Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 655
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-05-02
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: a request to all (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
2 Joe Szalai (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  46 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: a request to all (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Proactivity / Inactivity / Is John a racist?? (mind)  42 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: a request to all (mind)  51 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: TGM's article (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Mea culpa (mind)  41 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  37 sor     (cikkei)
12 a request to all (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: TGM's article (mind)  37 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: TGM's article (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
15 Horthy (mind)  40 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: a request to all (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
18 Stowewrite wrote: (stowewrote?) (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
19 Law on the Protection of Republic (again) (mind)  108 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: TGM's article (mind)  40 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: Mea culpa (mind)  19 sor     (cikkei)
24 Petition against the infamous law (mind)  72 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: a request to all (mind)  11 sor     (cikkei)
26 Second the motion for civility - (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
27 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  46 sor     (cikkei)
28 Re: TGM's article (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
29 How about Stowewrit, Frank? (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
30 Re: TGM's article (mind)  7 sor     (cikkei)
31 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
32 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
33 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  26 sor     (cikkei)
34 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
35 Re: TGM's article (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
36 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  49 sor     (cikkei)
37 Re: a request to all (mind)  33 sor     (cikkei)
38 Re: How about Stowewrit, Frank? (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
39 Re: Second the motion for civility - (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
40 Re: Law on the Protection of Republic (again) (mind)  48 sor     (cikkei)
41 Re: a request to all (mind)  59 sor     (cikkei)
42 Re: Second the motion for civility - (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
43 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  7 sor     (cikkei)
44 Re: How about Stowewrit, Frank? (mind)  26 sor     (cikkei)
45 Re: How about Stowewrit, Frank? (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: a request to all (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

You wrote:
>
>I am going to ask you all a big favor.  Let's keep this list free of
petty
>exchanges.  If you want to tell someone off, please keep it private.
>
>All I really wish for is for us to have a chance to exchange ideas,
data;
>to learn from each other; without accusations, name calling, and being
>bothered by juvenile outburts.
>
>Let us all be civil to each other and respect everyone's right to
express
>him/herself.
>
>Can you please help achieve that?
>
>Thank you for your attention.
>Martha
>


Amen...

Charlie Vamossy
+ - Joe Szalai (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Sir:as an irregular contributor to this list,especialy after Szucs wa kiked out
,
I wonder why do you have to use the language against Martha request?
If you do not agree with her,well that is your prerogative,but maybe some of
us would like to have a little pause in all this self distructive monopoly
wich you advocate.
For your information I will not get into any discussion with you,since I
have better things to do too.But your temper might tooke over before your brain
.
With kindest regarsds:Andy Kozma.

P.S.Martha I think your idea is wery worthwhile,wich time has come.
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:32 PM 4/30/96 EST, W. Batkay wrote:

>Joe Szalai wrote at length about the "repugnant and undemocratic" charac-
>ter of monarchy in general and, presumably, the Habsburgs in particular.
>Maybe, but I was reminded of my last visit to the Kaisers Gruft in Vienna,
>where the Habsburg sarcophagi are kept in the basement of the Augustiner
>Kirche (except for Karl, who remains buried in Madeira because of some
>legal issue).  The tombs of Empress Elizabeth (Sissy), Empress/Queen Zita
>(Otto's mother) and, I think, Franz Joseph were almost literally covered
>with wreaths and ribbons from various scouting, women's and other groups
>from Hungary.  Either the people who travelled all the way from Hungary to
>place them are part of some kooky fringe group, or else the memory of the
>last Habsburgs is something quite other than "repugnant."  I ope for the
>latter view.
>
>Udv.,
>Be'la

"Repugnant", was the wrong word to use.  But as bait, it's indispensable.

I don't have the stats but I'll bet that more people go to Graceland than to
the Kaisers Gruft in any year.  And, until recently, I'm sure that more
people saw Lenin's mausoleum than the royal sarcophagi in Vienna.  Be'la may
think that this kind of behaviour shows that some people have fond memories
of the past, and some do, but there are always more people than there
wreaths/ribbons/candles/whathaveyou.  Most of the people who go to these
places show up as tourists so that they'll be able to say that they've been
there.  I can only guess that most, if not all, readers of this list who've
been to Budapest have been to the Liberation Monument.  Was your memory of
the Russian liberation of Hungary "something quite other than 'repugnant'"?

Nostalgically, the last Habsburgs were an OK bunch.  I even manage to
survive living in a constitutional monarchy.  The monarchy is more or less
irrelevant and so long as it stays that way I don't think about it much.
However, in a monarchy, constitutional or not, the people can't pick only
the benevolent monarchs.  If the monarchy is to have any meaning, the people
have to accept them all.  And I'd rather not.  You can pick your
politicians/representatives/delegates, etc., but you can't pick your monarchs.

The desire and longing for a grand, ordered, glorious, mighty, and
prosperous world that some people think is best exemplified by a monarchy is
the same as some peoples desire for a wonderful but lost past that can be
regained by going back to traditional family values.  Both are illusions.
Otherwise intelligent people hold on to both of them.

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: a request to all (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 11:53 PM 4/30/96 -0400, Martha Bihari wrote:

>I am going to ask you all a big favor.  Let's keep this list free of petty
>exchanges.  If you want to tell someone off, please keep it private.
>
>All I really wish for is for us to have a chance to exchange ideas, data;
>to learn from each other; without accusations, name calling, and being
>bothered by juvenile outburts.
>
>Let us all be civil to each other and respect everyone's right to express
>him/herself.
>
>Can you please help achieve that?
>
>Thank you for your attention.
>Martha

Martha,

I am getting really tired of your daily request for a certain kind of
behaviour on this newsgroup.  This list is not a staff meeting!  If you want
staff meeting politness and intellectual rigor mortis get off this list.
This list allows for the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and yes, even the
occasional name calling.  That is what a debate is.  But you wouldn't know
that as I've not seen you debate anyone.  A debate scares you silly, dosen't
it?  It's a good thing that you don't remind us daily what the fighters of
1956 were called.  Get a life, damn it!!

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: Proactivity / Inactivity / Is John a racist?? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Szia Eva,

You wrote:
>I was surprised to see a few years ago in HUngary, that
>everyone shaved bold with a boot was considered a fascist.

The Hungarian Skinhead movement is a tough one to call. I haven't associated
with them to form an opinion. I've only seen the facist element at football
(soccer) matches. I'm a Fradi (Ferencvaros) supporter and have seen the Aryan
Nation crowd there, but the funny thing is that Fradi had/has at least one or
two black players and other non-Hungarian players on the team and they support
them like other fan would. I wonder if they are serious facists or just do it
as a sick joke?? Fradi was almost levied some heavy fines, recently, for the
antics of their fans. At a match in Amsterdam against AFC Ajax, the Aryan
Nation crowd started Sieg Heiling and waving little swastikas around, needless
to say the Dutch weren't, too, thrilled.

>In England skinheads usually mean people from the anti-nazi
>league, more akin to punks.   But yes, some skinheads are fascists
>here, too, I think they wear more realistic military style
>clothes,

Hard to tell by clothes, nowadays. They're pretty stealthy about showing their
facist beliefs.

>but lately they shrunk from the scene - no need for them
>when the tories and labour take over the role of the extreme right...

I don't live in England, but I don't think they've shrunk and they're still
involved in a lot of wrongdoings. A few months ago I posted to the list a huge
brawl that ensued during an England vs. Ireland friendly in Dublin. Many of the
English ticket holders were of the National Front ilk. The story again is that
the English supporters were seated in the upper tiers of the stadium.  During
the game, the referee made a call against the English side which resulted in a
penalty kick (1-0 in Ireland's favor). The outraged English started spitting on
the Irish supporters below and started chanting "Death to the IRA". When spit
ran out, beer bottles rained down and when that ran out, wooden benches were a
substitute. It soon spread to the field an the game had to be stopped.

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com
+ - Re: a request to all (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 1 May 1996, Charles M. Vamossy wrote:

> You wrote:
> >
> >I am going to ask you all a big favor.  Let's keep this list free of
> petty
> >exchanges.  If you want to tell someone off, please keep it private.
> >
> >All I really wish for is for us to have a chance to exchange ideas,
> data;
> >to learn from each other; without accusations, name calling, and being
> >bothered by juvenile outburts.
> >
> >Let us all be civil to each other and respect everyone's right to
> express
> >him/herself.
> >
> >Can you please help achieve that?
> >
> >Thank you for your attention.
> >Martha
> >
>
>
> Amen...
>
> Charlie Vamossy
>

  I second that...

  It seems that for some people, their purpose of being on this list
  is for debate, and not for discussing Hungary.  With their clever
  words and domineering manner, they discourage others who have
  insightful views against expressing their ideas.  Its like walking into
  a pack of hungary wolves.

  The truth is, their are others on this list who are acting like Szucs.
  I wonder how many other lists those people belong to?  Are they here
  to discuss hungary, or to engage in a headfirst debate?  Perhaps
  they should form a "debate@" list...

  Hungary is in my heart.  There is zero likelihood that anyone will
  change my views about hungary, in as much as their is any likelihood
  that somebody could shake my belief in God.  Therefore, I do not engage
  in such matters.

  Listen to Ms. Martha.

  Udv.,
  Misi
+ - Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

To Mr. Szucs:

I don't know who you are, nor do I know Ms. Balogh,
but your hateful posting just disgusts me.
I have the feeling that you are one of the "holy" ones that
will end up in hell.

Zoltan Manyoki,

Ottawa, Canada
Munich, Germany
Gyor, Hungary
+ - Re: TGM's article (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

_cut-
> and so on.  He wrote a very insightful and critical article in either HVG
> or 168 ora last spring, about the lack of a civic culture in Hungary.  I
> can't imagine that his views endear him to too many people there.  He is
> brilliant, I think, but more than a little strange.
>
> Udv.,
> Be'la

What is meant by civic culture? Before I jump in with a vehement
denial of this view, I want to know...
Eva Durant
+ - Re: Mea culpa (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva S. Balogh ) wrote:
: >
: >This was stupid. It would have been better to think a little bit before
: writing it down. I should have weighted the parties; i.e., the MSZP and the
: SZDSZ had a larger share of the votes than the other parties. Unfortunately,
: in my own library I can't find the exact figures on voters, only the
: percentages in parliament. In any case, the figure is a great deal lower
: than 46% but I would say still high enough.
: >
: >        Eva Balogh

:         I wrote. For sake of those who are not familiar with the Hungarian
: electoral system, the system as it stands distorts the results. For example,
: the MSZP got 54 percent of the parliamentary seats, but only 30 some percent
: of the actual votes! In order to calculate the average one ought to weigh
: the parties' share according to the number of actual voters. I was hoping
: that I would find the number of those voters who actually voted for X or Y
: party and then calculate their share in the voting population, but in my own
: home library I was unable come up with these figures. Therefore, I was
: unable to provide the accurate statistics once I discovered my error.

:         Eva Balogh


Gee, I'm glad all those tables in the back of my thesis that I spent so
much time on finally came in handy.   :-)


Percent of the vote won by each party in the regional list voting:

MSzP     32.99
SzDSz    19.74
MDF      11.74
FKGP      8.82
KDNP      7.03
Fidesz    7.02



Heather Olsen

+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

E.Balogh wrote:

>        No, March 15 should be a national holiday because it commemorates a
>bloodless revolution which established a constitutional monarchy with a
>responsible government, introduced a modern parliament, abolished the
>distinction between nobles and commoners, gave land to the peasants without
>recompensation, and so on and so forth. But going so far as insisting on the
>post of minister for foreign affairs, for example, or demanding an entirely
                                                                    ^^^^^^^^
>independent defense was, in my humble opinion, provocative and unnecessary.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good question which was first 'tyuk vagy a tojas' (chicken or the egg). Do
you think there wasn't a real danger that the emperor changed his mind when
he felt a little bit more comfortable? I think it would have been foolish
to believe that the Habsburgs would keep their word. As far as I know the
Emperor declared invalid all the document he signed during the uprising in
Vienna (like the Hungarian Constitution).

>wiser, especially when the Magyar component of the country was inherently
>weak, given the fact that the majority of the population was of non-Magyar
>stock. But somehow our Hungarian leaders, including Kossuth, never seriously
>considered that fact.

Eh-eh. You know what, I may be only blind in my nationalistic feeling but
I do think without the Russian help we would have kicked the shit out of
the Austrians regardless of any romanian, slovakian uprising. Why do you
think Ferenc Joska kissed the Russian Zcar's hand? (As far as I know he
had to do this for the Russian help)

J.Zsargo
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

B.Batkay wrote:

>Eva Balogh has put her finger, perhaps inadvertently, on the central issue--
>nationalism. Once nationalism was let out of the bottle, so to speak--and by
>the Transylvanian Romanians, by the way, in the *Supplex libellus Wallachor-
>um*, addressed to the emperor Joseph II--it could not be pput back in.  And
>once nations were defined in *ethnic* terms, not citizenship terms, the
>fateful die was cast.  Ethnic nations demanded ethnic states, or nation-
>states, and the Habsburgs, Ottomans, et al, were doomed, sooner or later.
>The USSR was the last to go, but go it did.  And the results?
>
>No doubt, there is a moderate, non-ethnic nationalism that might actually
>improve the human prospect, but if there is, the East Europeans have not
>discovered it yet.  1848 was perhaps the last moment when they might have
>opted for the rights of *citizens*, but they chose instead to grab for
>rights as ethnic nations.  And individual citizens have been suffering ever
>since.

I think there is a logical mistake in this state defined on 'citizenship' term
 above. To be a citizen, first you need to establish the state itself. As far a
s
 I know a feudal state like more or less Hungary was before 1848 is far away
 from that 'state idea' what we have today. The country itself was hold togethe
r
 by
the person of king/queen/emperor/etc or by the institution of the kingdom
(E.Balogh described it in her article about the Habsburg Empire). So let say
someone from Szatmar county might have felt no responsibility whatever had
happened in Zala county. If the king/emperor urged him to do something for
those in Zala he did but merely because his respected king/emperor ordered it.
A nice (or rather sad) example of this is the period of Turkish occupation.
Whenever the person of the king disappeared or was questioned like after Mohacs
 the country just felt apart. One of the main goal of the nationalism (during
 the
19th century) was to establish the modern state idea.

J.Zsargo
+ - a request to all (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I am going to ask you all a big favor.  Let's keep this list free of petty
exchanges.  If you want to tell someone off, please keep it private.

All I really wish for is for us to have a chance to exchange ideas, data;
to learn from each other; without accusations, name calling, and being
bothered by juvenile outburts.

Let us all be civil to each other and respect everyone's right to express
him/herself.

Can you please help achieve that?

Thank you for your attention.
Martha
+ - Re: TGM's article (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Balogh writes about the collected essays of Tamas (a.k.a. TGM):

> I was very impressed with some of the articles and then being still
> a naive soul I thought that I would share some of his insights with the
> readers of the Forum. Oh, my God! What a foolish move that was. It turned
> out that GMT is absolutely despised by the right; not just the extreme
> right, but even by the more moderate national right. They consider him
> unstable, if not worse, because they claim that during his lifetime he
> expounded several different political philosophies from anarchism to
> neo-conservatism.

Actually, I don't think there is such a great distance between anarchism
and the kind of neo-conservatism that TGM represents.  The intellectual
evolution of the Commentary circle here in the U.S. was roughly parallel
to TGM's path, except for the fact that TGM never had a Marxist phase.
The charge of inconsistency is rather vacuous, especially coming from
the sort of people who never had to re-evaluate their thinking in the
light of new facts -- because there was no thinking to re-evaluate in
the first place.  It is the kind of charge you would make when you
can't think of anything else to say.

As for the strong effect TGM has on right-wing nationalists, much of that
is intentional.  He is definitely not running for Miss Congeniality.
His style is sharp, he enjoys confrontation, and has very little interest
in diplomacy.  His quirks and affectations are also designed to grate on
the nerves: the silver-headed walking stick, the cigar, the parenthetical
digressions within digressions designed to show off some arcane piece of
knowledge, the many archaic phrases and syntax scattered throughout his
work, etc.  He is not a party man: he has been attacking the right, the
Socialists, and the SZDSZ with equal vehemence at various points in the
past.  But he seems to be having the most fun driving the nationalist
right to apoplectic rage.  It is a chore, but he seems to be enjoying
himself while also performing a great public service.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

+ - Re: TGM's article (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>        Perhaps Gabor Farkas knows him personally.
>
>        Eva

Yes, I do. We grew up in the same city around the same time, at that time
the population of Kolozsvar was less than 150,000 and everyone knew everyone
else. We were childhood friends and I would rather not go into his
description, not that there is anything negative, I just don't feel
comfortable doing it.

I also want to make it clear that the fact that I translated the article has
nothing to do with the fact that I know TGM. I just found it very
interesting and agreed with many of its statements.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Horthy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

No argument, Eva, just to say that I was pretty well aware of politics,
both internal and external, during the Horthy years. Never have I heard or
read anything about even the faintest indication of a Western raprochement.
Especially the Franch were, of course, totally intransigent  But: I didn't
know Horthy personally, and most certainly would not put my hand into the
fire for whatever his inermost thoughts were, and whether he received any
feelers about the possibility of our country's change of heart.
When I went to gymnasium in Hungary (1924-1932), we were taught history in
the lower grades: dates involving kings, wars, battles, concordates, peace
treaties, alignment of allies and enemies, etc. Then, in the 7th and 8th
grade we were taught analytical (oknyomozo) history: the reasons, aims,
pressures, obligations, circumstances, etc. underlying those historical
dates. The history in the lower grades was pretty much cut and dried. The
analytical history, on the other hand, was written from the point of view
of the current political establishment, which was, of course, very
nationalistic, conservative, Christian and justified everything Hungarians
ever did. This is no different to every national history curriculum all
over the globe. I do not believe there is a single history book in the
world which would not be biased, including in the USA. What we don't know
from personal experience we can only learn from books and eyewitness
accounts. And I, for one, don't trust any of them. Take the USA: nothing at
all is taught about Hungary or similar small countries, unless they are of
some political or economical interest to us. If an American professes to
know anything about Hungary, he can only know it from history books, be
they American, English, or the occasional oevre written in English by
others. Some of these others could even be  Hungarian, who grind various
axes (according to which of the many subsequent authoritarian regimes
maltreated them). Maltreated they were all, to be sure.
I am especially grateful to Eva Balogh for her shared insight into our
mother country's affairs, and information on current events and politicians
there, of which otherwise I would totally be ignorant.
As to the general "formedveny" I posted a few days ago, I am happy to see
that it was in the whole well received, and I thank everybody who expressed
his or her satisfaction with it. I repeat: it is not anybody's opinion that
bothers me, it is the choice of words, childish insults flying back and
forth. Anybody happening onto our list must agree with Sam: THEY have only
themselves to blame.           He, of course, is not part of the THEY, but
we are. Let's keep our frayed dignity!

Karoly
+ - Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Johanne Tournier wrote in Hungary #651:

>When I was young, one of the base canards which passed as a joke in the
>States went as follows:
>
>"A Hungarian is the only person who can enter a revolving door behind
>someone and come out ahead."

The quote is from Zsazsa Gabor, whose main claim to being Hungarian (although
she
was actually born in Hungary) is that artificial accent.

Ferenc
+ - Re: a request to all (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 1 May 1996, Joe Szalai wrote:

> Martha,
>
> I am getting really tired of your daily request for a certain kind of
> behaviour on this newsgroup.  This list is not a staff meeting!  If you want
> staff meeting politness and intellectual rigor mortis get off this list.
> This list allows for the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and yes, even the
> occasional name calling.  That is what a debate is.  But you wouldn't know
> that as I've not seen you debate anyone.  A debate scares you silly, dosen't
> it?  It's a good thing that you don't remind us daily what the fighters of
> 1956 were called.  Get a life, damn it!!
>
> Joe Szalai
>

Mr Szalai, why dows politeness imply intellectual rigor mortis, and why
does it prevent a free exchange of ideas or opinions? Why is there a need
for even occasional name calling? I should think the need for name
calling, impoliteness, and invective is a far greater sign of
intellectual rigor mortis. And even debate has its civilized rules.

Louis Elteto
+ - Stowewrite wrote: (stowewrote?) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Stowewrite wrote: (stowewrote?)

>P.S. -- Either your curriculum vitae posted on the Web is in error or you
>are, once again, lying. You claim to have graduated in the Class of 1962.
>That would make you 23 years old when you received your high school
>diploma if your assertion that you were 17 in 1956 is true. While you are
>slow and Stalinist, I doubt you are truly that moronic. We're all still
>waiting for you to tell us exact details about where you were during the
>revolution of 1956 and what you did. We want to authenticate your account.

You may not know it, but there were many youngsters who were forced to
interrupt
 their studies during the communist regime.  I happen to know of several who
were
 either kicked out of school for political reasons or were deported between
1951 and 1953 and were not allowed to pursue their secondary education during
those years.  Sometimes they were able to pick up a few years later -- often
going to night school after work -- and graduate a few years late.

And, while I am at it:  What is the sense of baiting others to the point
where nearly
the entire issue is taken up by mudslinging to and fro?  It seems so very
childish --
 and boorish!

Let's hope someone, anyone, will have the good sense and maturity to stop.
 The other
side would eventually give up.

Regards,

Ferenc
+ - Law on the Protection of Republic (again) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Since this issue is still of high actuality, I am reposting my
translation of the text of the Law on the Protection of the Republic
from End March. Please remark the distinguished attempt to criminalise
the "intention", as well to drive Commercial Code and Civil Code
issues to the Penal Code domain. The Dickens-epoch-like crimes of
indebtness have a very obvious purpose to rackett the "privatisers"
and to "fidelise" them.

Roman Kanala

------------------- original message follows --------------------

>From the new Slovak Penal Code articles draft, also known as "The Law on
the Protection of the Republic"  (after SME daily of 26 March 1996, URL
http://savba.savba.sk/logos/news/sme/index260396.html#30) :

Article 91

HIGH TREASON

A citizen of the Slovak Republic who in connection with a foreign power
or with a foreign agent commits the crime of subversion of the Republic
(Art. 92), terror (Art. 93 and 93a), petty sabotage [slov. zaskodnictvo]
(Art. 95 and 96) or sabotage [slov. sabotaz] (Art. 97), will be punished
by loss of freedom for twelve to fifteen years or by exceptional
punition.


SUBVERSION OF THE REPUBLIC

Art. 92a

Who, with an intention to subvert the constitutional order, territorial
integrity or the defense of the Republic or to destroy its independence,
commits the crime of attacking a State organ after Art. 154, attacking
of a public agent [slov. verejny cinitel] after Art. 155 al.1, violence
against a group of citizen and against individual after Art. 196,
dehonesting [slov. hanobenie] of a nation, race or conviction after
Art. 198, instigation of racial or national hate after Art. 198a,
spreading an alarm news after Art. 199 al. 1 and 2 or violating the
freedom of association [slov. zdruzovanie] and gathering [slov.
zhromazdovanie] after Art. 238 a, will be punished by loss of freedom
of one to five years or by a financial penalty.

Art. 92b

(1) Who, with an intention to subvert the constitutional order,
territorial integrity or the defense of the Republic or to destroy its
independence, organises a public assembly of the citizen, will be
punished by loss of freedom for six months to three years or by a
financial penalty.

(2) With a penalty of loss of the freedom of one to five years will
be punished the perpetrator who

a) commits the deed quoted in the al.1 as a member of an organised group

b) commits such a deed in war emergency times [slov. branna pohotovost
statu, fr. pied de guerre] or

c) commits such a deed in connection with a foreign power or with a
foreign agent


Art. 98

DAMAGING THE INTERESTS OF THE REPUBLICS

Who, as a citizen of the Slovak Republic or a person without nationality
with a permanent residence on the territory of the Slovak Republic,
intentionally spreads abroad false informations that damage the
interests of the Republic, will be punished by loss of freedom up to
two years or with a financial penalty.


VIOLATING THE FINANCIAL DISCIPLINE

Art. 127a

(1) Who violates or failes to fulfill a legally prescribed or
contractually agreed obligation toward the State, commune [slov. obec]
or Fund of National Property of Slovak Republic (FNM SR) in connection
with drawing or using the funds from the State budget, State fund,
communal budget or budget of the Fund of the National Property, or in
connection with the transfer [slov. prevod] or transfer [slov. prechod]
of the property of the State or transfer [slov. prevod]  of the property
of a commune or FNM SR on other persons and causes a significant damage
or wins a significant material advantage to himself or to a third
person,
will be punished by loss of freedom from six months to three years or
by inderdiction of activity or by a financial penalty.

Art. 127b

Who violates or failes to fulfill a legally prescribed obligation toward
the Health Insurance, in which the State participates on solvability, or
toward FNM SR and causes a significant damage or wins a significant
profit for himself or for a third person, will be punished by loss of
freedom up to two years or by interdiction of activity or by a financial
penalty.

-----------------

Disclaimer: Sorry for the poor quality of translation. I am neither a
professional translator nor a legal professional. The text may be suited
to make a personal opinion about the new legal reform but for official
purpose, it would be a good idea to have it reviewed by a professional
translator. Feel free to use where appropriate. All disclaimers apply.
+ - Re: TGM's article (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Gabor Fencsik:

>Actually, I don't think there is such a great distance between anarchism
>and the kind of neo-conservatism that TGM represents.  The intellectual
>evolution of the Commentary circle here in the U.S. was roughly parallel
>to TGM's path, except for the fact that TGM never had a Marxist phase.
>The charge [of conservative circles] of inconsistency is rather vacuous,
especially coming from
>the sort of people who never had to re-evaluate their thinking in the
>light of new facts -- because there was no thinking to re-evaluate in
>the first place.  It is the kind of charge you would make when you
>can't think of anything else to say.

        Exactly. It seems to me that the representatives of the extreme/not
so extreme right simply can't accept the very possibility of someone's
changing one's mind. For some strange reason they look upon people and their
ideas as coming, fully grown, out of Zeus's head. One was born with one set
of political/philosophical ideas and one cannot alter any of them. If one
does change that person is unstable, or insincere, for ever tainted, at best
and, at worst, a despicable turncoat. I find that kind of thinking
extraordinary because, I am sure, almost all of us can follow our own
intellectual growth. We saw things in a certain way at age of sixteen but
ten years later we thought it was foolish.
        Not long ago there was a discussion (fairly feeble in intellectual
terms) on FORUM  on the democratic opposition. Several people on the right
brought it up that some of the representatives of the dissident movement
originally expressed leftist sentiments. I don't know much about the
movement (I am planning to learn about it soon, though), but I don't find
the above terribly surprising. Let's assume you are in your twenties and you
spent your whole life in "existing socialism." In school they filled your
head with all sorts of Marxist ideology, but you look around and there is a
terrible discrepancy between idology and reality. And you say to yourself:
maybe the problem is that we are not good enough Marxists. Perhaps if we
were more faithful to the teachings of Marx things would go better. We would
have a better society. I find that kind of thinking almost natural. Then a
few more years go by and you do a little bit more thinking and then you say
to yourself: Oh, God, that's all crap actually. One has to attack the
problem from another angle.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Janos Zsargo talking about my objection of the Hungarian decision of
independent defense in 1848:

>Good question which was first 'tyuk vagy a tojas' (chicken or the egg). Do
>you think there wasn't a real danger that the emperor changed his mind when
>he felt a little bit more comfortable?

        I think we ought to be more precise. The emperor who was
feeble-minded mostly likely didn't think of much. His advisers are something
else.

>I think it would have been foolish
>to believe that the Habsburgs would keep their word.

        That depends on your point of view. And indeed, the saying about
"chicken and the egg" applies.

>As far as I know the
>Emperor declared invalid all the document he signed during the uprising in
>Vienna (like the Hungarian Constitution).

        Yes, after a while. And again, for the sake of those who are less
familiar with Hungarian history, let's be more precise. The "Hungarian
constitution," like he British , was an unwritten one.

>Eh-eh. You know what, I may be only blind in my nationalistic feeling but
>I do think without the Russian help we would have kicked the shit out of
>the Austrians regardless of any romanian, slovakian uprising. Why do you
>think Ferenc Joska kissed the Russian Zcar's hand? (As far as I know he
>had to do this for the Russian help)

        That is possible. But the question is: what would we have done after
such a victory? How would we, Hungarians, the minority, deal with the
dissatisfied, antagonistic minorities?

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Janos Zsargo, quoting Bela Batkay:

>1848 was perhaps the last moment when they might have
>>opted for the rights of *citizens*, but they chose instead to grab for
>>rights as ethnic nations.  And individual citizens have been suffering ever
>>since.

        Then Janos adds his own commentary:

>I think there is a logical mistake in this state defined on 'citizenship' term
> above. To be a citizen, first you need to establish the state itself. As
far as
> I know a feudal state like more or less Hungary was before 1848 is far away
> from that 'state idea' what we have today.

        Here, I think, Janos is unduly influenced by the history teaching in
Hungarian high schools where the word "feudalism" was used at every
opportunity. Early Hungarian marxist historians loved talking about the
feudal state as it existed in the 1930s. Feudalism as such has never existed
in Hungary and current history books try to avoid even the term. (If anyone
is interested I can quote from a fairly new book on medieval Hungary by Pal
Engel who in his introduction talks about the problem of feudalism at length.)

>The country itself was hold >together by
>the person of king/queen/emperor/etc or by the institution of the kingdom
>(E.Balogh described it in her article about the Habsburg Empire). So let say
>someone from Szatmar county might have felt no responsibility whatever had
>happened in Zala county. If the king/emperor urged him to do something for
>those in Zala he did but merely because his respected king/emperor ordered it.

        As for Be'la's distinction between the rights of citizen without
ethnic distinction and the right of individuals on the basis of ethnicity, I
don't see any trouble with it. Janos's problem is that under "modern" state
he can only imagine a "nation state."

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Mea culpa (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Heather Olsen about the voting results:

>Gee, I'm glad all those tables in the back of my thesis that I spent so
>much time on finally came in handy.   :-)
>
>
>Percent of the vote won by each party in the regional list voting:
>
>MSzP     32.99
>SzDSz    19.74
>MDF      11.74
>FKGP      8.82
>KDNP      7.03
>Fidesz    7.02

        Thank you. These will becoming handy, I am sure. Hopefully under
less trying circumstances.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Petition against the infamous law (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In a recent development, Meciar said in the Slovak TV that the
Law on the Protection of the Republic is a missing piece in the
Slovak legislation and that it will be passed soon. He has a
sufficient majority in the parliament to fulfill that pledge.

In protest against that law, contributors to the SME-L mailing list
have organised a discussion on a text of an open letter to the
deputies of the Slovak Parliament. The final version has been signed
by about 30 people and today the number is around 100.

SME daily published the protest on 11 April 1996. It can be found
online at URL (in Slovak only)
http://savba.savba.sk/logos/news/sme/data/index110496.html

The SME daily homepage is at URL
http://savba.savba.sk/logos/news/sme/sme.html
where the old issues can be got from. There also are instructions
how to subscribe to SME-L list. The majority of the contibutions
are in Slovak, though.

Please note I have no affiliation with the SME daily or any Slovak
organisation or political party. I am entitled to have my personal
opinion on the issue and have chosen to exercice my right.

Thanks to Pavel and Elisabeth Matustik >
for the English translation of the final version of the protest
below.

Roman Kanala

(All disclaimers apply.)

---------------------------

Open Letter to the Representatives of the National Congress of the
Slovak Republic.

We the citizens and friends of the Slovak Republic, having been made
aware of the importance of this moment in Slovak history strongly protest
the acceptance of the penal code by the National Congress of the Slovak
Republic.  We believe that the individual citizen's freedom is a
foundation for the proper functioning of a democratic society.  We are
convinced that the penal code which you have just voted into law will curb
and violate the basic human rights of free speech and congregation.

1. The definition for "intention to subvert" as it is written in article
92, section b), is a vague formulation which could easily be
misinterpreted and misused by the state to eliminate any opposition. The
article 92, section b), is also a blatant violation of the freedom of
congregation.  We see this as a violent act curbing the basic freedoms
granted by the Human Rights Charter and by the Slovak Constitution.

2. We believe that the punishment of "the intentional distribution of
information" as formulated in article 98, is in a direct contradiction to
the freedom of speech.  The imprecise definition of "the truthfulness of
the information" and "the interest of the Republic" allows room for
misinterpretation and manipulation of the well being of the citizens, and
could be used as grounds for curbing the freedom and independence of the
press.  Communist history is too fresh to forget.  We condemn this return
to the principles of pre 1989.

The adoption of these laws is a direct attack on the basic human rights
which define any democratic society.  Our conscience and civic duty will
not allow us to observe this situation silently.  Your decision to adopt
this penal code is an insult to all democratic principles of the Slovak
Republic.

We ask for an immediate cancellation of this penal code articles. We
appeal on the parliamentary Representatives to stop playing these
dangerous games with the citizens' basic rights.

Signatures
+ - Re: a request to all (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article
>,
Michael D Shafer > writes:

>Its like walking into
>  a pack of hungary wolves.
>
>

Interesting malaprop.
Sam Stowe
+ - Second the motion for civility - (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On May 1,  6:55am, Joe Szalai wrote:
> This list allows for the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and yes, even the
> occasional name calling.  That is what a debate is.

    Very wrong! Name calling is never, but never, is part of a decent
    debate.

    I agree with those who support Martha's request for civility,

                                                                 Amos
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

E.Balogh wrote:

>>Good question which was first 'tyuk vagy a tojas' (chicken or the egg). Do
>>you think there wasn't a real danger that the emperor changed his mind when
>>he felt a little bit more comfortable?
>
>        I think we ought to be more precise. The emperor who was
>feeble-minded mostly likely didn't think of much. His advisers are something
>else.

When I mentioned the Emperor I ment him and his advisers and everybody who had
power. I am sure you and most of the readers knew this very well.

>>I think it would have been foolish
>>to believe that the Habsburgs would keep their word.
>
>        That depends on your point of view. And indeed, the saying about
>"chicken and the egg" applies.

Well, let me recall what I was taught  by those tendencious hungarian history
teachers. The Habsburg empire (see I did not call it Austo-Hungarian Monarchy
as it was nonexistent at that time!) was one of the founder member of triple
allience (with Prussia and Russia if I am correct) formed against Napoleon
and everything which has anything to do with the ideology of the French
Revolution. This allience (I think it was called 'Szent Liga'.) was still
working in 1848 and one of it's key figure Prince Metternich was a powerful
adviser of the Emperor. The hungarian constition (written or unwritten) and
what march 15 represented was based on the ideology of French Rev. (and also
the American Constitution). I do not think those advisors (& Emperor) had any
sympathy toward the Hungarian case.
Also, as far as I know Jelasic ban and his army was who enter Hungary with the
order from our loved 'Emperor' to 'make order' in Hungary and an army installed
in rush stopped and kicked them out. Furthermore General Mora the commander of
this 'nepfolkelo' army was hasitating to chase Jelasic beyond Hungary (on
 Austrain ground) and let time the advisors(&Emperor) to secure their position
in Vienna. I may be blind again and also poisoned by the tendencious Hungarian
history but I feel more agressivity on the Habsburg side than on the Hungarian.
Beside there were uprising all over the Habsburg Empire, like Italy, Austria
(Vienna) itself, and the Habsburgs solve this problem by force everywhere. (jus
t
remind you to Haynau and his nickname the 'Bresciai hoher')
But, probably you are right, nobody understood the complex 'psyche' of the
Habsburgs and only the intolerance of those nationalist drive them to use force
.

J.Zsargo
+ - Re: TGM's article (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 01:58 PM 5/1/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        Not long ago there was a discussion (fairly feeble in intellectual
>terms) on FORUM  on the democratic opposition. Several people on the right
>brought it up that some of the representatives of the dissident movement
>originally expressed leftist sentiments. I don't know much about the
>movement (I am planning to learn about it soon, though), but I don't find
>the above terribly surprising. Let's assume you are in your twenties and you
>spent your whole life in "existing socialism." In school they filled your
>head with all sorts of Marxist ideology, but you look around and there is a
>terrible discrepancy between idology and reality. And you say to yourself:
>maybe the problem is that we are not good enough Marxists. Perhaps if we
>were more faithful to the teachings of Marx things would go better. We would
>have a better society. I find that kind of thinking almost natural. Then a
>few more years go by and you do a little bit more thinking and then you say
>to yourself: Oh, God, that's all crap actually. One has to attack the
>problem from another angle.

As one of those who went through this process, I agree totally with the above.

Getting back to the TGM article for a moment, I was very surpised at the
vehement reaction of those who opposed it. After all the maint thrust of the
article is that those opposed to the extreme right do not have to passively
watch it. They have the right to stigmatize those who advocate facsist and
racist ideas.

I have been practicing this on the HIX Forum because I think that watching
the extreme right silently gives them an aura of legitimity (if no one
speaks up, they must be right...).

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - How about Stowewrit, Frank? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Ferenc Novak
> writes:

>And, while I am at it:  What is the sense of baiting others to the point
>where nearly
>the entire issue is taken up by mudslinging to and fro?  It seems so very
>childish --
> and boorish!
Since you and I belong to the same server, I'm going to assume (and the
assumption may be wrong) that you receive posts from this list at roughly
the same time I do. If that is the case, you have either posted the above
secure in the knowledge that Szucs has been booted off the list or you
don't bother to read the postings at all. If the first is true, you have
waited until the coast is clear to come out of hiding to stick your tongue
out at me. If the second is the case, you are purposefully ignorant. I
make no apology to you for taking on Szucs when you and many like you
didn't have the guts to do it.
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: TGM's article (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Thanks again to Eva Balogh for further info about TGM, especially the
bibliography references.  The reaction of the Hungarian right does not
surprise me, although it saddens me.  As the saying goes, a prohpet is
without honor only in his own country.

Udv.,
Be'la
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

And yet again thanks to Eva Balogh for the reminder about "Shop on Main
Street" {I think that was the American title}.  I remember many of the
poignant scenes in the film, but simply draw a blank about the vignette
Eva refers to.  Most likely because I am not from the region, and other
parts of the film resonated with me more.  But Eva's lovely comment takes
on greater significance in light of our recent exchange about what came
after the ,,osszeomlas".

Udv.,
Be'la
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in my earlier response to Joe Szalai.
I was not making a brief for monarchy as such, although I do estimate it
more highly for its integrative functions than he does, but merely observing
that the *Habsburg* monarchy was a generally good thing for all concerned.
It might be worth recalling the great Czech 19th century historian, Franti-
sek Palacky's, comment that "if the Habsburg Monarchy had not existed, it
would be necessary to invent it."

Udv.,
Be'la
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 1 May 1996, Janos Zsargo wrote:

> The hungarian constition (written or unwritten) and > what march 15
represented was based on the ideology of French Rev. (and also > the
American Constitution). I do not think those advisors (& Emperor) had any
> sympathy toward the Hungarian case.

Although Eva will no doubt respond in detail, the basic fact is that
Hungary, which did  have its own constitutional guarantees, did not, and
did not have to recognize the Emperor, except in his capacity as King of
Hugary; it was the monarchy that was defended by the Kossuth govt., not a
republic, until April, 1849, at which juncture the Habsburgs were
dethroned and a republic was declared - an act that contributed to the
Russian intervention. Franz Joseph may have become Emperor, but in the
Kingdom of Hungary, he was not recognized, because he was not king. Eva
is right: the fight was for a constitutional monarchy, almost to the end,
and one that did not question the legitimacy of the Habsburg dynasty - on
the Hungarian throne - again, until the very end. Whatever Hungarian
teachers taught or did not teach about 1848-49: our popular national
perception of it is not exactly an unbiased view.

Which does not mean that we have to denigrate what has become, in effect,
a national myth. Its interpretation may, however, change from generation
to generation.

Louis J. Elteto
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

J. Zsargo makes nore than one interesting and important point in his post-
ing about the role of nationalism in establishing the "modern state idea."
The point I was trying to make is that in the French case, for example,
that nationalism aimed at creating a state of "citoyens," citizens, taking
individual responsibility for their political fate, not an ethnic state of
"the French."  In East Europe, nationalism never succeeded, from about mid-
1848 on, in achieving, or even aiming at, that form of the "modern" state.

Udv.,
Be'la
+ - Re: TGM's article (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Durant asked what I meant by "civic culture."  The real question should
be, what did TGM mean by it.  I gathered from his article [actually, edi-
torial] that the meant what most contemporary Western political scientist
mean by it--a public cutlure of tolerance for political differences, of
respect for the rights of individuals, and most especially, one with a sense
of civic responsibility, i.e., the idea that the "state" is not some alien
"them" but is in fact "us," including "me", and that we/I have a responsibi-
lity to participate in its functioning by voting, having informed opinions,
joining like-minded others to influence its direction, and even more
 par-'ticulalarly respecting its laws.  TGM's primary target, if I remember
 correctly, was
the widespread and casual disregard of the law that he believed character-
ized a majority of his countrymen/women, which he saw as a most unfortunate
holdover fromthe period of Communism, when the law was indeed made by "them"
for their benefit exclusively.

Udv.,
Be'la
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves (Dear) L.J. Elteto, you wrote:

>> The hungarian constition (written or unwritten) and  what march 15
>>represented was based on the ideology of French Rev. (and also > the
>>American Constitution). I do not think those advisors (& Emperor) had any
>> sympathy toward the Hungarian case.
>
>Although Eva will no doubt respond in detail, the basic fact is that
>Hungary, which did  have its own constitutional guarantees, did not, and
>did not have to recognize the Emperor, except in his capacity as King of
>Hugary; it was the monarchy that was defended by the Kossuth govt., not a
>republic, until April, 1849, at which juncture the Habsburgs were
>dethroned and a republic was declared - an act that contributed to the
>Russian intervention. Franz Joseph may have become Emperor, but in the
>Kingdom of Hungary, he was not recognized, because he was not king. Eva
>is right: the fight was for a constitutional monarchy, almost to the end,
>and one that did not question the legitimacy of the Habsburg dynasty - on
>the Hungarian throne - again, until the very end. Whatever Hungarian
>teachers taught or did not teach about 1848-49: our popular national
>perception of it is not exactly an unbiased view.
>
>Which does not mean that we have to denigrate what has become, in effect,
>a national myth. Its interpretation may, however, change from generation
>to generation.
>
>Louis J. Elteto

There are some problem with your point of view. First you should know, we
(at least me) not arguing about what the Hungarians fought for in 1848-49,
but why the hostilities broke out and whose fault was it. In this sense
your post is supporting my point, i.e not the agressive behaviour of the
Hungarians but rather the blindness and rigidity of the Habsburgs caused it.
Second, the constitution or constitutional guarantees of Hungary you talked
about is probably not the same what Kossuth brought to Vienna in 1848 March.
That is probably the 'rendi alkotmany', 'rendi orszaggyules' which provided
some independence for Hungary from the other part of the empire. This one
has nothing to do any modern civil constitution, but an archaic creature from
the middle-age. Furthermore the Emperor who signed decissions of the 'Orszag-
gyules' brought to Vienna by Kossuth in 1848, was not Ferenc Jozsef but his
father (I ? II Ferenc, I don't remember). He was legitim King of Hungary
and nobody questioned that.

J.Zsargo

P.S: I guess your misunderstanding come from that I compared the Hungarian
Constitution to the French, American one. I ment with this comparision the
civil rights, the elected government ('felelos kormany') and not the republic.
Also, I would like to remind you that the French revolution began as Constitu-
tional Monarchy!
+ - Re: a request to all (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> Michael D Shafer > writes:
>
> >Its like walking into
> >  a pack of hungary wolves.
> >
> >
>
> Interesting malaprop.
> Sam Stowe
>
        OK, so you really made me smile there!  Good eye.

        Interestingly enough, today I noticed a posting (flyer) which
        in 50 point font read:

             "Help Process
                1,000,000
             Pounds of Food
            for the Hungary
             of Erie County"

        "The Food Bank of Western New York need you to help...etc."

        At first I was quite offended.  But then I realized what a folly
        it is for *them*.

        At an institution with 45,000 students and workers, I am sure
        plenty of these have been printed.

        The contact is Kasey @ 716.645.2375 if anybody would
        like to call and help "Hungary"...

        -Misi
+ - Re: How about Stowewrit, Frank? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 06:13 PM 5/1/96 -0400, Sam Stowe wrote:

>I make no apology to you for taking on Szucs when you and many like you
>didn't have the guts to do it.

Thank you Sam.  It's sad that some people on this list feel uncomfortable
with free speech.  It's also sad to see that many people on this list wish
they could control the agenda and the style of debate.  People who wish for
civility or comfort by putting controls on free speech deserve neither.

Joe Szalai


Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself
.

Salman Rushdie (b. 1948), Indian-born British author. Interview in Guardian
(London, 8 Nov. 1990).
+ - Re: Second the motion for civility - (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 06:30 PM 5/1/96 -0400, Amos wrote:
>On May 1,  6:55am, Joe Szalai wrote:
>> This list allows for the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and yes, even the
>> occasional name calling.  That is what a debate is.
>
>    Very wrong! Name calling is never, but never, is part of a decent
>    debate.
>
>    I agree with those who support Martha's request for civility,
>
>                                                                 Amos

        I missed Joe Szalai's sentence in which he expresses the feeling
that "occasional name calling" is perfectly all right. No, it isn't. Amos is
100 percent righ. Have you ever heard of formal "debate" in which there is
name calling? No, not in Canada, not in England, and not in the United
Statess. (Sorry about countries I didn't mention here.) Name calling is not
part of civilized debates.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Law on the Protection of Republic (again) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Roman,

        First of all, it is very nice to see your name on the list again.
Second, thank you for reposting the Slovak *Law on the Protection of the
Republic." As I am re-reading the provisions again, what bothers me most is
the vagueness of these laws. Let's take the following:



>Art. 98
>
>DAMAGING THE INTERESTS OF THE REPUBLICS
>
>Who, as a citizen of the Slovak Republic or a person without nationality
>with a permanent residence on the territory of the Slovak Republic,
>intentionally spreads abroad false informations that damage the
>interests of the Republic, will be punished by loss of freedom up to
>two years or with a financial penalty.

        Let's assume that  I, as a permanent resident of Slovakia, get
together with some friends and I say the following: "Slovakia's reputation
is fairly shabby in the West and I understand that Mr. Meciar is despised by
the western political leaders. I don't think  that X or Y company will
invest in Slovakia because they are afraid of Mr. Meciar's intentions.

        Somebody at present reports this conversation. What will happen to
me in your opinion?

        By the way, I want everybody to know that Roman's Hungarian is
excellent. I had the opportunity to correspond with him in Hungarian. I wish
I knew as much Slovak as he knows Hungarian. Perhaps if we knew each other's
language well, we would *understand* each other better. For myself, I did
manage to read a few pages in Slovak for my dissertation but that's about it!

        And one more question, Roman. What do you think of the Slovak
parliament's addition to the Slovak-Hungarian treaty?  Although I am not a
lawyer but I don't think that such an addition to an international treaty
has any standing. What do you think? Moreover, what will happen?

        Eva Balogh


P.S. I just noticed that there are no developments concerning the new Slovak
laws--see Roman's second posting. When I wrote the above I didn't notice the
second posting. Sorry. I will read the letter as soon as I can. As a first
reaction: I am so glad that there are at least 100 people who are willing to
protest against such laws. Maybe, after all, East European democracy will be
triumphant. ESB
+ - Re: a request to all (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Misi:

>  It seems that for some people, their purpose of being on this list
>  is for debate, and not for discussing Hungary.

        I don't think that there is anything wrong with debate if we take
its meaning to be: "regulated discussion between two matched sides." Or, if
we think of the verb "to debate" in the sense of "to discuss a question by
considering opposed arguments." But there is certainly something wrong when
"debate" means "fight," or "contention." I just read recently that George
Soros spent again I-don't-know how many millions of dollars to introduce
"debating societies" in Hungarian high schools and universities. I cannot
think of a better way of spending one's money; that is, if one has as much
money as George Soros has. I am constantly amazed how clever George Soros
is; how sensitive he is concerning the needs of the region. "Debating
societies"! What a wonderful idea since it is becoming clear to me that East
Europeans don't have a clue how to conduct a "debate" meaning a "discussion
of question by considering opposed arguments." The worst example of "debate"
in the bad sense of the word is FORUM, the Hungarian-language list. There
debates are simply personal attacks. If we don't like someone's ideas, let's
attack him/her as a person. Let's say that he/she is a pathological liar.
Let's accuse him/her being a communist, a secret service agent, a paid agent
of a party, a turncoat, a fascist (as Torgyan--of all people--recently
called Tamas). But be sure that you don't consider the actual topic; you
don't consider the pros and cons. You ignore the argument itself. Or, you
just go on and on, expounding your ideas paying absolutely no attention to
what the other side has to say. Yes, East European youth needs "debating
societies." And badly.

>With their clever words and domineering manner, they discourage others who
have insightful views against expressing their ideas.  Its like walking into
a pack of hungary wolves.

        I am not quite sure whose "clever words" we are talking about. If
you are talking about Mr. Sucs, his words were anything but clever. He kept
repeating the same sentence over and over again: Eva Balogh is a terrible
person because she doesn't think that the Hungarian revolutionaries were
"freedom frighters." Are these clever words? All of you who were witnesses
to the original discussion of "revolution versus war of independence" knows
that these words have nothing to do with cleverness but they have a great
deal to do with unfounded accusations and distortions of truth. And in
certain circles this kind of "debate" constitutes a political discussion.

        This must change if East European/Hungarian society wants to become
part of Europe. And it must change because otherwise Hungary and the other
East European countries will be simply laughed out of Europe.

>  Hungary is in my heart.  There is zero likelihood that anyone will
>  change my views about hungary, in as much as their is any likelihood
>  that somebody could shake my belief in God.  Therefore, I do not engage
>  in such matters.

        There is always room to change one's opinion about this or that. Of
course, Hungary is in your heart but, at the same time, you might understand
Hungary better if you understand its history or its current politics better.
And, yes, you ought to be able to change your views at any time at any
thing, including Hungary.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Second the motion for civility - (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Add my two krajczars worth of support for Martha's request and Amos'
very timely reminder that name-calling is not a part of civil debate.
No one is recommending nambi-pambiness, or political correctness, or a
shying away from stating one's case, whatever it may be, as strongly as
one would like.  But a respect for the integrity and personhood of those
with whom one disagrees is an essential ingredient of civilized discourse.
Unless, of course, we really think that Romanians like the pig Funar or
Slovaks like Meciar or Magyars like Csurka are pointing the way to a higher
civilization.

Respectfully,
Be'la
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Janos Zsargo is getting into details of 1848 and before I answer his note I
would rather refresh my knowledge of 1848: Hungary versus Vienna. Chicken or
egg, etc. I must admit that I haven't seriously thought about 1848 for a
long time and therefore, it will be high time to look into at least some
general textbooks. I will try to answer Janos's comments then.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: How about Stowewrit, Frank? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Stowewrite:
> >I make no apology to you for taking on Szucs when you and many like you
> >didn't have the guts to do it.
>
        I see two other possibilities:

        1, To be associated with those who used questionable style of
           debate; the risk was just not worth it.  If the issue is
           content, then let it be such, but in the former debate
           both sides engaged in riotous conduct.

        2, They agreed with Szucs.


> Szalai quoting Rushdie:
> Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life
 itself.
>

        Freedom of speech nor control of agenda has never been
        contested by the members of this list.  It could be
        said, in a sense, that Szucs removal is an attempt at
        this.  However, this was an administrative act of which the
        members took no visible part.

        -Misi
+ - Re: How about Stowewrit, Frank? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:24 PM 5/1/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>Thank you Sam.  It's sad that some people on this list feel uncomfortable
>with free speech.  It's also sad to see that many people on this list wish
>they could control the agenda and the style of debate.  People who wish for
>civility or comfort by putting controls on free speech deserve neither.
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>
>Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life
itself.
>
>Salman Rushdie (b. 1948), Indian-born British author. Interview in Guardian
>(London, 8 Nov. 1990).

I doubt that anyone on the list feels uncomfortable with free speech.

What a lot of us feel uncomfortable is the style of the speech.

In civilized debate one uses arguments and maybe a limited dose of irony.
But ad hominem attacks, character assasinations, rude words and the like
bother some of us.

Gabor D. Farkas

AGYKONTROLL ALLAT AUTO AZSIA BUDAPEST CODER DOSZ FELVIDEK FILM FILOZOFIA FORUM GURU HANG HIPHOP HIRDETES HIRMONDO HIXDVD HUDOM HUNGARY JATEK KEP KONYHA KONYV KORNYESZ KUKKER KULTURA LINUX MAGELLAN MAHAL MOBIL MOKA MOZAIK NARANCS NARANCS1 NY NYELV OTTHON OTTHONKA PARA RANDI REJTVENY SCM SPORT SZABAD SZALON TANC TIPP TUDOMANY UK UTAZAS UTLEVEL VITA WEBMESTER WINDOWS