Ferenc Gyurcsány’s speech in parliament, September 12, 2011

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House!

I will start with one simple sentence: the charges against me are baseless. Less politely, the prosecutors are lying. There is not one word of truth in what they claim in the documents they sent to Parliament.

My government and I made every effort to attract an investor to Hungary who would have brought approximately one billion dollars into the country and would have created 2,500 new jobs. Today I still think that this investment would have served the interest of Hungary. The opposition party at the time—today the government party—and even some parties in today’s opposition sharply opposed such investments. I am convinced that they were working against the best interest of the Hungarian people.

The prosecutor’s office is charging me with breach of fiduciary responsibility. With breach of fiduciary responsibility because after all the leaders and institutions of the government involved with the case said that this investment was important and useful for Hungary. As one of the witnesses said, “the prime minister expressed his benevolent attitude toward the project to the investors.” I would do the same today. If it is a sin to tell the institutions under the direction of the government to do their job for the benefit of Hungary, I committed this sin not once but by the dozen.

Members of the House! This is seemingly a legal question. But only seemingly. What is happening here is clearly political retribution. (Calls and noise from the right.) There are those who don’t believe it. I can say to those people to read a remark Prime Minister Orbán made in 2007. He said that he learned that if there is an opportunity one must kill his political opponent. Without hesitation. And he added to make himself perfectly clear whom he had in mind: “I would like to see Gyurcsány dead rather than just wounded.”

I think that in this matter the prime minister and his party not only can not kill me but they can not even wound me. What he will achieve is only that I will be fortified in my conviction that a dastardly power is ruling Hungary and against this power every decent democrat proudly and resolutely–or as the prime minister put it–without hesitation must act. This is our duty.

Am I guilty? Not before the law. In the eyes of the prime minister and his party naturally I am, in political terms. They cannot forgive that in 2002 and in 2006 while their hearts swelled with self-confidence we won convincing victories over them. They cannot forgive that I belong—with many others–to those who in spite of threats, pressures and many indecent political practices remained resolute opponents of the autocratic, dictatorial regime of Orbán. This is the biggest problem of the prime minister.

No doubt Orbán and his loyal creature, Chief Prosecutor Péter Polt, want to see me in the prisoner’s dock. But they shouldn’t have the slightest doubt that instead of being the accused I will be the accuser of the regime which laid waste to the Republic in Hungary and which spreads uncertainty in the lives of millions. I have a quarrel with the regime in which millions are afraid to live and speak freely because a bullying power is having a feast in the villages, towns, in the whole country. We will be the accusers of this regime all through the proceedings of the trial and we will speak in the name of those who say, “Enough”!

Enough! You didn’t receive a momentary majority to ruin the country. You didn’t receive a momentary majority to turn against all that was built by the democratic will of the last twenty years. We will represent and strengthen the voice of those who are against your regime.

(The presiding speaker of the house: Pardon me, Mr. Member. I would like to ask those who are seated in the visitors’ boxes not to give voice to their opinions because they don’t have such a right. If they continue the practice I will be forced to empty the boxes. Go on, Mr. Member!)

I’m ready to fight this fight. If  we can’t do that on the political stage we will fight in the court room. And as far as you, members of parliament, are concerned: In Hungary it was fifty years ago that there was a show trial the last time. (Noise, calls, the speaker rings his bell.)

I don’t think that at any time, even for one moment will I have to hide behind my right of parliamentary immunity. I don’t think so because I believe that by the end of the court proceedings I will be stronger because I will be able to see more clearly the nature of this immeasurably depraved power.

I’m not asking for protection. Why should I? Vote according to your conscience. I have no doubt that those who have a grain of decency—after all I still think that in the great majority of people there is more than that—will one day, after the years of intoxication are over, be ashamed of themselves. I will not feel sorry for them. I will not even despise them. It will be enough punishment for them to think back to the days when they took part in this shameful affair. How will they face themselves? How will they be able to tell to their children about it?

What I am fighting for is a better world than what you are building. For Hungary, for the Republic!

Thank you very much.

 

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
thankyou
Guest

Thank you Eva for the translation.

liberal-above-all
Guest

The public should read the Miklos Gimes interview with Gyurcsany.
Gyurcsany became an ideological follower of Imre Nagy, the principled prime minister of the 1956 uprising.
Gimes felemlegeti, hogy a pesti utcákon – utalva az 1944-es zsidógyilkosságokra – egy ideig a „Gyurcsányt a Dunába” jelszó dívott. Gyurcsány megvallja neki, hogy Nagy Imre tette őt liberálissá – belátta, hogy a kommunizmust és a fasizmust egyaránt el kell utasítani.
http://hetivalasz.hu/itthon/fideszes-uzenet-az-mszp-nek-elobb-nehany-szocit-bortonbe-zarunk-30372

peter litvanyi
Guest

First they burn books/constitutions then they move over to the actual people. Seen that somewhere before.
Sincerely:
Peter Litvanyi

Rigó Jancsi
Guest

P.L.: “Seen that somehwere before.”
Yes, I was just sipping my morning coffee and was pondering on this. I always wondered how it happened in the Thirties. Now I see that it happens less sudden and life-changing than I always thought. The sun rises like always, people do their shopping, go swimming or walking, do their jobs… Of course, somehow we’re all already influenced by the changes. But for most people, there’s no Gestapo standing in their living room, they don’t feel the changes in their very private life, on their skin. It comes slowly, dangerously slowly. Parliament is somewhere, that’s not real life. Freedom of press? Gyurcsány? Come on, let’s get to Tesco.
Prinzipiis obsta! That’s more difficult to do than to say. In the beginning, there doesn’t seem to be a real danger. And some time later, it’s already too late. Not even most of the Hungarian people have noticed yet in what danger they are, not to speak of the EU. I wonder whether the end of september or October 23rd will bring any changes to this. I still hope.

Paul
Guest

“… the great majority of people… will one day, after the years of intoxication are over, be ashamed of themselves. I will not feel sorry for them. I will not even despise them. It will be enough punishment for them to think back to the days when they took part in this shameful affair”
Very prophetic words.
And a brave speech. Gy goes up in my estimation.

Paul
Guest

Thanks for the translation, Éva, but is there a typo at the beginning of the third para, or did he repeat himself?

Eva S. Balogh
Guest

Paul: “is there a typo at the beginning of the third para, or did he repeat himself?
Yes, he repeated himself. I guess for emphasis.

Member
I believe it requites a certain amount of intelligence to recognize certain values. Humans, juts like animals have a certain disposition for “survival”. There is a pack mentality that best seen in riots (soccer, hockey, 2006, Vancouver, London), people follow the leader with the biggest voice, the group who behaves the loudest. You see this in politics too over and over again. You see it on the schoolyards, and with bullies. WHat makes bullies so powerfool is not that they are right, but that they have the best technique or talent to “play make believe” with others. He/she makes his subject believe that either they will benefit if they follow or will be harmed if they won’t. There is a Hungarian saying that very “nicely” sums up the leader (excuse my English) “The strongest dog is the one f***ing”. People with all level of intelligence and education line up behind the strongest dog, and they do not care how that dog got there. As far as they concerned, it could of killed all the other dogs around. This current situation reminds me very much for this concept. Fidesz and Jobbik got where they are because their followers do not care… Read more »
thankyou
Guest

It is like Israel before the Rabin assacination. Orban is playing with fire.

Odin's lost eye
Guest

And now we (who have predicted it) see it. The Mighty One (O.V.) now believes he is invincible. He must have his Big Show Trial (Just as Rakosi had with Rajk (and others). He believes that Europe and the E.U. are finished so there will be no interference from them. He will dispose of his enemies (and get rich at their expense). He will need ‘saboteurs’, rootless cosmopolitans, enemies within, the ‘Wall Street Journal’, the Roma, and foreign agent to blame for his failures.
After his defeat at the polls in 2002 the Mighty One said that he was not HARSH ENOUGH with the people. He is beginning to put harshness into practice.
Before the last (and it will be the last) election contributors to the blog writ these warnings large, but like Cassandra we were not heeded
Now The Mighty One (O.V.) sees himself as becoming the Mighty One of Europe! Oh what a big headed little twerp he is.

Johnny Boy
Guest

Paul.
I’m eagerly awaiting your reply in the previous topic.

Paul
Guest

JB, I do occasionally have some respect for your opinions and how you argue them, and I have even come to your defence a couple of times, but those ‘questions’ in the previous topic are so ridiculous as not to deserve any answers. I don’t have the time or energy to waste ‘answering’ such nonsense.
But I’ll do you a deal – you start answering my questions and I’ll have a go at replying to yours.
You could start with a reply to my point, several topics ago (in answer to one of your smears about us all hating Hungary) that if we didn’t care about Hungary, why would we bother with this blog?
But answers that make sense only please, not your normal illogical smoke screens.

Johnny Boy
Guest

“those ‘questions’ in the previous topic are so ridiculous as not to deserve any answers”
This is only an excuse. Those 3 questions of mine are the very basic points to clear up for you, these are the minimal requirements that can support your claim that Gyurcsány is a victim of a trumped up charge.
Because there is absolutely no argument that supports this claim of yours, it is only standing alone by itself. That’s why I called you to answer those basic questions. I don’t know why you don’t understand how critically they are related to your statement.
“that if we didn’t care about Hungary, why would we bother with this blog?”
And I answered this back then by saying that malignancy and the persistent motive to cause damage to Hungary takes a lot of effort.
In your case, however, I tend to believe this is not true because I think you really believe what you are saying (and what is clearly nonsense). And I base this on your earlier claims about how you always hated Thatcher and supported the left in Britain.
But as for Eva, Mutt Damon or many others, I have not one grain of doubt of their malignancy.

Member

LOL. This is the second time my name is mention with professor Balogh as the most wanted. Guys! I’m really not worthy …
@JB
1. Can you counter the prosecution’s claims?
The prosecution claims that Gyurcsany abused his power for his own gain.
No he didn’t. Without seeing the evidence what else can we say? This is like “You are a rapist” “Can you counter it?”
2. Do you have any evidence that the prosecution is controlled by the government?
Are you joking? Of course not. Orban the 5th whispers something into Polt’s ears and it’s done. On the other hand we didn’t see Polt opposing anything coming “from above” either.
3. Even if the prosecution is under the influence of the government (as it is in many countries of the EU, but let’s put that aside now), do you have proof that the courts are too?
See above.
We’ll see at the trial if there will be one. I’d say your Fuhrer is a chicken. My theory that he just wants Gyurcsany shown on TV in shackles.
Happy Vincent?

Member

This doesn’t need translation (Bolsi = Bolshevik, Bolond = Crazy):
comment image

Johnny Boy
Guest

“The prosecution claims that Gyurcsany abused his power for his own gain.”
No, “hűtlen kezelés” means Gyurcsány was improperly handling someone else’s money or assets, this time the state’s asset (real estate).
And yes the estate swap that was attempted would have cause 1.3 billion HUF damage to Hungary.
“Are you joking? Of course not.”
Thanks, answer as expected, accepted
“See above.”
Same

Johnny Boy
Guest

Sorry I meant “hivatali visszaélés”, meaning Gyurcsány attempted to swap those estates when he didn’t have the right to do so

Member
There s no proof that Hungary would of lost any money!. VEry often in the capitalist world, estates by the state (Crown lands) are “given away” in exchange for a return that would benefit the country economically, politically or by other means. Crown lands are often given for example to create Olympic villages/even spaces, casinos, factories. THe benefit in many instances are: inpouring of taxes, creating employment, environmental benefits and so forth. Building casinos and entertainment complexes would certainly help to rake in the money , would create jobs, help with tourism, etc. I just cannot seem to understand where is this big financial loss (intentional or not). Now, there will be always Johnny Boys out there who decide to dismiss this kind of thinking. On the other hand they fail to ask the question on how much money Hungary lost with the Orban’s family mines and other purchases. THey fail to ask the question on how much money did MOL cost for Hungarian so far, or simply how much money so far this whole circus with the drum up charges cost Hungarians. They do not ask the question, and I bet, they are standing way to close to the… Read more »
Eva S. Balogh
Guest

Some1: “There s no proof that Hungary would of lost any money!”
How could it when the deal wasn’t closed.

Paul
Guest
OK, JB, I wouldn’t normally waste my time playing your games, but my wife has taken over the desktop PC to do her timetables, and I’m stuck with the laptop, which means I can’t do much else anyway. Except the ironing. So here goes. 1. Can you counter the prosecution’s claims? I haven’t even seen an attempt. No, I can’t. I don’t know enough about the matter and I have no legal training. But, after all this time and effort the prosecution have come up with not a single thing that will stand up in court, so that suggests to me that there probably is no case to answer. But I may be wrong, so it would help my understanding if you could maybe list the prosecution’s claims and explain why you think they are well founded (with facts, sources, etc – you know the drill). 2. Do you have any evidence that the prosecution is controlled by the government? (Your supposition that supreme prosecutor Polt, having been a Fidesz-affiliated man, is nothing else than a puppet doesn’t qualify for an evidence.) No, of course not. But I read your views on this and I read Éva’s and others, and… Read more »
Johnny Boy
Guest

“Some1: “There s no proof that Hungary would of lost any money!”
How could it when the deal wasn’t closed.”
This is ridiculous. Those estates are vastly different in value, and a swap would have caused a huge loss to Hungary. This is not theoretical, not “if”-ed, this is a fact. Case concluded.
And it was only a huge civil outrage that stopped them from doing the transaction.
Before the law, obvious attempts at implementing law-breaking measures are also to be punished. If you shoot at someone and you miss, you won’t be acquitted based on the fact that you didn’t kill anyone after all.
Your argumentation is weak and false from the beginning.

Johnny Boy
Guest
Paul: “No, I can’t. I don’t know enough about the matter and I have no legal training.” Don’t you think you should refrain from stating this is a trumped-up charge then? How can you so confidently take sides when you yourself admit you don’t know enough about the matter? Doesn’t logic chime the bells in your head? “But, after all this time and effort the prosecution have come up with not a single thing that will stand up in court” Has the case already been before the court and has the prosecution failed? If not, what is your ground for this statement? Or do you plan to support one totally unrealistic claim with another? Please show me how the prosecution’s charge will not stand up in court. But I must say that considering the prosecution’s efficiency, which is above 95%, your chances are slim. Don’t expect me to quote all the prosecution’s reasoning, here is an outline, you probably understand Hungarian somewhat: http://www.delmagyar.hu/belfold_hirek/sukoro-ugy_az_ugyeszseg_szerint_gyurcsany_tullepte_a_hataskoret/2239083/ “No, of course not. But I read your views on this and I read Éva’s and others, and theirs make a great deal more sense” As my previous comments prove, their views make absolutely no sense, just… Read more »
Paul
Guest
OK, JB, I gave you (yet another) chance to be treated and accepted as a sensible contributor to this blog, but, yet again, you have failed. I asked you for three simple things – to quote from my original post: 1. “(could you) list the prosecution’s claims and explain why you think they are well founded (with facts, sources, etc – you know the drill). 2. “…what evidence do you have that the prosecution isn’t controlled by the government? It certainly looks like a politically driven show trial – what evidence do you have to counter this strong impression?” 3. “As for your comment about the prosecution being under the influence of the government in many EU countries – do you have any evidence to support this wild statement?” And your replies: 1. No facts or sources, just your usual rhetorical questions, slanderous comments, pedantic nit-picking, and deliberate ‘misunderstanding’ of what I wrote. The only remotely concrete thing you give me is a link in Hungarian, despite you knowing perfectly well that I won’t be able to read it. Now, surely, in a case this important to you, you could just, simply, give me a list of the prosecution’s claims?… Read more »
moncler outlet
Guest

Go for someone who makes you smile because it takes only a smile to make a dark day seem bright.

trackback

[…] parliamentary immunity was suspended, but before the vote he delivered a speech that I translated  in its entirety. It was a passionate speech delivered without notes, as is his wont. Anyone […]

wpDiscuz