no MMA!

The government dismisses criticism of its policies as liberal lies, but attacks on the media, threats to the independence of the central bank and racism suggest otherwise

Among the foreign dignitaries attending Margaret Thatcher’s funeral on Wednesday will be a man who many feel shouldn’t be representing his country. But it will be a handy getaway for Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, an excuse for him to break off from trying to defend his country’s new constitution from its EU critics, who include commission president José Manuel Barroso.

The bad press Hungary has been getting of late is the result of left-liberal lies. At least, that is what the current government claims. In fact, it argues, Hungary is a perfectly normal country going about its business. Criticising the ruling party, the centre-right Fidesz, we are told, is an attack on Hungarians generally. Fidesz is, in effect, Hungary.

Of course these “lies” have been around only since Fidesz came to power in 2010. The party’s landslide victory handed the new prime minister, Orbán, an opportunity to change the constitution. So what’s the problem?

The EU identified three main ones: the new media law, the earlier obligatory retirement age for judges and the independence of the central bank. It exerted pressure on Hungary and little by little these points were addressed – but the most recent amendments weakening the constitutional court have taken everything back to square one. The minister for economic affairs is now the head of the central bank.

The Guardian

JURIST Guest Columnist Gabor Halmai of Eötvös Lóránd University, Budapest says that the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary undermines several constitutional rights and implicates the entire scheme of constitutionalism in Hungary…

On February 26, 2013, Hungary’s Constitutional Court issued a ruling striking down the law granting official designation to churches in Hungary. Specifically, the court repealed parts of the law as unconstitutional, arguing that the registration of churches by the National Assembly of Hungary does not provide a fair procedure for the applicants. In addition, the court also prescribed the conditions of fair procedure for future legislation. But on March 11, a new amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary [PDF] was adopted, which put the same provisions that were found unconstitutional by the court into the text of the constitution. This amendment also prohibits the Constitutional Court from reviewing the constitutionality of amendments to the Fundamental Law. The amendment, which entered into force on April 1, 2013, was proposed by the governing Fidesz party which has the two-thirds majority in parliament that was needed for a constitutional amendment to be accepted.

So, this is the end of the short version of the story — it is also the end of the freedom to establish new churches in Hungary.

According to Hungarian law on the status of the churches, as well as a separate law on the Transitional Provisions of the Fundamental Law [PDF] (“Transitional Provisions”), the power to designate legally recognized churches is vested in the parliament itself. The law has listed 14 legally recognized churches and required all other previously registered churches (some 330 religious organizations in total) to either re-register under considerably more demanding criteria, or continue to operate as religious associations without the legal benefits offered to the recognized churches (e.g., tax exemptions and the ability to operate state-subsidized religious schools). As a result, only 18 have been able to re-register, so the vast majority of previously registered churches have been deprived of their status as legal-entities. Because registration requires an internal democratic decision-making structure, the majority of previously registered churches were not able to continue to operate with any legal recognition under the new regime. Non-traditional and non-mainstream religious communities — which had not encountered legal obstacles between 1989 and 2011 — are now facing increasing hardships and discrimination as a result.

Jurist.org

Government continues the unfair treatment narrative as officials fight war of words with Brussels

Public Administration and Justice Minister Tibor Navracsics has advised EU Justice and Fundamental Rights Commissioner Viviane Reding to get her facts right before questioning judicial independence in Hungary, the latest move in a spat over sweeping government reforms.
Reding had said she expected Hungary to abide by a European Court of Justice ruling and reinstate over 200 judges and prosecutors forced out of office when the ruling Fidesz party lowered the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 62. Navracsics fired off a tetchy letter on Monday, two days after Reding’s words were published as an interview in left-wing newspaper Népszava.
The European court ruling does not include any reference to the alleged lack of independence of the Hungarian judiciary, Navracsics wrote. It refers to “difference in treatment on grounds of age”, the justice minister said. This is technically correct: the Commission had challenged the legislation by citing EU laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of age.

Budapest Times