VZCZCXYZ0005
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUP #0149/01 0581455
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 271455Z FEB 09
FM AMEMBASSY BUDAPEST
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3928
INFO RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY

UNCLAS BUDAPEST 000149 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/CE JAMIE LAMORE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PINS SOCI HU
SUBJECT: HUNGARY, HATE SPEECH, AND RACISM 
 
------------------------------------- 
TIMELY EC RACISM AND INTOLERANCE REPORT 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶1.  Coincidental, but timely, one day following the shooting 
death of a 27-year-old Romani man and his five year-old son 
in the village of Tatarszentgyorgy, the European Commission 
Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) released their February 
24 report that examined Hungarian racism and intolerance from 
June 2004 to 2008.  Although acknowledging progress made by 
the Hungarian Government since the 2004 report - highlighting 
the 2003 Act on Discrimination and the establishment of the 
Equal Treatment Authority in 2005 - the report found 
important shortcomings, which continue to give rise to 
concern.  In particular, the ECRI stated that the very high 
level of constitutional protection afforded to freedom of 
expression makes it difficult, if not impossible, for 
authorities to initiate effective legal action against those 
who use hate speech. 
 
----------------------- 
INEFFECTIVE LEGISLATION 
----------------------- 
 
¶2.  Under current Hungarian law, incitement against groups is 
not criminalized, and only the most extreme forms of hate 
speech, i.e. incitement liable to provoke immediate violent 
acts, are outlawed by the Hungarian Criminal Code.  Under the 
Hungarian Civil Code, a person specifically targeted by hate 
speech may file a civil suit, but as long as the speech 
remains abstract, not mentioning any specific individual, 
there is no legal recourse.  Following the political system 
change in 1989, there were various unsuccessful attempts to 
broaden the prohibition on the use of hate speech.  Most 
recently, in October 2007, Parliament amended the Civil Code, 
extending legal remedies to individuals or associations 
belonging to a group of people generally targeted by broadly 
defined insults based on national, ethnic or racial identity. 
 Early in 2008, despite opposition from all three opposition 
parties, the Socialists' coalition partner Free Democrats 
(SzDSz), the President of the Republic, and civil rights 
groups, Parliament passed the governing Socialists party's 
initiative and amended the Criminal Code, which allowed 
prosecutors to initiate investigation on broader grounds, 
including non-verbal abuse, such as the use of Nazi salutes. 
However, in June 2008, after President Solyom asked for a 
constitutional review, the Constitutional Court ruled both 
legislative acts to be unconstitutional, citing previous 
rulings on the same subject in 1992, 1999, and 2004.  The 
Constitutional Court argued that the amendments infringed 
upon the acceptable freedom of expression guarantees 
protected by the Constitution. 
 
----------------------------------- 
HOT TOPIC, MUCH TALK, LITTLE ACTION 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  While the death of a Romanian handball player, allegedly 
at the hands of Roma individuals in Veszprem on February 18, 
significantly reinforced general public hostility towards the 
Roma minority, the two killings in Tatarszentgyorgy, at least 
temporarily, re-focused the public discourse from "gypsy 
crime" to the lack of public security in general.  Even the 
radical right-wing journalist, Zsolt Bayer, well-known for 
his harsh, anti-Roma rhetoric, condemned the perpetrators of 
the Tatarszentgyorgy murders in the same way he condemned 
those Roma who are charged with the murder in Veszprem.  In a 
speech in Parliament on February 24, FIDESZ's Roma MP Florian 
Farkas warned that "the society has reached the edge of a 
collision."  Minority Affairs Ombudsman Erno Kallai followed 
with his own address to Parliament, calling on the MPs to 
promptly work out both an "ethnic peace plan" and a concrete 
immediate action plan instead of making politically motivated 
but ineffective statements.  President Solyom, following 
meetings with the Minister of Justice and Law Enforcement, 
the National Police Chief, and the Prosecutor General, 
expressed his shock and anger over the Tatarszentgyorgy 
killings. 
 
------------------- 
IMPETUS FOR CHANGE? 
------------------- 
 
¶4.  While the ECRI report highlighted the lack of strong hate 
speech legislation, the reluctance of the authorities to 
identify racism as a motivation for attacks also results from 
shortcomings in the current criminal law.  Although the 
Criminal Code specifically identifies hate-motivated offenses 
such as genocide, apartheid, violence against a member of a 
national, ethnic, racial or religious group, incitement 
against a community and use of symbols of despotism, the law 
expressly grants judges discretion to take aggravating 
circumstances, such as "base motivations" in cases of murder 
or grievous bodily harm, into account when sentencing 
offenders.  However, due to the difficulty in proving racist 
motivations under the present provisions, courts often treat 
the offense as arising from a general disagreement, even in 
cases with strong evidence of racist violence. 
 
¶5.  In their report the ECRI recommends that Hungary make 
specific provisions in the criminal law to include racist 
motivations as aggravating circumstances when considering 
offenses.  Prime Minister Gyurcsany announced on February 25 
that the government's proposal to amend the Constitution has 
been finalized; stressing that discussion and the action is 
needed rather than waiting for more killings to happen. 
Commenting that "freedom of speech is a value of which 
Hungary can be proud of...everybody has to understand that it 
is not possible to incite violence against ethnic groups 
without consequences."  He noted that the modifications to 
the current legislation are not to limit the freedom of 
expression, rather to better balance the rights and 
obligations of freedom of speech and human dignity.  Such 
changes would require Parliament to amend the Constitution, 
but this requires a two-thirds majority, which will be 
difficult, if not unlikely, in the current political climate. 
Foley