10 minute read
1.8. Discrimination in the healthcare system
After more than 10 years of struggle, the Municipality of Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy adopted its administrative flag, which would be displayed on the facade of the City Hall and other local institutions. However, this case was also attacked by the leaders of the famous antiHungarian party, the Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR), asking for the abrogation of the Government decision which made the adoption of the administrative flag possible. Despite the fact that almost all of the counties and municipalities in Romania adopted an administrative flag, the municipality of Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy has to deal with hostility and complaints based on trumped-up arguments, even when the Government itself accepted the flag in question.
Observations and recommendations: It is unfortunate that problems pertaining to the administrative flags appear especially in those counties and municipalities where the majority of the population belongs to the Hungarian minority. Given how politically charged this issue is, we believe that prolonging hesitation in regard to the administrative symbols would contribute to the uncertainty and lack of trust of the local administrations towards the central Government, therefore in order to enhance the institutional trust, the Government should clearly regulate this matter.
Advertisement
3.3. The persecution of the Hungarian flag
The Hungarian flag is also frequently a target for Romanian authorities, nationalist organizations and individuals. According to the Romanian legislation, the flag of another country can only be displayed in the presence or the occasion of a visiting for an official setting, and the Romanian flag is also put up next to it. However, this does not apply to the private sphere, but most importantly, it does not take into account the fact that apart from being the national flag of Hungary, the horizontally displayed red, white and green colours are considered a national symbol by all Hungarians, and thus by the Hungarian community of Romania as well. The Hungarians of Romania have been regularly using this flag at the commemoration of the historical events of the 1848 revolution in the last 30 years, without any disruption or problems from the authorities. However, recently the prefect of Covasna/Kovászna county started to search for legal reasons to obstruct this particular set of commemorative events organized by Sfântu/Gheorghe municipality.
Prefects in Romania continue to fine mayors for decorating their city with Hungarian flags. As it happened in the last two years as well, Árpád Antal, the mayor of Sfântu Gheorghe/ Sepsiszentgyörgy was once again fined by the prefect of Covasna/Kovászna county with a total of 10.000 RON. The prefect fined the mayor for decorating the city with the colours of the Hungarian flag on the occasion of the March 15th celebrations, and for failing to put up a Romanian flag next to each Hungarian flag and cockade.
The use of flags in Romania is regulated by Law nr. 75 of 1994, which establishes the correct use of the Romanian and other national flags during the visits of official foreign delegations. However, during their events, national minorities can use their own symbols freely, as stipulated in Government Resolutions 1157/2001 and 223/2002. The fact that each year the Romanian
Prefects have been fining the mayors who decorated their localities with Hungarian flags for March 15th celebrations since 2018
government conflates the Hungarian national colours, used by our community to symbolise our belonging to the Hungarian nation, with the state symbols of Hungary, is a false equivalence.
Romanians living outside the country also use the Romanian national colours during their various events, which does not mean that on such occasions they are representing the Romanian state.
Prefects have been fining the mayors who decorated their localities with Hungarian flags for March 15th celebrations since 2018.
Observations and recommendations: What we are witnessing is an absurd, but sadly not an uncommon situation. Taking into account the fact that Romania has committed to preserving the identity of its national minorities, which is emphasized in different international treaties and agreements and also through Romania’s own national legislation, such a measure of persecution, as presented in the examples above, is unacceptable. The symbols, including the Szekler flag, the Hungarian flag or any other local symbols are intrinsic elements of the Hungarian identity. The banning of the flag of Hungary is a confirmation of the vehement opposition of the Romanian state towards any manifestation of regional identity. We consider that the adoption of relevant laws, clearly stipulating the right of minorities to use their national, regional and local symbols and a methodology of proper implementation would be a demonstration of Romania honoring to its international commitments.
The Hungarian community not only continuously faces political attacks, but also the national media, news channels are flooded with anti-Hungarian messages. Anti-Hungarian hate speech flared up several times during the course of last year.
4.1. Hate speech in politics
According to the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, 2020, hate speech is defined as: „any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or other identity factor.”
According to the definition presented above, hate speech is still present in the Romanian political discourse and Hungarians are often the target of nationalist politicians.
4.1.1. Political leaders instigating against the Hungarian community
Hate speech has become one of the most frequent methods for spreading discriminatory ideologies. Many politicians used this method in the course of last year to turn the public opinion against the Hungarian minority and also to gain political capital.
Emil Boc, former Prime-Minister of Romania and the current mayor of Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár, in March, 2021, declared for the Napoca FM radio station, that he did not agree with the appointment of a Prefect belonging to the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UMDR/RMDSZ).
The mayor of Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár, Emil Boc, raised national security concerns regarding the appointment of the Hungarian-speaking Prefect of Cluj/Kolozs county, solely because of his origins. This is a sign that Hungarians are still being considered a national security threat in Romania A former Prime Minister of Romania hinted that an economic development could change the ethnic ratio in the mostly-Hungarian populated Harghita/Hargita county
This message aims to incite hatred against Hungarian leaders. The statement made reads as follows: „What should I say? I am speechless. It is a gesture of unprecedented defiance of the leadership of PNL (National Liberal Party) towards the PNL Cluj organization”. „Now I am interested in the full compliance of the law by the new prefect and especially in the respect of all of the national symbols (...)”.
The behaviour of the mayor manifested in the above-mentioned radio show cannot be comprehended as anything else than one whose immediate purpose was to incite to hatred and discrimination against the Hungarian minority and the Hungarian leaders. The mayor of a multiethnic, modern city that is supposed to support multiculturalism and represent them equdistantly, deepens the conflict between the citizens belonging to the majority and the minority population, bringing back the atmosphere of the ‘90s, explicitly claiming that he does not agree with the decision made by the Government of Cluj County. In a democratic state, where fundamental human rights and freedoms, the right to identity and others are guaranteed by law, it is inadmissible for the mayor of Cluj to resort to such political means that could divide the society.
Our organization turned to the National Council for Combatting Discrimination and the case is still pending.
A similar incident occured when the mayor of Păulești/Szatmárpálfalva also manifested severe anti-Hungarian behaviour. Zenovia Bontea, the mayor of the above-mentioned village, renamed the Primary School from Ambud/Ombod, which initially beared the name of a former local Calvinist pastor, János Soltész, after a Romanian mathematician, Ion Barbu. The former was a famous Calvinist pastor from that locality, thus having an important merit in the development of that community, while Ion Barbu, although he was a famous mathematician and poet, had nothing to do with the village, given that he was born in Argeș county.
In addition to this, the same mayor discriminated the office’s notary because of her/his ethnicity. The notary turned to our organization and stated that the mayor had harassed and discriminated her/him on several occasions due to her/his Hungarian ethnicity. Furthermore, the mayor tried to hinder all those who sympathize with the Hungarians or DAHR (UMDR/RMDSZ).
In another example of hate speech in the political sphere, Ludovic Orban, a Member of Parliament and a former Prime Minister of Romania also attacked the Hungarian community in his rhetoric at a congress organized in Harghita/Hargita county. He basically suggested that the ethnic composition of Harghita/Hargita county should be artificially changed. According to the 2011 census, in Harghita/Hargita county almost 86% of the total population is made up by the Hungarian minority.
An MP in the Romanian Parliament called the Hungarians “neo-Huns”, which is a pejorative term implying savage barbarian and therefore labelling the Hungarian community as being savage and barbaric
Anti-Hungarian hate speech, instigation and aggressive rhetoric are continuous and recurring in the discourse of the President of AUR
Another case is related to a Romanian Member of Parliament from Satu Mare/Szatmár, Radu Cristescu, who posted a racist message on his Facebook page in March, 2021, insulting the politicians of DAHR (UDMR/RMDSZ) and the Hungarian community. According to his post „the leaders of DAHR (UDMR/RMDSZ) horde still behave like the descendants of Attila’s Huns (…).” His statement is pejorative and a racist one, which aims to incite hatred against the Hungarian leaders.
One of the most worrisome results of the parliamentary elections held in December, 2020, is that for the first time in the last 12 years, an ultra-nationalist, extremist party has entered the Romanian Parliament with a very strong support. This is incredibly worrying, as the Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR) is totally against minorities and promotes legionary ideas.
The party constantly posts anti-Hungarian messages on their official page and social media page. They mostly give way to ultranationalist discourse in the country. The president of the party also provoked on the national holiday of Hungarians and instigated to hatred in the Hungarianpopulated cities and also instigated to violence regarding the events in the military cemetery in the Uz Valley.
Observations and recommendations: It is unfortunate that hate speech has entered the mainstream political communication. Instead of condemning expressions of racism or any other form of hate speech, political parties and organizations resort more and more to using expressions of hate speech against vulnerable groups such as national, ethnic or other minorities. Moreover, beyond denouncing these attitudes, there is a need for immediate, clear and adequate actions on behalf of political groups. The response should be proportional to the severity of a particular statement involving hate speech, also taking into consideration whether it targets a member of a vulnerable group or an entire community. Furthermore, political parties should consider establishing offices that provide legal aid to victims of hate speech and discrimination. According to the recommendations of the European Regional Forum on Minority Issues, 2021, “States should prohibit expressions and restrict their dissemination when they qualify as advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence in accordance with Article 20(2) of the ICCPR. When qualifying incitement and dissemination as a criminal offence the following factors should be taken into account as detailed in the Rabat Plan of Action: the content and form of speech; the economic, social and political climate; the position or status of the speaker; the reach of the speech, the objectives of the speech, and reasonable probability that the speech would succeed in inciting actual action against the group.”
