Plans to destroy independent Hungarian civil society: The Norway Fund

A few days ago I wrote a post about János Lázár’s attack on the commercial television stations, especially on RTL Klub. I discussed how the station retaliated by including news that until now it had avoided broadcasting, perhaps not wanting to raise the hackles of the Orbán government. They were hoping, I assume, that by avoiding risky topics the station might be left alone. The strategy didn’t work. It has become obvious that the Orbán government wants to destroy RTL Klub because it is owned by a foreign company.

Just today György Barcza, the new pro-government editor-in-chief of Napi Gazdaság, attacked the CEO of RTL Klub, demanding “more humility and less arrogance from someone who is eating the bread of Hungarians and who at times must fall back on the assistance of Hungarians.” What caused the outburst? Napi Gazdaság, a paper allegedly dealing with economics and finance, accused RTL of spending 1,650,000,000 forints on honoraria, thereby demonstrating the vast riches accumulated by the firm. The correct number was 1,650,000. The very idea that a private firm is accused of living off of Hungarians is pretty outrageous, and that this was said by a so-called economist is truly outlandish.

Now let’s move on to the NGOs that the government finds objectionable. 444 got hold of the government’s list of thirteen NGOs which are, so to speak, black-listed.  The government objects to organizations involved in civil and human rights, like TASZ (Társaság a Szabadságjogokért), and organizations dealing with women’s issues, like Nők a Nőkért Együtt az Erőszak Ellen Egyesület (Nane), the feminist Magyar Női Érdekérvényesítő Alapítvány, and Patriarchátust Ellenzők Társasága (Patent). Orbán and Co. have a real aversion to transparency, so it is not surprising that Transparency International Magyarország Alapítvány is on the list together with K-Monitor Közhasznú Egyesület and the Asimov Alapítvány that is connected to Átlátszó, a site dealing with investigative journalism. Anything that has either “liberal” or “democracy” in its name is out, and finally there are the gays and lesbians who have been attacked lately by Imre Kerényi, a close adviser of Viktor Orbán, and by Zsolt Semjén, head of the Christian Democratic party and between 2010 and 2014 deputy prime minister. So, both Labrisz Leszbikus Egyesület and Szivárvány (Rainbow) Misszió Alapítvány are on the list. And let’s not forget the Roma Sajtóközpont (a press agency on Roma affairs).

On June 19 KEHI (Kormányzati Ellenőrző Hivatal = State Audit) sent out letters to these organizations and gave them one week to release all documents having anything to do with the Norway Fund. Most of them have already refused to “cooperate” because they claim, as does the management of the Norway Fund in Brussels, that KEHI has no legal right to audit; the funds these NGOs received are not under the jurisdiction of the Hungarian state. Of course, the Hungarian government has a different opinion on the matter.

Átlátszó and the Asimov Alapítvány announced that they “would not even open the door” to the officials of KEHI if they show up. Krétakör, a theater group, also refused to cooperate and for good measure posted a video on Facebook depicting the head of the group leaving a brief message to the appropriate official of KEHI refusing to allow KEHI to investigate. Szivárvány Misszió also sent a letter to the official in charge in which they said that they “don’t handle state funds” and therefore they don’t know on what basis they are included in the investigation of state funds.

The sad fate of Hungarian NGOs has already received international publicity. Huffington Post published an article by Jon Van Til, professor emeritus of Urban Studies and Community Planning at Rutgers University, who spent some time teaching in Hungary. The title of the article is “Even the ruler of Hungary needs an independent third sector.” Van Til realizes, as by now most people who follow Hungarian politics do, that in Hungary “a duly elected government seems bent on creating a one-party state that controls nearly every aspect of the country’s life–public, civic, voluntary and even religious.”  Van Til considers the conflict between the Norwegian and Hungarian governments “bizarre” because the Hungarian government’s position is that “grants may be received from sources outside the government, but only if they are managed by the government and are directed to organizations it approves.”

The list of the thirteen organizations tells us a lot about the Orbán government. All that talk about the democracy that the Orbán government allegedly established between 2010 and 2014 is hogwash. Instead, Viktor Orbán is striving to establish a one-party system. Whoever doesn’t see this is blind. All those who stand in his way, be they RTL Klub or TASZ, will be crushed one way or the other.

One final word on the possibility that the attack on the gay and lesbian organizations that received funds from the NorwayFund might be part of a general governmental campaign against homosexuals. I already wrote about Imre Kerényi’s outburst, but now we have another high government official and politician, Zsolt Semjén, bringing up the subject. I should mention that Semjén is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and there is good reason to believe that he, just like former President Pál Schmitt, plagiarized his dissertation.

Semjén had a long interview on HírTV’s P8, a program that can be seen on Friday (péntek) at 8:oo p.m. During the interview he talked about the composition of the new Orbán government, the role of the Christian Democratic party, the preponderance of Protestants in the government, and, of all things, homosexuality. According to Semjén, “a small, yet loud interest group that wants to force this deviant behavior receives serious assistance from Brussels.” Actually, he used the word “brutális támogatás” instead of “serious assistance” where “brutális” nowadays is used to indicate something large and concentrated. As for same-sex marriage, Semjén opined that if two men can get married, “why not three?” A rather odd idea that popped into his head which he, I’m sure, finds hilarious. I assume the huge assistance from Brussels refers to the Norway Fund’s two recipients, the Labrisz Leszbikus Egyesület which received €62,436 and Szivárvány Misszió Alapítvány, a mere €4,163.

The Hungarian Liberal Party’s youth organization wrote an open letter to Zsolt Semjén in which they accused him of discrimination, which is unacceptable in a real democracy. But the problem is that we have to face the fact that Hungary is no longer a democracy and if the Norway Fund gives in on this score, it will acquiesce in Hungarian democracy’s systematic dismemberment.

Homosexuality and same-sex marriage in Hungary

György Bolgár’s Let’s Talk It Over is a liberal talk show with a huge fan club. I myself rarely miss it. Bolgár comes up with topics that he finds interesting or important and usually adds a comment with a question mark at the end. Today I learned that Ferenc Gyurcsány visited Viktor Orbán’s old dormitory, the István Bibó Kollégium, yesterday. Only students of the college could attend the informal talk. Soon enough a recording of the talk was in the hands of Magyar Nemzet. The paper made sure that at least one minute of Gyurcsány’s talk was shared with the readers and presented it as a second Balatonőszöd speech.

What was it that, according to Magyar Nemzet, was such a sin that it can only be compared to the speech that effectively ended Gyurcsány’s premiership? The former prime minister told his audience that his views on cultural matters, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and choice of identity are extremely liberal. “Just to shock you, we are the only party that supports the marriage of same-sex couples and their right to adopt children.” He added that the only reason DK didn’t propose a bill to this effect was because “the socialists would have had hiccups” if they did. The conclusion of Magyar Nemzet was that just as Gyurcsány didn’t reveal the whole truth about the state of the economy before the 2006 election he isn’t revealing the whole truth about the opposition’s position today. If they win the election the Unity coalition will introduce an outrageous bill on same-sex marriage and will have the majority to pass it.

György Bolgár tacked on his usual question to this piece of news, asking his audience whether it was a wise move of Gyurcsány to touch on this “delicate” subject in the middle of the election campaign. The current constitution states that “Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman established by voluntary decision, and the family as the basis of the survival of the nation.”

The discussion of the subject even in the relatively moderate right-wing press, for example Heti Válasz, shows such a combination of ignorance, antagonism, and false information that one is inclined to think that bringing up the subject was anything but wise politically. Only yesterday Heti Válasz came out with an article headlined “Two Fidesz EU members voted for the proposal of the gay lobbyists.” One can sense surprise or perhaps even outrage that such a scandalous vote could occur in the EU’s Fidesz caucus. The story is a bit old since it was on February 14 that the proposal was endorsed by a large majority of the European Parliament, but I guess better later than never. In the article, according to the short description of it available on the Internet, the proposal among other things “would make it compulsory to spread the popularity of homosexuality already in kindergartens and the member states would be forced to adopt same-sex marriage.” The article mentions that a most likely homophobic civil group, CitizenGO, was collecting signatures to make sure that the proposal would never be adopted. They failed. The rapporteur of the proposal was Ulrike Lunacek, an Austrian Green EP, who is a lesbian activist. Heti Válasz revealed the names of the two Fidesz renegades who voted for the bill. They turned out to be József Szájer and Lívia Járóka. I’m not surprised. Although Szájer is  married, it seems to be widely known that he is actually gay. And Járóka, who is of Roma origin, might be more sensitive to discrimination than the average Fidesz EP.

Source: http://www.algbtical.org

If the so-called moderate Fidesz outlet, Heti Válasz, takes the unfounded rumors about the propagation of homosexuality and compulsory introduction of gay marriage in the member states at face value, you can imagine what the other right-wing publications say on the subject. But when you actually look at the “Report on the EU Roadmap against homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity” it is a moderate document designed to have easy passage. It simply opposes discrimination and wants to ensure the equality of gays, lesbians, and transsexuals. Heti Válasz‘s reporter obviously didn’t even bother to read the document.

So, Bolgár’s question was justified. Was it wise for Ferenc Gyurcsány to bring the topic up at all? Was he again careless and rash? After all, he is now a member of a team that is supposed to show unity. And one of the problems of “Összefogás” is that voters don’t see the kind of unity its name implies. So, I would say, no, it was not a wise thing to do. Not that I don’t sympathize with his position. I do, but with this statement he is opening himself up for another attack from Magyar Nemzet. One can say that it really doesn’t matter what he says or doesn’t, his opponents shower the most outrageous attacks on him anyway. One could say that politicians don’t always have to cater to public sentiment. But there’s a reason that most politicians try to align themselves with the views of their potential voters.

In the United States where state governments and courts as well as the federal government and the Supreme Court are moving to extend rights to the LGBT community, the majority supports the idea of same-sex marriage (54% in 2013). In Hungary according to the latest poll (2007) it is only 30%. If I had to guess, due to Fidesz and Christian Democratic propaganda that number may be lower by now. For instance, anti-gay propaganda can be heard on M1 (Kossuth Rádió) where a long conversation took place about whether homosexuality is a sin. Heti Válasz severely criticized the United States for launching a campaign aimed at Putin’s anti-gay Russia It was no more than hysterics, the paper claimed. An innocent sporting event became the victim of politics. Heti Válasz was on solid political ground on two fronts. It could support the conservative religious position advocated by the government and, now that Hungary and Russia are such good friends, it could come out squarely on the side of Putin’s discriminatory laws against gays.

In any case, Gyurcsány felt that he had to explain himself more fully and therefore gave a press conference today. He didn’t retreat. He repeated that his party is in favor of same-sex marriage but they are in the minority within Összefogás. Just as they are in the minority on the issues of dual citizenship and Hungary’s current arrangement with the Vatican. He added that, if Összefogás wins, DK will not put in a draft bill on the issue of same-sex marriage because they disapprove of the Fidesz practice of legislation by individual MP’s proposals. The government will prepare draft bills to be discussed in parliament and DK there will be in the minority. On the other hand, he added, if Fidesz wins DK in opposition following their heartfelt conviction will put in a such a proposal.

As for the callers to Bolgár’s program, there was one who disapproved of Gyurcsány’s comments and not just for political reasons. He thought that children who are brought up in same-sex households will become homosexuals themselves. On the other hand, a father phoned in who told his family’s story. They found out when their son was 18 years old that he is gay. He has been living with his partner. A friend of theirs, a woman, was left high and dry by the man who impregnated her. It was his son who was present at the birth and the two of them are something of father substitutes for the little boy. He almost wept, and when Bolgár suggested that gay people are just as good as heterosexuals, he said, “No, they are better.”

Two Hungarian films about homosexuality: Falsehood and the truth

While researching an entirely different topic, I encountered by chance a description of a Hungarian-made film called “Coming Out.” On closer observation, it turns out that the film is about “how to come out of being gay”–that is, how to “cure oneself” of being gay. Shortly after the film appeared in November, a reviewer claimed that it “is the most harmful Hungarian film ever made.” He came to that conclusion on the basis of the comments that appeared under a review of the film in Index, which were full of venom, hatred, and anti-Semitic remarks.

I, on the other hand, see it somewhat differently. Yes, it is most likely a harmful film, but not because commenters make ugly remarks about gays, liberals, and Jews. It is harmful because it is a falsification of medical facts. Instead of enlightening the terribly ignorant Hungarian public on the phenomenon of homosexuality, it leads them farther down the road of ignorance.

Some twenty years ago, in the infancy of the Internet, I signed up for two discussion groups dealing with Hungary. One was in English, the other in Hungarian. By now I don’t remember on which one we had a Hungarian psychiatrist who one day came out with the brilliant observation that “homosexuality is like smoking. One can get hooked but one can also quit.” It seems that even twenty years later many Hungarians haven’t changed their attitudes.

The story of the movie is as follows. Erik, an openly gay radio personality, is planning to marry his partner, Balázs. Then comes a motorcycle accident, as a result of which he slowly discovers that he is “in truth” attracted to the opposite sex. Who is the object of his newly found heterosexual desires? His own physician, Linda.

The producer of this film is Gábor Kálomista, a man known for his right-wing sympathies. It received 280 million forints from the fund established by the Orbán government under the supervision of Andy Vajnai, formerly a producer of such serial Hollywood blockbusters as Rambo and Terminator. Vajnai is a practical guy for whom box office numbers are the measure of success. When he arrived as Viktor Orbán’s man in charge of film production, he decided to change the direction of Hungarian filmmakers’ activities. Hungary was known for winning all sorts of international prizes but, Orbán and Vajnai pointed out, nobody went to see these films. They didn’t make any money.

The result of the total reorganization of the Hungarian film industry was that for three solid years no Hungarian film was produced. But then “Coming Out” appeared. Since the money for the production came from the Christian, family oriented Orbán government, one couldn’t expect to see a real “coming out.” Moreover, since the newly organized film industry wanted high ticket sales, the plot had to appeal to the majority, conservative audience. Apparently it worked. By the end of January 110,000 people went to see the movie.

It seems that this pseudo-science is what the Hungarian public wants to believe. They can go home after the movie and discuss with friends and family the “fact” that homosexuality is an illness which can be cured, if necessary by a knock on the head. They can go on and talk in the style of Zsolt Semjén about “bearded liberals” who lead innocent children into sin by luring them into sexual deviance.

This film is a reflection of the generally phony world of Orbán’s Hungary. Falsifying history, falsifying science: all is well as long as the government’s propaganda machine, assisted by the churches, satisfies the needs of the population. Moreover, this is film is just a drop in the bucket. For instance, Péter Róska, a theologian, explains on Magyar Rádió that “homosexual tendencies” are acquired traits because “they haven’t found the homosexual gene.” The whole western world, he continues, is in danger because of the “gender ideology” that is directed by gays and feminists. This kind of pap is being fed to the Hungarian public.

In sharp contrast, a Hungarian-German film, naturally not supported by Andy Vajna’s fund, won top honors in the “first film” category at the Berlin Film Festival. The film, entitled Sturmland/Viharsarok (Land of Storms), is about three gay men wrestling with their sexuality in an unaccommodating environment.  A review I read of the film describes the background as something that “belongs to a forgotten Europe.” A Hungarian football player returns from Germany and gets romantically involved with a local man. Both men endure separate experiences of violence as word gets out about them. In the end the football player is murdered. Berliner Zeitung wrote a very favorable review of the film in which the reviewer emphasized that the movie is about “the dreadful logic of repressed homosexuality and the deadly hatred of homosexuals.”

Two films, two worlds. One is reality, the other reflects the awful emptiness of a mendacious world created by Viktor Orbán and his Christian Democratic allies who have a free rein in matters of education, culture, and film production.

Viktor Orbán and the 4000-year-old history of marriage between one man and one woman

The Budapest Pride, a yearly parade of gays, lesbians, and their supporters, was held on Saturday. About ten years ago these parades normally took place without much to-do, but the growth of the far right changed all that. Instead of being a free-wheeling, joyous affair, it is now a “march” between a wall of policemen. Beyond the cordons are the frenzied, screaming neo-Nazis.

The parade itself went off peacefully enough. But once it was over and the crowd dispersed, three people were brutally attacked by a group of thirty skinheads dressed in black uniforms. Policemen arrived on the scene quickly. But instead of going after the attackers, they demanded ID cards from the victims. They simply let the attackers leave. Opposition parties are demanding a police investigation.

It turned out that Ulrike Lunacek, an Austrian Green member of the European Parliament, was among those marching in the parade. Readers of Hungarian Spectrum may recall her as the person who had a serious run-in with Zsolt Bayer, who talked about her on HírTV in a truly unspeakable manner. I often wondered whether Bayer knew that Lunacek is a lesbian. I suspect that he didn’t, at least at the time. Otherwise, he would have used even stronger and even less acceptable language.

In any case, while Lunacek was in Budapest she had a chat with a reporter for Népszabadság. The conversation soon turned to a discussion of Viktor Orbán’s performance in the European Parliament last week. In his speech Orbán tried to defend the Hungarian parliament’s decision to include in the constitution a definition of marriage as the joining of  “one man and one woman.”  Whatever you think of this definition, as usual he didn’t do a good job researching the topic of marriage from a historical perspective. He asserted that “marriage between one man and one woman is a Judaeo-Christian tradition going back 4,000 years.”

Ulrike Lunacek pointed out that marriage in the sense of a civil contract is relatively new, starting only a couple of hundred years ago. She might have added, more to the point, that there is also something dreadfully wrong with the 4,000 years. According to most Biblical scholars, polygyny continued to be practiced well into the biblical period in ancient Israel. In fact, there were instances among the population in Israel as late as the second century CE. The Torah is full of laws governing the practice of polygamy, and we know of several prominent Biblical figures who had more than one wife. For example, Esau, Jacob, David, and Solomon. Even Herod with the special permission of the Romans.

In Greece the situation was the same. The richer the man the more wives he had. Marriages, just as in ancient Israel, were arranged. By the age of fourteen girls were married off to men who were usually a great deal older. The average marriage age for men in ancient Greece was about 30.

Rome was different. It was a strictly monogamous society. Marriage meant the joining in matrimony of one man and one woman. It was a very strict rule, and that’s why Herod had to get special permission from his Roman overlords to have more than one wife.

So, we can forget about the 4,000 years. Our views on marriage today come largely from the teachings of Jesus and the Roman practice of monogamy. I’m no Biblical scholar, so I can’t judge whether there was any connection between Roman marital mores and those of the Judaean society in which Jesus lived.

It is hard to tell from where this erroneous  information about the marital practices of ancient times comes from. But Christian Democratic politicians keep repeating this magic number, which is wrong no matter what calendar they use. The only thing I don’t understand is why Zoltán Balog, Orbán’s spiritual adviser who is after all a Protestant minister, doesn’t straighten him out on the subject. He, as opposed to the Catholic Christian Democrats, ought to be familiar with the Bible.