Looking for guilty politicians Fidesz-Jobbik style

I already noted that a political witch hunt was being prepared by Fidesz way before the elections. For years they have been talking about the criminal politicians who by their wrong political and economic decisions brought ruin to the country. Naturally, if a politician is engaged in illegal, criminal activities he should be punished like any other mortal. But "political crime" is a non-existent category. If a political party and its leaders in power make bad decisions, they will be punished by the electorate. They will not be re-elected. But otherwise, talking about political crimes in the sense the new Hungarian government is talking about them is nonsense.

Three Fidesz politicians and a parliamentary sub-committee are entrusted with uncovering their political opponents' alleged crimes. They at least are ostensibly looking for criminal behavior, though they are not getting very far. Yet the sub-committee's minutes reveal that the Fidesz-Jobbik politicians who run it already know what the outcome of the investigation will be. They are not even hiding their preconceived ideas. In Hungarian a "show trial" is called "koncepciós per" because the conception of the outcome is already given. In this case the formula is: Ferenc Gyurcsány instructed the police to commit illegal acts at the time of the siege of the headquarters of the Hungarian public television station and later, throughout the disturbances in September and October.

As I mentioned earlier, MSZP refused to participate in the work of the sub-committee. After reading the minutes, I think they made the right decision. First of all, as I wrote earlier, on the committee one finds people who in one way or another were involved with the events. For example, Zoltán Balog (Fidesz) who along with Krisztina Morvai (Jobbik) wrote a one-sided report of those events entirely from the point of view of the mob and the so-called peaceful demonstrators, the victims as they are called. Tamás Gaudi-Nagy (Jobbik) is the lawyer of one of the participants in the disturbances who is also the leader of a terrorist group called Arrows of Hungarians; Gaudi-Nagy's client is currently in jail. The chairman, Gergely Gulyás, at the very first meeting praised these members of the committee who "deserve special credit" because of their involvement in the events. Balog because of his other duties couldn't continue to participate in the proceedings and in place of him came Máriusz Révész, also a participant in the events. He was allegedly beaten by the police on October 23, 2006. (I should mention that Révész sued the Hungarian police force but a few days ago the two policemen who were accused of witnessing his beating and doing nothing to prevent it were acquitted because there was no proof of their being on the scene. Yesterday Révész dropped the charges altogether, most likely because it became clear to him that he will not be able to prove his case.)

So, the people who were the champions of one side deserve special credit because "they managed to partially uncover the details of the affair." Good beginning. Balog, who was present at the first meeting, specifically mentioned the importance of the report of the Civil Jogász Bizottság (Civil Legal Committee) headed and written by Krisztina Morvai as a "decisive document" and a "source book." In passing he mentioned the report of the Gönczöl Committee which in his opinion is pretty useless because "in it one finds exactly the opposite of the truth." Surely, an interesting way of starting an investigation. It is clear that Balog at least has a preconception and that for him the committee's work is a charade or worse.

Mária Wittner (Fidesz) is convinced that Ferenc Gyurcsány gave orders and that in addition there was a huge government conspiracy. She quite openly informed her fellow politicians that she was certain that the government wanted to have a few policemen die. But the plan failed because the "mob" behaved like decent men who actually saved the policemen caught in a burning vehicle. The government planned to declare a state of emergency but the whole plan collapsed due to the big-hearted "revolutionaries." A perfectly open-minded member of an investigative committee. Mária Wittner is the only 1956 "revolutionary" in the Hungarian parliament who as a young woman fought on the streets. Originally she was condemned to death, a sentence which was later commuted to life. Her present political views are closer to Jobbik's than Fidesz's.

Krisztina Morvai (Jobbik EP member) is officially not a member of the committee, but according to house rules she has the right to participate in the sub-committee's discussions. Perhaps she was the one who most openly admitted that a mock show trial is under way. "I think it would be useful to state that the final result of the work of this committee should be such as to verify our hypothesis that the period between 2002 and 2010 was a time of a trampling on human rights." One cannot be clearer. It seems that our learned professor of law doesn't think that there is anything wrong here. She doesn't seem to realize that the words she uttered hark back to the show trials of the Rákosi and early Kádár periods.

Close to the end of the meeting the "conspirators" hatched the details of the hearings. Balog suggested that Ferenc Gyurcsány should be perhaps the first to be called in: "We must make him sit down and ask him ten simple questions … in a very confrontational manner, in such a way that it would be very effective." Then "a victim would be able to tell in three minutes what happened to him. This–and this sounds ugly right now–can be considered a theatrical performance, but it is very important that we present all this to that part of the population whose attitude is negative on this question." A quick translation: a lot of people think that there was a ferocious mob and that the police did what they had to, here and there making a few mistakes.

Mária Wittner is not far behind: "I also think that this is a good idea. The chief guilty one must be dealt with first…. To confront him with a fait accompli." After that is anyone suprised that Ferenc Gyurcsány refused to appear before the sub-committee?

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Sandor
Guest

Actually, I was surprised that Gyurcsany took the committee as seriously as he did, writing a letter and summarizing his reasons for staying away. In his place I would have sent them a satirical letter, addressing them as comrades, pointing out their idiocies and the illegitimacy of the sub-committee.
The use of kiddie gloves by Gyurcsany was a testimonial to his gentlemanly bent. In my opinion he wasted it on this bunch of yahoos, who deserved to be pulverized by his wit and intellectual superiority.
The existence of this kangaroo court reminds me of the original ludicrous attempt by fidesz to compromise their opponents when they created a completely imaginary conspiracy out of thin air in 1998. That committee ended up to be the butt of derision. This one, however, may gain some credence due to the total anesthesia of the Hungarian public. I wonder, if they will ever wake up.

Pásztor Szilárd
Guest
You know what your biggest problem is? That if the prosecutors raise a charge (if there’s such an expression, sorry, English is my second language) against anyone of MSZMP or the former SZDSZ, it’s immediately Fidesz doing their political hunt. But as long as there are real charges (and indeed there are) against these persons, blaming it all on Fidesz is nothing else than complicity. That Gyurcsány gave orders is not a myth but an admitted fact. Readers may be interested in recalling that Gyurcsány, with his very own voice, said that “I directly instructed the police”, when talking about the siege of the TV building, trying to make benefit from what he thought most people will see as a “restoration of order” – but it turned out very differently. The inner investigation of the police itself, in the detailed report of István Ignácz brigadier-general, revealed that in the neighbouring street, hundreds of police officers trained for such situations, armed to their teeth, were waiting and were repeatedly forced NOT to enter the battle, despite they wanted to intervene of their own accord. In your world all such investigations will results in absolutely no offenders of MSZMP, but always in… Read more »
Passing Stranger
Guest

It is very simple Szilard. If the prosecution is independent and there is evidence of a crime, why did they not start prosecuting Gyurcsany (or indeed, ANYONE) right away in 2006? Why leave it so late?
After all, even in Italy, which is at least as clientalist as Hungary, the courts dare to prosecute Berlusconi.

Pásztor Szilárd
Guest

@Passing Stranger: it’s probably really simple, and there are multiple reasons:
1. as courts were clearly pressured by Gyurcsány, and probably prosecution too, they didn’t dare touch them;
2. proceedings at prosecution and investigations take time.
You must admin yourself that being “too late” with prosecuting is a very weak argument in favor of the accused. You should focus on why you are defending these probable criminals instead.

Longstreet
Guest

“who deserved to be pulverized by his wit and intellectual superiority.”
Check some psychiatry textbooks for a more adequate description for that wit and intellectual shine.This guy is at least a borderline case, with some serious paranoid schisophrenic traits of personality.

An
Guest

@Longstreet: “This guy is at least a borderline case, with some serious paranoid schisophrenic traits of personality.”
You remember the old joke, just because you are paranoid, it doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.
But joke aside, I checked the psychology books and Gyurcsany does not show paranoid-schizophrenic traits.

Longstreet
Guest

Split personality, unfounded sense of greatness and unfallibility, aggressive reactions for refusal,disbalanced emotional reactions, etc. He did try it with a reporter from CNN – did not work.

Longstreet
Guest

“He was allegedly beaten by the police on October 23, 2006”
ALLEGEDLY BEATEN??? Come on, not even YOU can be as one-sided and biased to DENY this:
comment image

Passing Stranger
Guest

So, you say that under Gyurcsany the courts WEREN’T independent, and now, when it suits you, the courts suddenly ARE?
If the Hungarian courts were really independent, there would have been no obstacle to starting proceedings earlier.
And if Gyurcsany can put them under pressure, then so can Orban.
The facts of the case are well known, in this case a delay of four years does not explain by itself why an investigation is opened only now.

Passing Stranger
Guest

@Longstreet. You should check the link supplied by Eva about Marius Revesz run-in with a rubber bullet. It is rather more convincing than your as yet unsubstantiated claim of gypsy death squads murdering and raping 160-180 old ladies.

Longstreet
Guest

FYI Révész Mariusz was NOT hit by rubber bullets, but had his scapula broken by the policemen beating him with clubs. Besides, I couldn’t care less what you find “convincing” – the picture is there, everyone with an ounce of dignity knows what happened there, and what the Comlib supporters are keen to cover up or minimize.

Pásztor Szilárd
Guest

@Longstreet: I’ve already shown them this picture along with two video links.
They ignored them all. This shows that they’re not out there to find out the truth (this is why they are fans of this left-extremist, falsifying blog), they are interested in maintaining their misbeliefs. For some reason this is enough for them.
@Passing Stranger: you didn’t notice that I turned YOUR logic the other way around. You are the one thinking that prosecution is pressured just because your boys are getting caught.
Moreover, there are facts that support my theory and contradict yours: during the trials of the 2006 riots, court decisions were made on a conveyor belt, 97% of the first instance decisions were changed in the second instance plus, practically in every single case, the court has violated the law on proceedings. This is all proven, documented, put on paper, plain and simple. These judges will probably be removed from the court.

Paul Haynes
Guest

Szilard, we did not “ignore them all”. I, at least, looked at them and gave you my thoughts at some length.
You may not agree with my views, but plese don’t claim I don’t express them.

Gábor
Guest

Szilárd, it is hard to find a trace of these alleged police forces (in hundreds) eager to enter the battle but restrained by their superiors in the Ignácz report.
http://aawake.blogspot.com/2006/11/brfk-jelentse-az-mtv-ostromrl-kuruc.html
(Unfortunateky this very secret report – at least top secret according to Magyar Nemzet – was already published in November 2006 but it has been removed from the website of the police, therefore we have to rely on this one, published at a blog in 2006 too…)

Gábor
Guest
Szilárd, actually you are – I fear deliberately – confusing decisions on preventive arrest with verdicts of courts. What you refer to is the allegation – I have seen it plain on paper in Magyar Hírlap, I assume nit is a reliable source for you – that 97% (144 case out of 147) of orders of preventive arrest was cahnged at the second instance. 8Funnily the prosectuotr’s office claims it was 101 out of 177 cases.) As this action is not the result of a criminal trial but a part of the process itself it do not imply the party affected being guilty, its aim is to ensure the authorities can proceed with the investigation without being hindered or objected. (Not that the prosecutor’s office and courts would really deliberate the circumstances in Hungary, they used to make these decisions “on conveyors belt” in every case, not only in 2006.) If the second instance changes this decision it doesn’t necessarily means they consider it unlawful, illegal, a breach of the rules of criminal procedure, they can do it simply assuming that the circumstances justifying the previous measure have been changed significantly enough. (The conclusion: without scrutinizing every individual case and… Read more »
wpDiscuz