Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Hungarian FM unmasks the extreme unfairness, activism of BBC

It's very far from the first time when I was impressed by the Hungarian foreign affairs minister, Szijjártó Péter (I am showing my idea about the Hungarian language by being able to permute the names). But after this exchange at the BBC, I would be very happy if the Visegrád Group hired him as a shared minister of foreign affairs. As a guy who's been told by 20 different Americans that his accent was Hungarian, I have the right to propose that! ;-)

Seriously, I don't remember a minister of foreign affairs of Czechia who would be this competent.

First of all, I liked his English and rhetorical skills. Second of all, I liked his being full of energy yet fully keeping control over his emotions. Third of all, I liked the content.

The interview was truncated at the beginning. The Hungarian politician expressed the dissatisfaction by the inability of the largest EU countries – with the newest exception of Italy – to appreciate that there are security constraints that must be considered when inviting or embracing migrants from the Muslim world and similar areas. The current EU policies may be interpreted as an invitation by lots of people in the Muslim world, he clearly and politely stated.

The host, Mrs Emily Maitlis, asked about a new bill that outlaws others to help the asylum seekers to go through the procedures. It's clearly a sensible law because the possibility of getting asylum has been massively abused and it has become an industry feeding lots of additional people who have nothing to do with the asylum application – they're effectively smuggling people into Europe. Cutely enough, the host asks "Why would you do that?" at the end.

So the host and the politician have exchanged some views about the interpretation of the new bill. Maitlis has pressed increasingly aggressive interpretations – the bill violates human rights, international laws, and all this stuff. No, it doesn't. International laws say that people have the right to apply for asylum. But they don't say that organizations have to have the right to help these people to fill the forms, move from one place to another, and do other things. There are no international laws that guarantee the legality of the organizations that would love to "simplify" the life for the asylum seekers. And indeed, this "simplification" is viewed as a bending of the rules, a bad practice abusing the Hungarian hospitality, and it leads to undesirable consequences that the Hungarian voter decided to avoid.

Szijjártó pointed out that there's no crisis at the Hungarian borders because the (post-Yugoslav) neighbors are peaceful countries. On the other hand, Hungary is the de facto Southern border country of the EU because the more Southern EU countries have shown their inability or the lack of will to perform their duties in stopping the influx of the migrants and Hungary must be prepared because this role of the de facto border may be revisited if the influx gets revived.

Mrs Maitlis constantly behaves ad a passionate jury member of the Inquisition who has the right to condemn the Hungarian chap. I am sorry, Mrs Maitlis, but you don't have such a right. Maybe you have been brainwashed to think that everyone who places himself, directly or indirectly, on the side of the migrants or far left organizations or other things, is a good person and anyone who opposes or disagrees with these groups or their steps, directly or indirectly, is evil.

But this is just your subjective opinion – or the opinion of your rather extreme movement – and it has no broader let alone universal validity. And most of the people in many countries, especially Hungary, think that you are completely deluded about basic things. Moreover, a huge percentage of the British voters – I won't say whether it's a majority – have similar views as the Hungarian minister. And that's why it's so wrong for the BBC, a public TV station in the U.K., to uncritically promote an extreme, one-sided viewpoint like yours which is what the BBC does at almost all times.

I must take it personally because Maitlis sounds sufficiently similar to Motl and some people could possibly conclude that every M*tl* is probably a hysterical politically correct witch. So Mrs Maitlis, don't mess with our names.

Mrs Maitlis continued her sling mud at Hungary by saying that it can't adopt such laws because the number of asylum seekers is small – like 360. Well, one goal of the law is that it wants to keep this number low. Another aspect of the situation is that this number doesn't express everything. The problem is that Hungary has gotten filled with much greater numbers – by orders of magnitude – despite the fact that the people don't really apply for asylum there. This is really what the law wants to cure. It wants to reduce masses of the migrants who really can't get asylum because they have no justification for that – but who get very far by pretending that they're "asylum seekers" while wealthy enough organizations are helping them to play this deceitful game.

Needless to say, at the end, the host had a monologue about Hungary's being driven by "xenophobia" and its not being a democracy. In a true democracy, she effectively argued, the party winning 50% of the votes at the 70% turnout wouldn't dare to influence politics, and it would give all the power to the parties getting about 5%. That's surely what the BBC promoted. She also uncritically reproduced some unhinged conspiracy theories about the wrongness of the election result. The minister countered and pointed out that these words about the Hungarian democracy are false, insulting, and they're a form of hatred of another nation (Hungarians) based on their nationality. The Hungarians have decided in some way and they have the right to decide who can enter the country and who can't.

The minister also had to listen to the idea that Europe believes in "tolerance, diversity, and human rights" (freedom and democracy were cleverly omitted) and "Hungary rejects all of them". Surely the failure to replace the Hungarian population with one that would prefer beheading and the Sharia Law is an attack on the European values.

Unlike Mrs Maitlis, the bulk of the Hungarian voters know what they're doing. What's amazing and obvious from her approach and from her gestures is that she really seems frustrated and shocked that someone dares to say things like the minister at all (maybe she's even terrified by his claim that he and his voters disagree with the proposition that "multiculturalism is automatically good"). Her approach seems to show that in her workplace (BBC), she must be entirely surrounded by colleagues whose views are very close to her. And that's sad. In the past, the Western media could work with many ideas and opinions. They were closer to universities than to madrasas that try to pour the only allowed dogmas to the viewers' skulls.

No comments:

Post a Comment