Part of a spokesperson’s job is to engage the media in conversation. I certainly try to do that with international media, the correspondents, researchers and others who are reporting on Hungary. “Facts matter,” and so much of what has been written about Hungary has been factually incorrect that these opportunities to engage and try to get the facts out there are crucial.

The person on the other side of the table may remain critical but if we’re on the same page concerning the facts, that’s already a big step in the right direction. Provided, of course, that the reporter is operating in good faith and without prejudice.

Unfortunately, that’s apparently not the case with Human Rights Watch and their researcher for Eastern Europe and the Balkans, Lydia Gall. I’ve tried to engage Ms. Gall in dialogue a number of times. I’ve posted on the factual errors in HRW reporting on Hungary in An Open Letter to Human Rights Watch, Getting it Wrong: Problems with the Human Rights Watch Report, and Still Getting it Wrong. We had exchanges on Twitter. I even met her personally, together with one of her HRW colleagues and a senior Hungarian diplomat.

But what we read in the latest dispatch is confused, terribly misinformed and woefully biased. Here are a few examples.

Begin with the pull quote: “The Hungarian government’s largely cosmetic amendments show it’s not serious about fixing the human rights and rule of law problems in the constitution…It’s come to the point where the European Council and the European Commission need to make clear there will be consequences for Hungary.”

But the European Commission – the only institution of the European Union with legitimate authority to review a member state’s laws – has already spoken on Hungary’s constitution. Basically, they raised three issues (I wrote about them here), and all of them have been addressed. Does Human Rights Watch’s researcher not know that?

Nor are the changes only “cosmetic.” The Commission took issue with the National Judicial Office’s authority to transfer court cases. In the changes, that power was removed entirely. After a decision last year by the European Court of Justice, Hungary even changed the retirement age of judges, which had also been an issue. Commissioner Reding, sometimes a strong critic of the Orbán Government, even expressed satisfaction with the changes.

The HRW report mentions the change in the authority of the National Judicial Office, citing it as positive, but then sounding self-contradictory goes on to say there’s a lack of judicial independence. So which is it? And by the way, no one else is raising questions now about judicial independence in Hungary.

The report cites problems with religious discrimination. But HRW is alone here too. Extending this status, recognizing a religious community officially as a church, to a limited number of communities is common practice in Europe. Today, Hungary has dozens of officially recognized churches, far more than France, and the process for gaining recognition is open. Religious communities can apply. Again, no one else is raising this issue any more.

Finally, the issue of campaign ads. The writer should know that limiting political campaign advertising on television and radio is common practice in European countries. The Hungarian rules are quite similar to ones we find in France, Germany or Spain. As I wrote in my post earlier this week, the point, in Hungary and these other countries that limit TV and radio ads, is to limit the influence of money on political campaigns.

Why aren’t these details covered in the discussion? Does the researcher not know that rules like this are common European practice? Or is there another reason that such facts are omitted?

By Ferenc Kumin

Source: A Blog About Hungary

This opinion does not necessarily represent the views of this portal, your opinion is welcome too via info@xpatloop.com