Referendum Homestretch on Hungarian Television

Below are screenshots taken from programs broadcast on the M1 news channel of state-run Hungarian Television from 3:00 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. on October 2, 2016—that is, until half an hour before the closing of polls in Hungary’s referendum on European Union migrant-resettlement quotas (see Hungary’s 2016 Referendum on European Union Migrant Resettlement Quotas and The Referendum That Couldn’t Fail).

Aside from intermittent weather bulletins and a report on the new leadership of the U.K. Labour Party, newscasts and programs broadcast on M1 during this three-and-a-half-hour period dealt with just two issues—the referendum results and migration.

The screenshots are from the various reports on migration. Note that in 2013, the National Assembly approved an amendment to Hungary’s electoral laws that eliminated campaign silence (source in Hungarian).

Click on any screenshot to see gallery view.

Sources: screenshots 1 and 2 (00:25 and 7:31, respectively); screenshots 3, 4 and 5 (0:11, 21:40 and 25:59, respectively); screenshot 6 (0:09); screenshots 7 and 8 (0:08 and 13:54, respectively); screenshots 9,10 and 11 (0:09, 9:05 and 9:38, respectively); screenshots 12 and 13 (5:53 and 10:24, respectively); screenshots 14, 15 and 16 (17:58, 21:46 and 25:14, respectively).

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

The Referendum That Couldn’t Fail

In February 2016, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán initiated a referendum in Hungary asking voters to respond to the following question (source in Hungarian):

Do you want the European Union to be able to mandate the obligatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary even without the approval of the [Hungarian] National Assembly?

orban-goodgood222

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán speaks to supporters following the referendum on the European Union migrant-resettlement quota (photo: index.hu).

This question refers specifically to the resettlement of 1,294 Syrian, Iraqi and Eritrean refugees from Italy and Greece to Hungary as part of a European Union plan adopted in September 2015 (see 2016 Referendum on European Union Migrant Resettlement Quotas).

The result of the referendum in terms of approval or rejection of the European Union migrant-resettlement quota for Hungary was never in doubt: opinion polls consistently showed that the number of voters who rejected the quota was many times larger than the number of voters who accepted it (see “Opinion Polls” section of the relevant Wikipedia article).

The only question was: would voter turnout exceed the 50-percent threshold required for the referendum to be considered legally valid?

This combination of factors impelled most voters who opposed the Orbán government’s initiative, regardless of whether they supported the European Union resettlement quota or not, to either boycott the referendum or to cast invalid ballots in the hope of preventing turnout from reaching the required 50-percent validity threshold.

However, the boycott/invalid-ballot strategy entailed the drawback of ensuring that referendum would produce a landslide victory for the “no” votes rejecting the resettlement quota.

The Orbán government was clearly prepared to emphasize the aspects of the referendum results that best served its political interests—the voting outcome, the turnout, or both—and to take legislative action of some kind to prevent the European Union from resettling migrants in Hungary regardless of the specific result.

llll

“Let’s Not Take a Risk! Vote No! October 2”: Orbán government anti-quota referendum sign in Budapest (photo: Orange Files).

On September 22, Prime Minister Orbán said in an interview: “If it [the referendum] is successful and of convincing strength, then it will produce steps of a different nature than if it is turns out to be scrawnier. This is why it isn’t worth speculating now. Although naturally the referendum will have consequences in terms of public law” (source in Hungarian).

The final results of the October 2 “Referendum against Compulsory Resettlement” permitted the Orbán government to emphasis only the outcome: 98.3 percent of those who cast valid ballots in the plebiscite voted “no” to the EU migrant-resettlement quota, while only 1.7 percent voted “yes.” The Orbán government referred only indirectly to the fact that voter turnout for the referendum was only 40.4 percent, nearly 10 percentage points below the validity threshold (source in Hungarian).

Thus the Orbán government’s intensive, seventh-month propaganda campaign, which included ubiquitous billboard signs, electronic- and print-media advertisements and brochures exhorting the electorate to vote “no” in the referendum—a campaign that the opposition website Átlászó.hu estimated cost 15 billion forints (48.7 million euros)—had no apparent effect on the outcome of the referendum, serving only to further elevate political tension in Hungary to nearly hysterical heights (see The Phony Realist).

And the referendum itself, in practical terms, was virtually meaningless: the speech that Prime Minister Orbán delivered in Budapest following the close of polls on October 2 could have been written six months ago as one of just two possible versions—that emphasizing the overwhelming majority of “no votes” and avoiding any reference to voter turnout and legal validity.

Below is an Orange Files translation of Prime Minister Orbán’s post-referendum speech (see video of speech in Hungarian).

Esteemed ladies and gentlemen! 

[. . .]

Thirteen years after we decided in a referendum by a large majority to join the European Union, tonight we Hungarians again made our voices heard with regard to a European issue. We achieved a magnificent outcome, because we surpassed the result of the referendum on joining [the European Union]. A total of 3,056,000 voted to join in the referendum on joining [the European Union] and now we’re at 3,204,000 and we still don’t know most of the votes from Hungarians beyond the borders. And perhaps I should say here as well that some 15 percent more people took part now than during the most recent European parliament election. Thus the weapon will be pretty strong in Brussels as well. 

Esteemed ladies and gentlemen! 

First I would like to congratulate everyone and express my recognition to those who, feeling the gravity of the issue, participated in the referendum. They came and contributed to the fact that this enormous agreement of more than three million could come about. With regard to the participants, today nine of ten people voted on the side of Hungary, on the side of Hungary’s right to make independent decisions. I feel that we can be proud that as the first and until now only European Union member state [to do so], the Hungarians were able to directly express their opinion regarding the question of immigration. This was the proper, even honorable thing to do. This question was not yet on the agenda during the 2014 parliamentary election. Therefore, citizens were not able to take a stand on this and could not formulate their opinion. However, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, this is perhaps one of the more important questions of the years ahead of us, one that is about the future of Hungary and the future of our children and grandchildren. Who we live together with, what will become of our culture, what will become of our way of living until now, our economic system that we restored with great difficulty, what will become of our Christian roots. 

Esteemed ladies and gentlemen! 

A modern migration of peoples is taking place in the world. The waves of this have spectacularly and painfully reached Europe. The question now is, how will the European Union respond to this? The proposal of the union is that we let the migrants in and distribute them with obligatory force among the member states. And that Brussels decide about this distribution. Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, we Hungarians have today considered this proposal and rejected it. The Hungarians decided that only we, we Hungarians, can decide who we want to live together with. Brussels or Budapest, this was the question, and we decided that this right to decide lies exclusively with Budapest. Today we started down a path. And it will be a very long path. We took the first and most important step. Serious battles and difficult engagements await us on this long path. Now, following the celebration, we must do two things in order to assert our will. First we must invest the decision of the people with the force of public law. For this reason, I will place a proposed constitutional amendment on the National Assembly’s desk over the coming days. I believe that we must convey the will of the people expressed today. And we must place this in our Fundamental Law as well. The other urgent thing is to enforce the decision we made today in Brussels as well. 

My dear friends! 

Brussels stands before an important decision. Now it is the one that stands before an important decision. The European Union is a democratic community. Today in a member state 92 percent of the participants in a referendum declared that they do not agree with the intention of Brussels. The question is simple: can Brussels do this? Can the democratic community of European states force its will upon a member state, where 92 percent of participants are against it? I promise you, I promise all citizens of Hungary, that we will do everything under our power so that this does not happen. . . . 

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Hungary’s 2016 Referendum on European Union Migrant Resettlement Quotas

Official name: Referendum against Compulsory Resettlemen(Népszavazás a kényszerbetelepítés ellen).

Date: October 2, 2016.

Question: Do you want the European Union to be able to mandate the obligatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary even without the approval of the [Hungarian] National Assembly? (Akarja-e, hogy az Európai Unió az Országgyűlés hozzájárulása nélkül is előírhassa nem magyar állampolgárok Magyarországra történő kötelező betelepítésé?)

Issue: The resettlement of 1,294 Syrian, Iraqi and Eritrean refugees from Italy (306 refugees) and Greece (988 refugees) to Hungary as part of a European Union plan adopted in September 2015 to transfer 120,000 such refugees from Italy and Greece to other EU member states over the subsequent two years (source in English).

Orbán government position: Rejects mandatory resettlement quotas.

Prime Minister Orbán on resettlement quotas:

“Only we can make the decision about who we want to live with. They can’t say this in Brussels and Brussels cannot settle people here whom we don’t want to live with.” December 4, 2015 (source in Hungarian).

“Letting the migrants in is hardly a correctable mistake. Moreover, [there exists] this question of principle: can somebody from outside Hungary tell us ‘you Hungarians must live with people you don’t want to live with.’ This doesn’t depend on whether this means ten, one hundred or one million people. Here we are defending our national sovereignty. If the Hungarian parliament decides to do so, then we will accept refugees, though we will never under any circumstances allow Brussels to force a quota system upon us.” December 24, 2015 (source in Hungarian).

Required voter participation for referendum to be valid: More than 50 percent of all eligible voters.

Required percentage of “no” votes for referendum to pass: More than 50 percent of all votes cast, not counting invalid ballots.

Consequences of valid referendum vote against resettlement quotas: No legal consequences. The purpose of the referendum, presuming that the “no” vote wins, is to provide the Orbán government with greater authority to resist the previously adopted and possible future European Union resettlement quotas (source in Hungarian). On September 23, 2016, Prime Ministry chief János Lázár said during his weekly press conference that “if the referendum is valid and successful, the government could propose amendment of the Fundamental Law” (source in Hungarian).

Legal foundation for EU resettlement quotas: Article 78 of the European Union Treaty of Lisbon: “In the event of one or more Member States being confronted with an emergency situation characterized by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the [European] Council, on a proposal from the [European] Commission, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the member State(s) concerned. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament” (source in Hungarian).

In December 2015, the governments of both Hungary and Slovakia submitted challenges to the European Court of Justice claiming that the European Union migrant resettlement quota adopted in September 2015 infringe EU law  (source A and B in English).

Other EU members that reject the September 2015 resettlement quota: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania (source A and B in English).

Potential EU fines on member states that  refuse to participate in resettlement plan: On May 4, 2016, the European Commission proposed offering EU member states that chose “to temporarily not take part in the reallocation” the option of paying a 250,000-euro “solidarity contribution” per each refugee not accepted under the resettlement plan (source in English). Under this proposal, the Orbán government would be compelled to pay a “solidarity contribution” of 323.5 million euros if it refused to accept Hungary’s quota of refugees in accordance with the resettlement plan.

Orbán government referendum campaign: In May 2016, the Orbán government launched an “informational campaign regarding the Referendum against Compulsory Resettlement.” The government’s referendum campaign has been divided into three phases:

first, the display of billboard signs throughout Hungary bearing the following text (see sign):

Let’s Send Word to Brussels so that Even They Understand It! (Üzenjük Brüsszelnek, hogy ők is megértsék!);

second, the display of billboard signs throughout the country with the following six texts (see gallery):

Did You Know?: More Than 300 People Have Died in Terrorist Attacks since the Beginning of the Immigration Crisis. (Tudta?: A bevándorlási válság kezdete óta Európában több mint 300-an haltak meg terrortámadásban);

Did You Know?: Immigrants Committed the Paris Attacks. (Tudta?: A párizsi merényletet bevándorlók követték el);

Did You Know?: Harassment of Women Has Increased Sharply Since the Beginning of the Immigration Crisis. (Tudta?: A bevándorlási válság kezdete óta ugrásszerűen emelkedik a nők elleni zaklatások száma Európában);

Did You Know?: Last Year One and a Half Million Illegal Immigrants Arrived to Europe. (Tudta?: Tavaly másfél míllió illegális bevándorló érkezett Európába);

Did You Know?: More Than One Million Immigrants Want to Come to Europe from Libya Alone. (Tudta?: Csak Líbiából közel egymillió bevándorló akar Európába jönni);

Did You Know?: Brussels Wants to Settle a City’s Worth of Illegal Immigrants in Hungary.¹ (Tudta?: Brüsszel egy városnyi illegális bevándorlót akar Magyarországra telepíteni);

and third, the mailing of 20-page brochures entitled “Information about the Referendum” (see gallery) to all 4.1 million households in Hungary and the display of and a new billboard sign (see sign), this one in Hungary’s red, white and green national colors, bearing the text “Let’s Not Take a Risk! Vote No! October 2 (Ne kockáztassunk! Szavazzunk nemmel! Október 2).

Cost of Government Campaign: The Prime Ministerial Cabinet Office spent 3.9 billion forints (12.6 million euros) on signs and television advertising broadcasting the same messages as those displayed on the signs (source in Hungarian). The brochures cost at least 100 million forints (324,000 euros) to print and mail (source in Hungarian). Thus the total cost of the government’s referendum campaign is at least 4 billion forints (12.9 million euros).

Position of National Assembly parties toward referendum:

Fidesz: no;

Christian Democratic People’s Party: no;

Jobbik: no;

Hungarian Socialist Party: boycott;²

Dialogue for Hungary: boycott;

Together—Party for a New Era: boycott;

Democratic Coalition: boycott;

Hungarian Liberal Party: yes;

Politics Can Be Different: neutral.

Two-Tailed Dog Party anti-referendum campaign: On August 15, 2016, the Two-Tailed Dog Party (Kétfarkú Kutya Párt), an extra-parliamentary opposition joke-party, began collecting donations via its website in order to finance an anti-referendum sign campaign. By August 28, the Two-Tailed Dog Party had collected around 27 million forints (87,000 euros), which the party said would pay for 450 large signs, 500 medium-sized signs, 200,000 small posters and 100,000 stickers urging voters to cast invalid ballots in the referendum (source in Hungarian).

The Two-Tailed Dog Party signs referring in ironic and absurd terms to those that the Orbán government had posted earlier in the summer began to appear on the streets of Budapest in late August (see gallery).

Likely outcome of referendum: According to a Závecz Research poll conducted for the opposition website index.hu during the last week of July, 53.9 percent of respondents reported that they intended to vote in the referendum, while 18.6 percent reported that they intended not to vote. A total of 40.3 percent of respondents reported that they would vote “no,” while 4.2 percent reported that they would vote “yes” (source in Hungarian).

According to another Závecz Research poll in late August, 54 percent of respondents reported that they intended to vote in the referendum, an increase of 0.1 percentage points compared to late July, while 18.8 percent reported that they intended not to vote, an increase of 0.2 percentage points compared to late July.  A total of 36.8 percent of respondents reported that they would vote “no,” a decrease of 3.5 percentage points compared to late July, while 5 percent reported that they would vote “yes,” an increase of 0.8 percentage points from late July. Only 0.9 percent of respondents reported that they intended to cast invalid ballots (source in Hungarian).

According to yet another Závecz Research poll conducted for index.hu in late September, 51.8 of respondents reported that they intended to vote in in referendum, down 2.2 percentage points compared to late August, while 24.4 percent reported that they intended not to vote, an increase of 5.6 percentage points compared to late August.  A total of 43.7 percent of respondents reported that they would vote “no,” an increase of 6.9 percentage points from late August, while 2 percent reported that they would vote “yes,” a decrease of 3 percentage points from late August. A total of 1.6 percent of respondents reported that they intended to cast invalid ballots, up 0.7 percentage points compared to late August. (source in Hungarian).

¹On August 29, 2016, the Curia (Hungary’s supreme court) rejected Hungarian Socialist Party Vice President András Nemény’s claim that this sign was misleading because the phrase “a city’s worth” implied that more than the actual 1,294 migrants would be resettled in Hungary according to the European Union plan and that referring to them as “illegal immigrants” obscured the fact that they were determined to be genuine refugees. The Curia based its decision on the premise that the “government’s statements voiced as part of the campaign at most orient [voters], though do not inform [them]” (source A and B in Hungarian).

²Hungarian Socialist Party (HSP) President Gyula Molnár stated on September 1, 2016 that “the HSP is prepared to support the government in the effort against the obligatory quota in the event that the European Union indeed is planning such steps” (source in Hungarian).

See: gallery of Orbán government referendum signs; gallery of Orbán government referendum brochure; gallery of Two-Tailed Dog Party referendum signs.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Röszke—One Year Later

Migrants travel along defunct railway in northern Serbia on September 15, 2015 (photo: Orange Files).

Migrants enter Hungary via defunct railway in September 2015 (photo: Orange Files).

Tens of thousands of migrants passed along the defunct railway from Serbia into Hungary near the village of Röszke on their way to Western Europe during the summer and early fall of 2015 before the Orbán government closed this final gap in the border on September 15 (see The Fields Are Speaking Pashto and The Curtain Falls Again).

Now, in early September 2016: vegetation has engulfed the rails and the thick trail of discarded belongings and refuse that the migrants left behind them. There is no visible evidence of the mass movement of people that took place along these tracks just one year ago.

Same location in September 2016 (photo: Orange Files).

Same location in September 2016 (photo: Orange Files).

In March 2016, the governments of the former Yugoslav republics through which the Orbán government’s construction of a fence along Hungary’s southern border diverted the Western Balkan migration route closed their frontiers to migrants (source A and B in English). On March 9, European Council President Donald Tusk announced that “irregular flows of migrants along Western Balkans route have come to an end” (source in English).

As a result: during the five-month period from the beginning of April to the end of August 2016, just 11,662 migrants crossed the Aegean Sea from Turkey into Greece in order to travel the West Balkan route northward, compared to 225,505 migrants during the same period in 2015 (source in Hungarian).

Afghan migrants in Horgos (photo: Orange Files).

Afghan migrants in Horgos (photo: Orange Files).

One encounters some of the few migrants who are still attempting to travel the officially closed West Balkan route in the small Hungarian-inhabited town of Horgos (Horgoš) in northern Serbia about two kilometers from the sealed border. About 100 young men, Afghans and a few sub-Saharan Africans (and no Arabs), sitting around in groups near a small grocery store in the center of town.

They have no money. And unlike the migrants of 2015, they are ragged and weary. Some of them  have gauze bandages wrapped around festering wounds. Most say they have been waiting at the border for over two months in order to gain admission to the transit zone in Hungary, where they will be officially registered as asylum-seekers. A group of French-speaking Africans say that Hungarian authorities are permitting 15 migrants to enter the transit zone each day—14 who are part of family groups and only one person traveling without immediate family members.

End of the line (photo: Orange Files).

End of the line (photo: Orange Files).

In the meantime, these migrants are sleeping rough and living on Red Cross humanitarian aid. And they have become camera-shy: only a single group of Afghans consents to be photographed.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there were a total of between 250 and 350 migrants waiting in northern Serbia at the end of August to be admitted to transit zones in Hungary near Röszke and about 40 kilometers to the west near the village of Tompa  (source A and B in English).

In 2015, Hungarian police registered over 7,700 migrants entering Hungary via the defunct railway near Röszke during the final three days of August alone (source in Hungarian).

DSC_0185

September 2016 (photo: Orange Files).

The last gap in the fence: railway track at the Hungarian-Serbian border.

September 2015 (photo: Orange Files).

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Prime Minister Orbán’s March 15 Speech

Prime Minister Orbán waves to audience following his speech on March 15, 2016 (photo: MTI).

Prime Minister Orbán waves to audience following his speech on March 15, 2016 (photo: MTI).

On March 15, 2016, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán delivered his annual speech outside the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest commemorating the anniversary of the 1848 Hungarian Revolution against Habsburg rule. Below is an Orange Files translation of the speech (source in Hungarian).

————————-

————————-

Esteemed celebrators!

Europe is not free, because freedom starts with the statement of truth. Today in Europe it is forbidden to state the truth. Even if made of silk, a muzzle remains a muzzle. It is forbidden to state that those who are currently arriving are not refugees, but that a mass migration threatens Europe. It is forbidden to state that immigration brings crime and terror into our countries. It is forbidden to state that those who arrive from other civilizations represent a danger to our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions. It is forbidden to state that instead of assimilating, those who arrived earlier have built a separate-entry world for themselves with their own laws and their own ideals that pry the millennial European frameworks apart. It is forbidden to state that this is not an incidental and unintentional chain of consequences, but a planned-out and guided action, a mass of people directed upon us. It is forbidden to state that in Brussels they are currently scheming to transport foreigners here as quickly as possible and to settle them among us. It is forbidden to say that the objective of this settlement is to redraw the religious and cultural patterns of Europe, to rebuild its ethnic footings, thereby eliminating the nation-states that represent the last impediment to the Internationale. It is forbidden to state that Brussels is today stealthily swallowing more and more slices of our national sovereignty, that in Brussels many are today working on the plan for a European United States for which nobody ever granted them the authority.

See entire speech.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Slaying the Gentle Giant

AA

Orange Files photograph of Baba that ripost.hu used without citing the source. 

On January 11, 2016, the on-line tabloid ripost.hu published an article entitled “Serial Criminal Ex-Convict at the Head of Soros’s Hungarian Migrant Organization!” (Börtönviselt, sokszoros bűnöző Soros magyar migráns­szervezetének élén!) regarding Baba, the most prominent volunteer for the Migration Aid non-governmental organization that provided food, clothing and other forms of assistance to tens of thousands of migrants as they passed through Hungary on their way to Germany in the summer and early autumn of 2015 (source in Hungarian).

The ripost.hu article claimed that Migration Aid, which started as a Facebook group in June 2015, was part of a “well developed Soros migrant-assistance network” that “following its establishment immediately received support from the Budapest Soros Foundation.”

The article used the following terms and phrases to describe Baba, an enormous man whom Western media such as The Guardian and the Associated Press dubbed the “Gentle Giant”: “refined criminal”; “serious criminal”; “dyed-in-the-wool swindler”; and “criminal well-known in the underworld.”

The article claimed that Baba, whose real name is Csaba Antal Tot, “got out of prison just a few months ago, where he had spent four years and six months” and that “during a routine identity check at the Eastern Railway Station it turned out that Baba—of course under his real name—has a national warrant out for his arrest for a new series of serious crimes that he has committed.” The article alleged that Baba “deals on the black market with gold jewelry that he ‘procured’ from migrants in exchange for various services.”

XX

Fidesz National Assembly Faction Deputy Leader János Halász speaking at January 11 press conference regarding Baba and Migration Aid (source: fidesz.hu).

The ripost.hu article cited no sources or evidence to substantiate its allegations regarding Baba or Migration Aid’s connection to the Soros Foundation. The article used a photograph of Baba from the Orange Files gallery Scenes from the Great Migration 3: the Eastern Railway Crisis without citing the source.

Baba responded almost immediately to the ripost.hu allegations, writing in a Facebook post that “I am neither a saint nor an angel. I am a person who tries to help those in need. I have never been a criminal, I was not taken into custody at the Eastern Railway Station and there is no warrant out for my arrest” (source in Hungarian).

Shortly after the publication of the ripost.hu article, Fidesz National Assembly caucus Deputy Leader János Halász held a press conference regarding the allegations against Baba (source in Hungarian). Below is an Orange Files translation of the statement that Halász read at the press conference:

Good day dear ladies and gentleman. I respectfully welcome you in the name of the Fidesz National Assembly group.

Today we encountered shocking news. According to a report from an on-line news portal, an ex-convict, criminal repeat offender was active at the head of one of the biggest migrant-assistance organizations in Hungary. A criminal who was in prison on several occasions and who has already committed many crimes, among them fraud and forgery of public documents.

According to the news, this criminal was one of the main organizers of the Migration Aid organization that, in fact, belongs to György Soros and assists migrants and migration both here and at other points in Europe.

As is known, this was the organization that promotes illegal migration through the provision of guide books and other services and which organized a demonstration in the autumn against the government’s planned legal and physical border barriers.

First of all, we would like to find out if the news is true. Is it true that a criminal repeat offender organized affairs surrounding migrants? If this news is true, it is shocking. We don’t understand it and we ask how a criminal can fill such a position. We demand that an investigation be carried out within the organization itself. And, if necessary, within other forums as well because this affair could entail very serious national-security risks.

According to the news, a criminal organized the affairs of illegal migrants and did business with them, taking care of money, documents, various services and who knows what else for the illegal migrants.

This person may have deceived many well-meaning volunteers as well. It is questionable whether or not György Soros’s foundation new about this matter. I can hardly imagine that it did not. We also ask for help from the media in order to determine the truth. Rather than silence, an enquiry is needed so that we can truly find out whether or not it is true that a criminal repeat offender handled the affairs of the migrant organization and the immigrants.

We wish you good work!  

Following Halász’s press conference, Migration Aid Spokesperson Zsuzsanna Zsohár told the website index.hu that the organization had never received “a penny” (fillér) from the Soros Foundation (source in Hungarian). Meanwhile Baba told the website origo.hu that “I am not a criminal repeat offender, neither am I a heavyweight mafioso as they have said I am—this is slander. I have spoken with my lawyer and we are going to take the necessary steps, we are going to sue the newspaper and the journalist that wrote this about me” (source in Hungarian).

Orange Files first saw Baba, a.k.a. Csaba Antal Tot, in May 2015: he was standing at a flimsy card table in the pedestrian underpass near the Eastern Railway Station in Budapest providing food and water to twenty or so migrants who were passing through the city on their way to Germany. The number of migrants traversing Hungary was still relatively small. The Migration Aid group had not yet been formed. Over the next four months, Orange Files on many occasions witnessed Baba serving food and distributing clothing, by then as a Migration Aid volunteer, to the steadily increasing number of migrants at the station’s “transit zone.”   

Baba’s criminal record has no bearing on his eligibility to perform volunteer work for an ad hoc non-governmental Facebook group such as Migration Aid. Even if the claims of ripost.hu that Baba is an ex-convict and repeat offender prove to be true, the extraordinary effort he made in the summer and fall of 2015 to provide many thousands of migrants with humanitarian aid is no less worthy of praise and admiration. If, as ripost.hu alleges, Baba exploited the migration crisis to gain personal financial profit on the black market, then he should be held legally and morally accountable for this delinquency. 

Fidesz attempted to use the unsubstantiated allegations against Baba in the on-line tabloid ripost.hu as a means of discrediting the civilians and civil organizations that acted largely in place of the Orbán Government to provide the nearly 400,000 migrants who passed through Hungary in 2015 with humanitarian aid. The authoritarian and despotic inclinations of Fidesz that are embodied in the party’s character assassination of Baba and denigration of Migration Aid constitute a significant risk to the long-term stability and prosperity of Hungary and the unity of the European Union. 

————————-

On January 13, ripost.hu published an article stating that the website had obtained a copy of the Budapest Court decision to uphold a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence that Baba had received for committing fraud worth 98 million forints (310,812 euros). The article asserted that Baba is currently facing another charge of fraud worth several million forints (source in Hungarian). The ripost.hu article alleged that Baba had “hit pay dirt in the migrant business,” reiterating the website’s previous claim that he had exploited the passage of several hundred thousand migrants through Hungary in the summer and early autumn of 2015 to conduct illicit business involving the trade of jewelry for various electronic goods and services, including residence permits and marriages of convenience.

Also on January 13, Baba conducted a half-hour interview with nol.hu, the on-line edition of the opposition newspaper Népszabadság, in which he acknowledged that he had served time in prison and that he had since been questioned in connection to another criminal investigation (source in Hungarian). However, Baba denied that he had received compensation for services provided to migrants passing through Hungary in 2015 and confirmed that he intended to file a lawsuit against ripost.hu on charges of slander.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Through the Roof

On December 11, 2015, the Medián Public Opinion and Market Research Institute—one of the most reliable polling companies in Hungary—published the results of a November survey in which 51 percent of eligible voters with an established party preference reported that they would vote for ruling party Fidesz, compared to 27 percent for five democratic left-liberal parties, 21 percent for the radical-nationalist Jobbik party and one percent for the Workers’ Party (source in Hungarian). Medián, which began operating at the time of Hungary’s transition from communism to democracy in 1989, noted that no governing party had ever recorded such high support among sure voters in a company poll conducted more than a year and a half after a National Assembly election as Fidesz did in November 2015.

 

Graph55

Source: Medián Public Opinion and Market Research Institute poll/Orange Files

 

A total of 34 percent of all those surveyed in Medián’s November poll said that they supported Fidesz over all other parties—up from 32 percent in September, 28 percent in May and 24 percent in March. According to Medián, the November polling results indicate that over the past year Fidesz has either gained or regained 650,000 supporters in a country with a total population of around 9.9 million. A total of 46 percent of respondents in the November poll said that they believed the Orbán government was doing a good job, up from 41 percent in September, 38 percent in May and 35 percent in March.

The results of Medián’s November 2015 poll further support the conclusion that the anti-migration policies and propaganda of the Orbán government have served to greatly enhance its domestic popularity (see: Viktor’s Anti-Migration Gambit Pays Off; The Röszke Telephones; The Curtain Falls Again; Hungary and the Great Migration; Sign War I; and National Consultation on Immigration and Terrorism). And following the confirmation at the Twenty-Sixth Congress of Fidesz on December 13, 2015 that Orbán will stand as the party’s candidate for prime minister in 2018 National Assembly elections (source in Hungarian), Medián’s November polling results also suggest that only an extraordinary and currently unforeseeable political or personal occurrence will prevent Hungary’s illiberal head of government from remaining in power for at least six and a half more years (see The Start of Something Big).

—————————————————————————————————————————————–