Double standards in Europe through Slovak case studies -- did you know these?

Remove all ads!

[This is a long topic, but I think it is worth reading it if you're a bit interested in the situation of democracy in Central Europe and how much European Union seems not to care about it. I quote Wikipedia a lot, that is why the topic is so long.]

Many people heard about the international attacks against the new Hungarian media law. My opinion is that the law will only need a few changes, but this thread is not about the law. This thread instead mentions some non-Hungarian laws and cases that are much worse than what the HU media law is accused of, and there is/was no international outburst against them, apart from some occassional moderate criticism in the past.

You guys probably noticed that Ragusa "collected" and "listed" several things in my recent threads about Hungary. His stuff presented several negative things (I think most of them were false, but that's not the point now), implying that Hungary is getting antisemitic, antidemocratic etc.

I wonder whether Ragusa would/will present criticism of the same intensity and tone to the cases & laws presented below.


1. An ultra-nationalist chauvinist party in the government of an EU eurozone country until 2010

Problem
The party was in the government of an European Union country called Slovakia until 2010 and participated in the legislation. Yet, this party (or Slovakia) doesn't and didn't get as much and as intensive international criticism as Jobbik of Hungary. Please read below about it and about its leader's statements about Hungarians, Gypsies and homosexuals, and then check whether Slovakia has got the same international accusations about racism and antisemitism until 2010 as Hungary (and in Hungary's case, it is baseless on top of it all, but that is not the point of this thread).

Introduction
From Wikipedia:

The facts
The constant leader of SNS, Ján Slota (who is constantly backed by SNS):

Some of the statements of Slota:

Some more (source):

One of his "best":

About Jozef Tiso:

The double standard
The Hungarian extreme-right party Jobbik seems to get much international attention, despite of the fact it has no practical power against Fidesz. Because it has/had some unarmed negligible group (already forbidden and closed by a court) of uniformists? What about the Slovak National Party and its hate speech and activity in Slovakia? Yeah, its leader Slota dedicated a public plaque to a fascist leader who cooperated with Hitler, and this Slota was one of the most influential people of the Slovak government until 2010. Not just parliament. Government. Anyone wanna show an example of similar severity in Hungary? Yet, Hungary is the "racist country", and its capital is the "center of antisemitism"? Better: show me any government politician in Hungary who suggests "backfilling" an ethnic group with "concrete", or anything similarly threatening and low!


2. A law in an EU eurozone country that prohibits the use of ethnic languages in several official cases (the law is still in effect)

Problem
The law violates the freedom of speech in your own native language even in cases when the official requirements (e.g. a form) do not reason the exclusive use of state language (Slovak). It got international criticism only a few times, unlike the new Hungarian media law which got a lot of attacks now (and I think it the HU law doesn't even deserve the attacks, but discussing is not the point of this thread). Double standard?

The facts
From Wikipedia:

As an example, imagine the following situation in the USA: you are in a state office submitting some official documents. Both you and the official in charge are native in Italian (or Russian, etc.), and English is only your second language, and you both feel that it would be nice to use your native language to communicate. Are you forced to talk English, tell me? (Assuming noone else is in the room, so noone else needs to understand your communication. Obviously, the documents and everything related is filled in English, I'm merely talking about the oral communication.) Tell me, what would you think if a LAW would threaten you in this case that if you don't talk English and someone reports you, you may even need to pay a fine up to thousands of dollars?!

The double standard
Not much comment needed here... Compare the number of accusations the Hungarian media law gets with how many the Slovak language law received... How come the German, French and other European governments stayed silent for the Slovak language law?!


3. A member of an ethnicity (Hungarian) in an EU eurozone country becomes the victim of a crime but the police and government denies the crime and frames her

Problem
In Slovakia, Hedvig Malina, a university student girl, was severely beaten by skinheads in 2006 because she used Hungarian publicly. The police and government denied the crime, and accused her of making up the whole thing. The whole "official" investigation is full with contradicting elements, which confirms that she was indeed attacked and the Slovak Republic only tries to hide the crime. If a gypsy suffers a crime in Hungary (and the police even investigates the crime AND Hungary doesn't deny the crime internationally either), Hungary is accused of being racist etc., but if the same happens in Slovakia (and Hedvig's case is not the only one), nobody forms any criticism about the situation of ethnicities in Slovakia?

Introduction
From Wikipedia:

The facts
About the police investigation in Wikipedia:

The "proofs" (graphology, etc.) sound convincing that she just made it up, no? Maybe it's just a conspiracy theory that the Slovak state framed her? The truth is, Slovakia worked like a dictature under Prime Minister Fico until 2010, and yes, everything what you read above and apparently implies she is lying is actually the result of power conditions and dictatoric control. Read below:

Isn't it a bit suspicious that from the two people who reported Malina to the police by their own will, one committed suicide, while the other is a former secret agent?!

The police is not interested in the only known witness of the crime:

Wow, the official Slovak viewpoint does not deny anymore that the crime happened, and they admit they made some mistakes:

Police is accused of abuse:

U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos sends a letter to the Slovak Prime Minister:

Charges are still not dropped for Hedvig Malina:

The double standard
This is a case where the government, police of the Slovak Republic tried to deny an ethnic attack and even frame the victim. This is the true dictature, not that sometimes gypsies are attacked/murdered in Hungary (murder is rare) and they're FAIRLY INVESTIGATED by the Hungarian Police. Hungary never tried to hide crimes against ethnic groups. Slovakia tried. The charges haven't been officially dropped for Hedvig Malina even up to the present day. WHERE WAS THE INTERNATIONAL OUTBURST WORRYING FOR SLOVAK DEMOCRACY THAT TIME? Except the letter of Tom Lantos from USA and possibly very very few other examples. Where was the German, French, etc. government "warning" Slovakia to keep democracy?


4. The law of Slovakia and Czech Republic -- both are European Union countries -- still contain the so-called Benes decrees from the 20th century. This practically keeps the concept of Collective Guilt legal. Felix Ermacora from Austria said that the Benes decrees constitute genocide and a crime against humanity.

Problem
The Benes decres are still in effect. They do not have any effect in practice. But they are in the law. They were not removed. Two European Union countries allow it to stay in their law, and the EU just lets it. Where is worrying for democracy now? No, it doesn't matter the law is meaningless in practice: it is still in effect; it has a symbolic meaning, and it keeps the term of collective guilt in a law that is still in effect. Please read below (and in wikipedia) what the Benes decrees are about.

Introduction

Yeah, millions of Germans and Hungarians were removed from their home. Yes, the law which enabled this and is based on the term of collective guilt is still in effect. It is still present in the law of Slovakia and Czech Republic -- both are European Union countries.

The facts

The double standard
There is not much comment needed here. Nothing can be found in the Hungarian law that makes the concept of Collective Guilt legal. Yet, Europe is so silent about such a terrible law of Czech Republic and Slovakia. And indeed, it doesn't matter that the law has no practical effect anymore. In the USA, what would you think if e.g. you had a law which included the concept of slavery in a positive meaning? It would be meaningless, because there are no slaves, but you would feel it a shame, don't you? Because it would be in the law. It would declare something to be legitim and legal.

---------------

If some people here think that Hungarians, led by Orbán, started to look for international conflicts, better that you know that Hungarians probably also had enough of the double standards. For example, if it's about the accusation of oppressing e.g. gypsies, that's considered to be something terrible, but if it's about oppressing Hungarian ethnics, it doesn't even need to be mentioned, eh? If it's about Hungarian media law, that's considered to be something terrible, but if it's about Slovak language law that limits the free use of your own language or the Benes decrees that are based on the concept of COLLECTIVE GUILT, it is not that big deal. Hungarians had enough of these double standards, and most of them don't even care about the international opinion. The "international opinion" which is usually silent when non-Hungarians make antidemocratic laws and activities, but becomes the loudest when Hungary does anything questionable. Enough of double standards!

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Freedom of press is logically derived from it in a certain sense, since you don't need to write down your opinion in an article: you can just choose to form an oral opinion in the street! So how come that the SLOVAK LANGUAGE LAW which prohibits the free use of your own language in many official public places did not get remotely the same amount of attacks than a law that affects a "derived" right, freedom of press?!!!

The above cases also explain further reasons why most Hungarians are not fond of Socialist governments any more. Yeah, Orbán is not afraid from conflicts, if they serve the nation's interests. But remember from my above text what the former HU Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány (he is a socialist) said about the Malina Hedvig case in Slovakia? Or that Péter Medgyessy, also a socialist Prime Minister, stopped pushing the case of the Benes decrees? Socialist politicians of their sort in Hungary do not care much about the nation. Not true to Orbán.

---------------

SUMMARY

There were four cases presented regarding Slovak Republic, which is a European Union and eurozone country, neighbour country of Hungary.

Those forum members here who are so loud now regarding the Hungarian media law, and criticize the Hungarian democracy, please ask yourselves: would you start to worry about Slovak democracy as well the same seriously if you heard about the things I presented? Isn't it a bit strange that the cases I presented (even if we exclude Hedvig's case as "internal affair" of a contry) did not bring a wide and aggressive international outburst/criticism to Slovakia? Before Taluntain or anyone else would tell me ironically that there is probably an international conspiration against Hungary, I'll tell you that the intensity and size of the international attacks on the Hungarian media law is explained by MONEY, whether you like it or not. Media companies hate the fact they will lose money due to decreasing advertisement income (due to stricter rules and children-friendly requirements), and multinational companies hate the taxes. If anyone says that the size of the international outburst is purely because of worrying about "democracy" , then how is it possible that none of the above cases resulted in a similar intensity and number of critical reactions towards Slovakia as the HU media law?

How is it possible that almost noone (except U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos, may he rest in peace) worried about the democracy in Slovakia between 2006-2010? Where were the European countries which criticize Hungary now?

Let me summarize again the four points:
1. One of the most influential politicians of the Slovak government until 2010 was a person who committed crimes in the past, praises Tiso (a person who cooperated with Hitler), and has a regular hate speech against the Hungarian ethnicity and against homosexuals and gypsies.
2. Slovakia has a law in effect that practically prohibits you to use your own language in many official situations in the Slovak Republic. If you violate the law, you can be fined to thousands of euros.
3. Malina Hedvig, a girl who belongs to the Hungarian ethnicity in Slovak Republic, was beaten severely by skinheads, and the Slovak police and other "helpers" tried to deny the crime and instead framed Hedvig. This is a state-assisted ethnic attack, the most dirty example of a dictatoric control. The charges against her are still not dropped. And the world is loud about the HU media law because "it threatens the Hungarian democracy"? If Hungary did the same with a Gypsy person, Hungary would be the "most terrible and racist antidemocratic country of Europe", right?
4. The Benes decrees are still in effect, they are in the law of Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. They enabled the deportations of millions of Germans and Hungarians in the past. How can the Eropean Union allow that such laws are still in effect?

You can read the letter of the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives on my Sorcerer's Place Supporter web account. This is the letter sent by Tom Lantos to the Slovak Government in 2007. Congressman Lantos mentions Malina Hedvig and the Benes decrees in the letter. Now is 2011. The charges against Malina still haven't been dropped and her attackers were not found by the police, while the Benes decrees are still in effect. It is 2011. Is Slovakia a more democratic country than Hungary? If not, how is it possible that it got 100 times less number of international warnings than Hungary?

 

Wise-ass Aristotelian observation of the day:

Baronius is to Ragusa as Neo is to Agent Smith.

Carry on.

 

DR,
no, as I can calmly ignore and happily not read his opening post out of pure lack of interest and a certain prescient knowledge of what he will type anyway. I can skip that. Because I want to and will spend my evening drinking fine Riesling wine and play computer (i.e. pleasantly) before I go to bed early because I got to work tomorrow.

I don't need to read Baronius unwieldy rant to know that Slovakia sucks, even though not quite as much as Belarus, and that Hungary compares favourably. His presumable point that everyone beats on poor Hungary while not saying anything about their crap neighbour is mistaken as well, as people do just that, and for a while now.

 

The post is not addressed to Ragusa at all. The international cases I list in its content are not known by very many members of the SP board. I simply want the SP members to know about these cases. I planned this long before I heard of the new HU media law. The world should know that Hungarians are tired of the role of the international "nasty child".

Yeah, democracy in Slovakia sucks. Much more than you would think.

About Ragusa's post above, it just proves he is a cowardly person who runs away immediately when he feels he cannot answer one of the fundamental questions of my post: how come that Slovakia looks much less democratic than Hungary, yet Hungary is receiving many more international attacks?

 

Thank you Baronius

Q.E.D. so it is about 'everyone beats on poor Hungary while not saying anything about their crap neighbour'. You are somewhat predictable Baronius ... but you saved me a ton of time I was able to spend on levelling my character.

Point is: No matter what Slovakia does and is like, Hungary's media law is problematic, as are some other policies by the Orbán government. Nobody is applying any double standard by not mentioning Slovakia and their separate and different problems (as in a 'different issue entirely'). They are just staying on topic when they limit themselves to Hungary. If you don't like that, tough for you.

 

You are a cheater (trying to misrepresent my point), a bad one:

Noone said Slovakia should be mentioned too when Hungary is criticized.
The point was that neither Slovakia's language law nor the keeping of Benes Decrees was criticized nearly as aggressively and by as many sources as the HU media law.

I'm not the only one who draws the attention that the governments and organizations that now worry for democracy because of the HU media law were silent regarding the Slovak language law and the legality of Benes decrees. Most analysts agree that the reason of the current international attack is that Orbán's own path (refusing IMF, tax to multinational companies, stricter media control, ...) violates the interests of some powerful countries. Hungary can change its role (which was basically the cash cow of those countries). Some analysts actually say that Hungary doesn't want the role of a peripherial country any more, while this violates the interests of the "central" countries of Europe. These analysts mention the centre-periphery model (I'm not an economist so I don't state this is the exact explanation of the current events, but it's an interesting approach):

 

In essence, you are saying:
Someone's faults are bigger than mine, so why are you pointing at me!

I don't think this is wise.
It seems that you assume by reaction of some forum users, that seemingly all 'westerners' don't understand/like Hungary. I find it a bit close minded.

I, for one, haven't any issues with Hungarians.
Concerning the new media law, I even like the fact of a better protection from
sexual content to protect children, as an example.
But then again, I'm a man with strong ethical beliefs.
Nevertheless, I also see the danger, that such a law may be abused, not to protect innocents, but to silence a political rival.

In summary I just want to point out, that not the whole world is against you, as you sometimes make it believe, when I read the various posts in the last days.

Just my two cents ^^.

 

Not the whole world, but it can't be denied that "half" of the developed world joined the hysteria. The hysteria is made and nourished by those who feel their interests (and not democracy) violated.

I appreciate your reply hannibal555, but the purpose of my post wasn't this:

In the above style, my question would sound like this:

Since a non-Ragusa person seemed not to understand my point, I need to repeat it again:
The problem is not that the HU media law is attacked. The problem is that the Slovak cases were mostly ignored by most of those who are now the loudest to Hungary.

The problem isn't the criticism; the problem is the quantity and intensity of the criticism from those who worry about democracy now, but in Slovak cases, for some reasons, they felt not to worry.

 

Well, you know the old saying:

Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today

 

I hadn't heard of the Hungarian media law until you posted about it, so trust me, the whole world doesn't care about it. Didn't even make the news paper here - not even one of those small little side column articles where they put big important events that no one cares about.

[Edit]That may have come off a bit harsh. My point is that the whole world isn't picking on Hungary over Slovakia. In fact, the vast majority of the world cares naught about neither. They are both insignificant countries somewhere in Europe (or was it Asia? )

 

Taluntain: your explanation does not give any answer candidate to the reaction of governments and high-ranking politicians. See my paragraphs below after the spacer (you sent your post while I was writing it, so my below post was written without knowing about your above post).

And Tal:

The HU media law is attacked often with the statement that "such a thing does not exist in whole Europe" (and by the way, this is not true, but if anyone wants to argue with that, please do it in the Hungary media law topic, not here). Well, I listed cases which indeed do not exist in Europe, and they are at least as serious as what the HU law is accused of. They are not "some people punished for the same things", the fact a law that was used to deport millions of people in a Hitler-friendly regime is still in effect in the European Union is a unique thing in whole Europe, for example.

----

Tell me Rotku, if you admit you haven't heard of this case before I posted about it (and thus I assume you don't know much about Hungary either), how do you know so well that the "whole world" doesn't care about it? More precisely, how do you know the amount of its international reaction? Yeah, it didn't make to headlines and front pages, but there was still significantly much wider reaction than to the Slovak cases. And what really matters is that not just in press or media (they can feel attacked by a stricter media law, OK), but also by European governments and politicians. Believe me, the German and French ministers do not criticize cases that Germany/France "doesn't care about". So these governments and politicians were/are totally silent about the Slovak cases.

Rotku, if you think the "world" so much does not care and you also don't know much about Hungary, then what makes you think the international reaction is negligible? Compared to what? Imagine that (for example) the criticism on USA represented by the number 100000000, Hungary is 100, and Slovakia is 5. Hungary's number is indeed negligible in the world in the example. Compared to Slovakia, it isn't. Got the point? It's relative. The amount of criticism Hungary got from international sources is not proportional to the assumed problems its media law supposedly introduces.

I know many will take this as an offense to their personal pride, but honestly many of you were dominated by the Hungary media law hysteria and act like good puppets of those interested in the hysteria. Why? Because I haven't seen any actual post ON THE TOPIC yet; all posts mention the HU media law, and that I'm apparently pointing to others to defend the law. No, I don't need to defend the law here, I already told my thoughts on it on other two topics, and you're welcome to talk about the HU media law in those topics. You say:
"Baronius tries to hijack the attention from the HU media law by showing others with big mistakes; or he tries to reject the criticism by saying that those with big mistakes weren't criticized either".
But the truth is:
"The fact there is a HU media law that gets much criticism does not mean an excuse to why a law of Hitler times that gave a legal basis to deport millions of Germans and Hungarians is still in effect in the European Union." Yeah, you can take my post in a standalone way as well, clever ones. Answer me why some politicians and ministers of some big European Union countries WORRY ABOUT DEMOCRACY about the media law but DID NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT the Slovak language law, and DO NOT GIVE A DAMN THAT THE BENES DECREES -- WHICH ARE EVERYTHING BUT NOT DEMOCRATIC -- ARE STILL IN EFFECT.

You can say I point to Slovakia; I say you point to Hungary; I can do so because this is a topic about Slovak antidemocratic events and laws, including questions regarding Hungary that noone dared to reply yet. I say you point to Hungary, and by that you avoid admitting that the international reaction was obviously much smaller and less intensive to the MORE SEVERE Slovak issues.

So far, I've seen three types of reactions:
1) Don't point to the Slovak laws, because the fact they're bad examples doesn't make your media law less problematic
2) Noone actually cares of Hungary (or Slovakia)
3) The press and media reaction is so big now because they feel their freedom endangered

Well, as I told, (1) is irrelevant, because this topic IS NOT ABOUT how problematic the HU media law is. It presents Slovak dictatoric examples, and asks how is it possible that they didn't get 1/100 as many attacks as the HU media law.
(2) is irrelevant either, because the topic talks about those who CARE, so their ratio to the "whole world" is irrelevant.
(3) is one of the influencing elements, but it does not explain the reactions of governments and politicians.

So I ask the question (in a different form) again, clever ones:

How come the German government, French government, Luxemburg government etc. do not give a damn about the SLOVAK LANGUAGE LAW and about the BENES DECREES OF HITLER TIMES? Both laws are in effect in the European Union.

 

​

It simply means you're arbitrarily changing the subject because you like this one better. That becomes all the more obvious since you explicitly refer to Hungary and say Slovakia is worse, before you whine that Hungary gets all the beating and Slovakia doesn't. And even though you yourself put the two into a context, you maintain this is all about Slovakia. Not it is not, transparently so, and everybody knows it. You are really a fool to suffer.

You might have managed to be somewhat credible had you just limited yourself to lamenting the sorry state of Slovakia - but alas, that's exactly what you didn't do. It's still all about Hungary, your fervent protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Slovakia is just your prop in your very transparent and clumsy attempt to discredit very justified and reasonable criticism about Hungary's new media law in particular and Orban's legislation in general - because when people don't criticise Slovakia more (Slovakia sucks more after all) they must be biased against Orbàno-Hungary or whatever. A joke ...

 

The fact that it didn't make our news papers here (and I'm not just talking about front page - and you complain about others twisting your words ) shows to me that the whole world doesn't care.

Jeeze Louise - talk about twisting words. I never made any statement regarding the relative level of the reaction. Your entire point in this topic is "Hey! Don't pick on us! Look, they're worse!". My point is 99% of the world doesn't give a ****about Hungary, and those who do I'm sure care about Slovakia as well. In answering your initial comment about why people here are commenting on Hungary and not Slovakia I think it's simply because (a) it was brought up; and (b) someone was religiously trying to defend it. If a Slovak came and started saying how fair and just these rules are, I'm sure people would argue against.

 

You have a "little" problem... You were cowardly to touch the main QUESTION:
How come the German government, French government, Luxemburg government etc. do not give a damn about the SLOVAK LANGUAGE LAW and about the BENES DECREES OF HITLER TIMES? Both laws are in effect in the European Union.

Ragusa, Ragusa, where is the lawyer who is so proud of himself and to his factual and objective arguments in the threads "Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law" and "The Economist manipulated the photo of Viktor Orbán". Where is the lawyer who avoids attacking his communication partner personally, and instead strives for providing concrete on-topic arguments?

Does it hurt to admit that I'm right in my post that Hungary got 100 times stronger & more criticism for a law which is accused of less severe things than what Slovakia is responsible of?

The "little" problem with your repeated attack is that my motivations with the post _do_ _not_ _affect_ the factual accuracy of the presented cases about Slovakia Moreover, they _do_ _not_ _affect_ the validity of my associated questions either.

If I was against the Hungarian media law, I could write exactly the same post. My possible bias does not influence the factual content of the initial post, neither the questions I ask from the readers

A credibility of a case presentation that is backed by generally accepted sources does not depend on my view on the Hungarian media law.

So, are you still too cowardly to answer this gem:
How come the German government, French government, Luxemburg government etc. do not give a damn about the SLOVAK LANGUAGE LAW and about the BENES DECREES OF HITLER TIMES? Both laws are in effect in the European Union.
Still cowardly to answer the gem?

If you answer it, however, you will discredit yourself immediately. Because if you really know the answer (and this is the truth IMO) and just felt it too shameful, then you should have immediately told it; and since you didn't, you are already discredited by your rant about me using poor Slovakia as a way to neutralize the criticism of the HU media law.

If you are accused of stealing 5 pigs while your neighbour is known stealing 44 pigs, and you are severely punished while he gets away with a warning "don't steal again", it discredits the jurisdiction system indeed... and as a lawyer, dear Ragusa, you know this very well -- no discimination, you know... this is what hurts you in this thread, don't you... too painful to admit the truth eh... And yeah, as a side effect of answering my central question, the criticism on the HU media law would be quite discredited too... YOU SAID THIS FIRST, NOT ME! That means you KNOW it already It's so much more elegant in this way that you told it publicly first, not me... Nonetheless, as proved above, it really doesn't matter whether my initial post is for discussing the Slovak antidemocracy or for discrediting the HU attackers, because the factual accuracy of my statements is confirmed by generally accepted external sources

 

If I'm reading you right I disagree with this leap of logic. If A criticizes B, even if C is worse than B, doesn't mean A's initial criticism isn't valid. It is a false assumption.

And on a side note, I don't think anyone is 'too cowardly' to answer your initial question. It's just the answer is so obvious (given the facts presented above). It's politics. People are bias - they've got far more motivations than what's 'right' and what's 'wrong'. Welcome to the real world. Enjoy your stay.

 

Who is worse; the French with their forced Exodus of the Roma, or Microsoft?
Steve Jobs or Jobbik? The German Bild Newspaper or the Penthouse Magazine?

Hitler or the Pope?

It all boils down to who has got the longer Finger he uses to point out at the other!
(A proper sense for the Media too)

It is baffling and quite unrealistic to assume A is better than B or C just because its the first letter.

Balkans are a backwater Place. And so is the Rest of the World...it's just that some are a bit more civilized about it.

#shrug#

 

Baronius,
the Benes decrees were not of Hitler times, but of post-Hitler times. In them the Czechs, after the defeat of the German forces in Czechoslovakia, punished collectively ethnic Germans who had lived in Czechoslovakia ever since the days of the Austro-Hungarian empire, by confiscating their property and expelling them from Czechoslovakia. Orbán has condemned these decrees as unjust, and I agree with him on that point. I never said that he is wrong all the time.

I still object to his media law and other pieces of legislation and the general authoritarian tendencies of his government and parliamentarian majority.

 

[Excuse me everyone for editing my post million times; something went wrong and my whole text got duplicated after a minor edit. I think it should be fine now.]

Ragusa: thanks for correcting that flaw in accuracy; certainly it's post-Hitler times. And thanks for the good summary. Yeah, it would have surprised me if you disagreed Orbán -- or anyone -- in condemning the decrees . About objecting the media law and Orbán's others' stuffs, I acknowledge that you disagree with them. (I never found that immoral or disrespectful even in previous threads; what I didn't like when my points were thrown out just because they were based on implicit experience as well -- but discussing this is for the other threads, so I don't want to bring them here.)

No, but A proves it applies a double standard. Which questions the moral right of A to strongly attack B, because A doesn't similarly (and proportionally) attack C as well.

While the world is indeed unfair, at least it's nice if there is an intention to ensure some sort of equality. Isn't the type of democracy that many of you were babbling about (in the "media law"-related AoDa threads) strives for equality either? That the minority does not get disadvantage because of the control of majority? That the minority also gets equal right? Isn't (democratic) LAW trying to be equally fair to those who would deserve equal treatment in theory?

Your answer really helped me to prove all my points, Rotku, even if that wasn't your intention. It is so good that I can quote same text from you twice below.

This perfectly proves and approves what I need to hear: there is bias, finally you admitted it. What Ragusa tried to deny with various hopeless attempts, you openly uttered it: there is a bias against Hungary regarding the media law criticism, because if there wasn't, Slovakia with its really antidemocratic events and laws should have received attacks of similar severity from the same governments and politicians as Hungary now. Yet, they were silent.

So, since the "answer is so obvious" and there are "far more motivations than what's 'right' and what's 'wrong'" (quotes from you), Hungary must silently swallow the rudest criticism and jump immediately to apply changes according to the taste of some Western governments who "worry for democracy" (and I don't want to repeat here that much of the media law criticism isn't even factually correct, because it is off-topic, if you want to argue with me, use one of the media law centric threads in AoDA). Hungary must swallow all that because "it's politics" and there are "far more motivations than what's 'right' and what's 'wrong'", while Slovakia can get away with it.

Don't you feel the disgusting hipocrisy and double standard here? According to the criticism you agree with, the Hungarian media law is NOT FAIR, not democratic enough, but at the same time, you "clarify" me that the "real world" where Hungary exists is NOT FAIR either and I'm "welcome" in it. That is, the Hungarian media law should be fair equally with everyone, but Hungary cannot expect a similarly fair treatment by international politics? You just admitted it...

And the formidable degree of hipocricy of many countries & people (including some of the SP forum members) sometimes amazes me, really. Because we all know that noone likes to be treated unfairly. You're trying to present me here that it's just natural to get unfair treatment due to "politics", but if it happens to you -- either in personal life or in the politics -- you also would feel the same inequality and would point to the other. Such is the human nature. Stating here that it's just natural to get unfair treatment due to "politics" WHILE ranting me about how antidemocratic the media law is reflects an incredible degree of insolence and hipocrisy...

And how funny, that the European reactions here and in the two media law-related AoDA threads really seem to follow the Western European hipocricy and double standard. "It's about politics and if we're unfair with you, you must accept it because we're powers, but if we say that you're not fair with us or with your own citizens, you must take steps to amend that. We tell you whether you're democratic or not." Yeah, some Americans also seemed to share similar B&W views, mostly the lawyers i.e. dmc (even if they deny this, it's proved by the fact that they didn't want to admit in this topic that Hungary indeed gets much stronger and wider attacks than Slovakia because there is a bias -- Rotku was the first who practically uttered this). But let's get back to the Western European hipocricy; more precisely, the hipocricy of the Western politicians who worry about Hungarian democracy but didn't worry for the Slovak one. Their attitude resembles to the situation after the First World War...

...You know guys, there is a gentleman I appreciate a lot, his name was Woodrow Wilson. I don't know his achievements and acts much, but what I know is that he had a very wise and reasonable suggestion at the end of First World War. The "winners" of Europe didn't want from it. The big powers of Europe wanted their own stubborn despotic victory. The result: Hitler and WW2.

I see similar things in these threads (of course, there are positive exceptions, but very few); on the other hand, what is nice is that most Americans -- except the lawyers -- actually have a more humble point of view altogether than the other posters. No doubt, most of the American posters seem to have a self-confident view that they believe the media law is not democratic, and they tell this to me straightly. But they do not excessively force their view, and they do not come here to tell me that I should stay silent about Slovakia because I should be kneeling in the corner covered by shame instead. They have a minimal level of respect: "I think the media law is bad, but it's their decision, and their country & politics". They don't have the disgusting insolence to come and EDUCATE me about "unfairness" of the world and that "I try to discredit media law attacks by bringing up Slovakia" while telling that the media law should be fair and democratic .........

The -- mostly European -- double standard (what Rotku* already has implicitly but obviously admitted) has always been there. "How dare you tax our companies and restrict our media? We tell who is democratic and who is not. We decide what you peripherial vermin can do in your parliament and what you cannot!"

I'm going to be rude now. Maybe it will be slightly exaggerating for generalization purposes. Prepare. Oh, yeah, I know I won't utter some big truth. Yeah, I want to utter it, because I had enough of the double standards proved by the difference in the style of replies between this thread and the Hungary media law AoDA threads. Here you are. It's about the governments/politicans who worry so loudly about Hungarian democracy now but stayed silent about Slovakia:
Slovakia s**** the d*** of those countries (no offense to Slovak citizens; I have great Slovak friends -- I'm talking about your government, not the people of Slovakia). Slovakia s**** your d***s, while Hungary does not want from that!

Don't bother showing how absurd or "wrong" I'm above. Even the blind can see the whole thing has been about double standards.

But I'm not worried. Orbán has great connections in politics in Europe. It has a good chance Hungary -- and the EU -- will prosper much from the new path chosen by Hungary.

*It doesn't matter Rotku is not European; he proved perfectly the point of this whole thread: "It's just the answer is so obvious[..]. It's politics. People are bias - they've got far more motivations than what's 'right' and what's 'wrong'.