Ildikó Barna and Bulcsú Hunyadi Report on Xenophobia, Radicalism and Hate Crime in Hungary in 2016 Table of Contents 1. LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PRACTICES ADOPTED IN 2016 AFFECTING MINORITIES ..................................... 3 DECREES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 3 SCHOOL SEGREGATION .................................................................................................................................................. 4 LEGISLATION CHANGES CONCERNING ASYLUM SEEKERS ........................................................................................................ 6 2. LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES AGAINST MINORITIES IN HUNGARY IN 2016 ............................................. 7 DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES AGAINST ASYLUM-SEEKERS ...................................................................................................... 7 DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES AGAINST THE ROMA ............................................................................................................. 12 3. THE GOVERNMENT’S RHETORIC REGARDING ASYLUM-SEEKERS AND MINORITIES .................................... 16 THE GOVERNMENT’S RHETORIC CONCERNING ASYLUM-SEEKERS ........................................................................................... 16 THE GOVERNMENT’S RHETORIC CONCERNING THE ROMA ................................................................................................... 21 THE GOVERNMENT’S RHETORIC CONCERNING THE JEWS ..................................................................................................... 22 THE GOVERNMENT’S RHETORIC CONCERNING THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY ............................................................................... 24 4. PUBLIC OPINION TOWARD MINORITIES ..................................................................................................... 26 PREJUDICE AGAINST THE ROMA .................................................................................................................................... 26 ANTI-SEMITISM ......................................................................................................................................................... 26 XENOPHOBIA AND PREJUDICE AGAINST MIGRANTS ............................................................................................................ 28 HOMOPHOBIA ........................................................................................................................................................... 31 ISLAMOPHOBIA .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 5. HOW DO RADICAL PARTIES AND GROUPS USE THE NEW REALITIES TO INCITE HATRED? ........................... 33 OVERVIEW OF THE MAIN PLAYERS IN THE FAR-RIGHT SCENE ................................................................................................ 33 OFFENCES AGAINST REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ................................................................................................................. 38 OFFENCES AGAINST THE ROMA ..................................................................................................................................... 41 OFFENCES AGAINST THE JEWS ....................................................................................................................................... 43 OFFENCES AGAINST THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY ................................................................................................................. 45 6. THE GOVERNMENT’S RHETORIC REGARDING RADICAL/EXTREMIST GROUPS ............................................. 49 7. POPULARITY OF RADICAL PARTIES AND GROUPS ....................................................................................... 51 8. HATE CRIMES AND INCIDENTS .................................................................................................................... 52 HATE CRIMES AND INCIDENTS AGAINST THE ROMA ............................................................................................................ 53 ANTI-SEMITIC HATE CRIMES AND INCIDENTS .................................................................................................................... 53 HATE CRIMES AND INCIDENTS AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY ............................................................... 56 ISLAMOPHOBIA .......................................................................................................................................................... 56 9. INTERETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS CLASHES ........................................................................................................ 58 10. SPORT-RELATED XENOPHOBIA ................................................................................................................. 60 11. GLORIFICATION OF GERMAN NATIONAL-SOCIALISM AND NAZI GERMANY COLLABORATORS, HOLOCAUST DENIAL ........................................................................................................................................................... 62 12. PERSECUTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ........................................................................................... 65 13. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 68 13. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 77 2 1. Laws, regulations, and practices adopted in 2016 affecting minorities Legislation concerning the ethnic minorities in Hungary did not change in 2016. However, it should be mentioned that since Fidesz1 (Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance, Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Szövetség) won more than two-third of the seats in the National Assemblyin April 2010, it has constantly been using its supermajority to adopt far-reaching legal and constitutional changes, including onesdealing with serious human rights issues. Discriminatory practices in Hungary affect mainly the Roma, the biggest minority group living in the country2. However one should keep in mind that in these cases latency is very high, meaning that many of themremain unnoticed. Most Roma lag behind society in many aspects: they suffer from extreme disadvantages in education, employment, and living conditions.3 Decrees of local governments In our previous report, we dealt with the profound changes to the social welfare system. The most important change was that local governments’ responsibilities increasedinsetting the conditions for the distribution of social benefits and public work. This new system exposed those who are in need – including Roma people – to the mayors’ decisions, even more so than ever before. In 2016, these tendencies continued and some local governments started or continued to apply discriminatory measures using local decrees. The most blatant example was the law-and-order programme called “Order and Integrity Programme” introduced by the local government of Tiszavasvári, a town in northeastern Hungary led by the Jobbik-affiliated Mayor Erik Fülöp, who has been the deputy chairman of the party since May 2016. The programme, which targeted the local Roma population and aimed at policing and intimidating them, was based on the Érpatak-model, a village in northern Hungary led by Mayor Mihály Zoltán Orosz, who is infamous for his extremist views including anti-Roma, anti-Semitic and anti-gay sentiments and his admiration for Hitler and Hungarian Arrow Cross (Nazi) Movement leader Ferenc Szálasi. According to the co-operation agreement signed by Tiszavasvári and the paramilitary organisation of Mr Orosz, the Legion of Honour, the latter patrolled Roma majority areas. While the measures only achieved some temporary results, the appearance of the Legion destabilised the local interethnic relationship and legitimised the racist-extremist discourse on the Roma.4 Tiszavasvári’s case shows that lawandorder policies are still among the priorities of Jobbik. The deputy chairman of Jobbik János Volner announced in March 2016 that the “Order and 1 In the course of the whole essay, the name of the party Fidesz stands for the party alliance Fidesz-KDNP. Since there is no real difference between Fidesz and KDNP (Christian Democratic People’s Party, Keresztény Demokrata Néppárt), and the latter does not have an electoral base independent ofFidesz, there is no reason to make a distinction between Fidesz and KDNP, even though they have separate groups in the parliament officially. 2Their estimated number is between 550-700 thousand. 3FRA, UNDP (2012). The Situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States. Survey results at a glance. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/2099-FRA-2012- Roma-at-a-glance_EN.pdf 4Hunyadi, Róna, and Kovarek, ‘Jobbik’s Performance and Policies on the Local Level’. 3 Integrity Programme” would be introduced in every Jobbik-led locality.5 However, due to harsh reactions to the programme in Tiszavasvári, party leader Mr Vona claimed in an interview in December 2016 that the cooperation between the local government of Tiszavasvári and Mihály Zoltán Orosz would end in early 2017.6 In our previous report, we discussed in details the case of the so-called “Numbered Streets” neighbourhood in