in Nazi-Germany”?
-
I believe the first statement could be a question for any ‘Holocaust Denial Law’, but the other one a question of ‘Free Speech’
The distinction is to question what really happened, from admiring/applaud what really happened
-
In ‘The Secret Speech’ (ISBN 978-1-84739-160-5) by Tom Rob Smith, an international fiction writer, he claims that the 1956 Hungarian Uprising was actually organized by the Cheka who tried to counter Khrushchev’s reforms, by creating an international crisis that would demand the Soviet Army to react and put back the order in the Politburo
The Hungarian different movements should have been infiltrated by Soviet hard-liners wanting a confrontation
Should a book like this be considered for this type of law?
About the newspaper “Hetek” and its leader: Sándor
)))) Németh was a Taxi driver, he hasn’t
Németh
any degree. He leads a “christian” (or zionist)
sect as a mafia, which is very destructive for
less-educated credulous Hungarian people’s wealth.
Other christian religions deny that the jews were
choosen people until the destoroy of Jerusalem by
the Romans, and Jesus extended his christian
choosen-hood for all nations of the world.
However, Németh teaches: that the Jews are the
ONLY choosen people of the God until this day!
According to his logic: the christians must serve
the Jews.
Just a video about his sect (Hit gyüli or hit
gyülekezete)
Sándor Németh radiate special christian power and
energy for his believers.
Here is the VIDEO LINK! (it’s very very
amusing:)))))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pGheC22MpY
Look the video : 0:48 and from 1:30.
ENJOY IT!
Olga,
I disagree. There is no reason why expressing hate towards someone or some group should be prima facie ground for legal or police action.
That doesn’t mean there are no legitimate exceptions, but the threats must at least be specific to be considered an offense.
Political correctness is a form of thought control and it is a dumbing down of society.
LHLV,
I am against Holocaust denial laws. I may support some hate crimes laws, but I must reflect more on the issue.
The exemptions to free speech would include acts that endanger the public (shouting fire in a crowded theatre) or intentionally speading false information about a person with intent to harm their reputation. However, the prosecution should have the burden of proof in a slander case. In France and the UK, the burden of evidence is on the defense. Very bad idea.
@About Hetek and Sándor Németh at August 13, 2010 5:57 PM
Nemeth is what Hungarians call a zsido berenc and a messanger of hate.
Hetek and Sandor,
The idea that the Jews are the Chosen People is about a convenant between God and the Jews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people.
Generally the convenant between God and the Jews is interpreted as a special burden and entailing great suffering.
“Rabbi Nachman of Breslov also believed that Jewishness is a level of consciousness and not an intrinsic inborn quality. He wrote that, according to the Book of Malachi, one can find “potential Jews” among all nations, whose souls are illuminated by the leap of “holy faith”, which “activated” the Jewishness in their soul. These people would otherwise convert to Judaism, but prefer not to do so. Instead, they recognize the Divine unity within their pagan religions.[14]
Rabbi Isaac Arama, an influental pholosopher and mystic of the 15th century, believed that righteous non-Jews are spiritually identical to the righteous Jews.[15]. Rabbi Menachem Meiri, a famous Catalan Talmudic commentator and Maimonidian philosopher, considered all people, who sincerely profess an ethical religion, as a part of greater “spiritual Israel”. He explicitly included Christian and Muslims in this category. Meiri rejected all Talmudic laws that discriminate between the Jews and non-Jews, claiming that they only apply to the ancient idolators, who had no sense of morality. The only exception are a few laws related directly or indirectly to intermarriage, which Meiri did recognize.”
@ American in BP
“Free speech” in SOME CASES is a free for all to incite hatred against minority groups, so we have “hate laws”
Rather than argue and defend Canadian Laws, I shall post and article that explians the difference followed by our actual legislation which is crystal clear.
If you can have the Tea Party morons showing up screaming hatred against Muslims and Blacks and you are comfortable with your “free speech” laws – well good for you, I guess Uncle Sam will be proud of you.
Sounds like European countries curtail the American idea of free speech but I am not aware of the difference between European and Canadian legislation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/
olga so it is OK for minorities to make hate speech against majorities,,,well aren’t Hungarians minorities in some areas? what about minority Arabs in Israel, they are no incapable of hate speech?
what ridiclous PC nonsense
cc: clearly that is not what olga is saying, and your little twist there is a perfect example of criticising what someone DIDN’T say, rather than engaging on what they DID. Again we see someone getting on the anti-PC bandwagon without understanding what PC is actually all about and what its original intention was/is, and instead using that oh so fashionable trend of anti-PC as an excuse to be obnoxious.
@ Cinaed and cc
Cinaed: At least someone understood why I said.
CC : Re:
1 ” is OK for minorities to make hate speech against majorities – NO in my opinion it is not “ok” – my guess is charges could be laid but not based on the word “minority”
2),,,well aren’t Hungarians minorities in some areas?” – where id you have in mind and what scenario?
3)”what about minority Arabs in Israel, they are no incapable of hate speech?” Personally, I don’t care if the country is on the Moon. “Free speech” is not a free ticket to incite hatred as spelled out in our laws – the law is clear, no point in my rephrasing it
4) what ridiclous PC nonsense – the word PC is over used and subjective like using words like “Liberal” Or “Conservative” By Canadian standards, I am not PC but by Hungarian standards I am.
I believe (justasking may have a different opinion) that if you asked our Conservative PM Stephen Harper what he thought of JOBBIK, he would describe it as an ultra-right wing party with Neo-Nazi ideas. He would be dead set against any form of the MG and would not have his political party associated with an organization like the MG.
Thus “PC” like beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or the ears of the beholder? take your pick)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU4cvmk44MQ Short
video message for globalist liberals who hate the
diversity