Plans to restrict freedom of assembly in Hungary

Yesterday I covered some possible consequences of a draft bill (T/706) submitted to parliament by Minister of Justice László Trócsányi on the “Protection of Private Life.” After evaluating the legal arguments, I concluded that the new bill, which will surely pass, will have a negative effect on the media’s ability to report corruption cases involving politicians under the guise of privacy. Concurrently, Trócsányi presented another draft bill (T/707) on the Right of Assembly, which again seems to have the aim of narrowing citizens’ rights to hold demonstrations and other political meetings.

The government, by presenting these new laws, actually fulfills an obligation mandated by the Constitutional Court in 2016. In December 2014 a group of people who took out mortgages in foreign currencies planned to demonstrate in front of Viktor Orbán’s house. According to the current law on the freedom of assembly, the prohibition of a demonstration by the police is strictly circumscribed; a demonstration in front of politicians’ houses was not explicitly proscribed. The organizers appealed, but the court ruled in favor of the police. The Constitutional Court concurred, despite the fact that earlier demonstrations in front of the houses of Prime Ministers Péter Medgyessy and Ferenc Gyurcsány were held with the blessing of the police. At that time the Constitutional Court instructed parliament to harmonize regulations on privacy and freedom of assembly.

Pro-government commentators naturally consider the proposed bill a great improvement over the current one, and some of them call the opposition parties’ condemnation of the bill just more of the usual hysteria. They emphasize that the model the Hungarian justice department followed was the German law on freedom of assembly, but a quick look at the brief English-language summary of that law led me to believe that the Hungarian law is more restrictive than the German one. A pro-government commentator insists that there are certain German states where no demonstrations can be held on Sundays and holidays, and yet no one would question the existence of German democracy. Not all such laws are available online, but the ones I checked don’t have such restrictions. Origo is especially pleased that the new law will put an end to the Nazi memorial tours because no demonstrations can be held which in any way offend the memory of the victims of Nazism and communism.

Even some liberal assessments find T/707 an improvement over the current law because it offers more precise definitions of certain key terms. All in all, the article concludes that “earlier fears are not justified.” There are a couple of places where improvements could be made, but once these are incorporated into the law, “Hungary will have one of the best laws on the right of assembly.”

The legal experts of TASZ, the Hungarian equivalent of the American Civil Liberties Union, strongly disagree. Yesterday they published a detailed analysis of Bill T/707 that covers all of the questionable components of the new law. They admit that the current law needed improvements on some minor points. For example, the designation of the responsible leader or organizer of the demonstration was somewhat arbitrary and fuzzy; the question of two demonstrations held at the same location was haphazard but now is properly settled. However, the drafters of the new bill didn’t need to start from scratch to make these small changes, and TASZ’s suspicion is that the Orbán government used the Constitutional Court’s mandate as an excuse to narrow the scope of the freedom of assembly.

It was in 1989 that the first democratic law on the freedom of assembly was enacted, which then was revised when Hungary joined the European Union to make it compatible with EU law. The new restrictions included in T/707 apparently hark back to the pre-2004 specifications, which is certainly a step backward. For example, one reason for banning a demonstration is “the endangerment of public order,” which is such a vague concept that it can be interpreted quite liberally. Or, here is another example. A demonstration can be banned because it endangers “the pattern of traffic” (közlekedés rendjének sérelme). Unless you hold a meeting in the woods or on some abandoned football field, you surely will disturb some traffic patterns.

In addition to these highly questionable tools that the police will soon have to decide whether to allow or ban a demonstration, there are new burdens that are placed on the leader, organizers, and participants of a demonstration. One of the more bizarre clauses is that showing up at a demonstration that had previously been banned is considered to be a misdemeanor. The would-be demonstrator will be fined. And any organizer who doesn’t make sure that the trash is removed after a demonstration will also be fined. These restrictions could impede the organization of demonstrations.

The new law practically forbids any counter-demonstration by criminalizing it. According to the new criminal code, “anyone who hinders, obstructs or seriously disturbs a meeting” can be  imprisoned for up to a year. As a result, it is unlikely that anyone could organize a whistling concert during the speeches of Viktor Orbán, as happened a couple of times in the past.

In addition to these restrictions, we must also keep in mind that all cases concerning demonstrations will be handled by the new administrative courts. You may recall that a parallel court system is on the verge of being introduced to deal with cases involving the administration. Many countries have such courts, but given the Orbán government’s general disregard for the rule of law and democracy, the real purpose of these new courts might be to prevent court decisions against governmental agencies. This suspicion is reinforced by the government’s decision to use as judges civil servants who have been socialized in a system where loyalty to the government is a prerequisite for advancement. It is even more troubling that at the apex of this hierarchy will be the servile chairman of the Elections Committee, who apologized to no end for daring to fine the prime minister because he had broken Hungary’s election law.

One law at a time, Hungarian citizens have less and less freedom, and Viktor Orbán is only at the beginning of a complete rewrite of the constitution. Sadly, there is no one to stop him.

July 3, 2018