Suchergebnisse

The EU is bound to respect the national identities of Member States. States might, at occasions, define their national identities in ways that breach inclusive constitutional values (e.g. equality) protected under TEU Article 2. The assumption behind the recognition of diverse constitutional identities is the peaceful coexistence of both, which is challenged by illiberal national developments. Instead, we see a zero-sum game between the constitutional recognition of exclusive values (e.g. dominant ethnicity or religion) and inclusive constitutional values; every gain by the proponents of emergent authoritarianism translates to a loss on the side of constitutional democracy. While exclusive norms appear in virtually every constitutional system, a critical mass of exclusive values can lead to the hollowing out of a democratic order, both on the national and on the supranational level. To try to draw the line where this shift happens, we are relying on the limits of toleration, and recognition, of exclusive norms and identity elements of minority communities in liberal theories of multiculturalism (e.g. Raz, Taylor, Kymlicka). We think that the case of illiberal minorities raise structurally similar theoretical questions, insights, and experiences than the dilemma defined above, the challenge of illiberal Member States undermining EU fundamental values.

Introduction: Contexts of Gypsy/Roma identity and history -- On the sources of Gypsy/Roma history -- Who (what) is (was) Hungarian or Gypsy/Roma? -- "Comrades, if you have a heart" : the history of the Gypsy issue, 1945-1961 -- The construction and spread of the state socialist system -- Policy and Gypsies -- Modernization and Gypsy communities -- Disciplinary state -- The impossibility of self-organization -- Minority issue -- Discourses on social policy and equality -- "Life goes on" : the Hungarian party-state and assimilation -- Social policy and the Gypsies -- Wage work -- Housing -- Social system -- Education -- Scientific approaches -- Gypsy images -- The transformation of discourse -- Disciplinary power, disciplinary society -- Police and agents -- "Health supervisors" -- The national minority issue -- National movement -- The "ethnic interpretation" of history -- Roma policy after the regime change -- Minority issue -- Prospects for multiculturalism -- Minority (self-)government? -- Divide at Impera : the opportunities and impossibilities of self-organization -- Movement -- National minority culture, national culture -- Questions of equal treatment and equal opportunity -- Anti-discrimination -- Equal opportunity -- Roma programs -- Education -- Employment -- Social policy and the Roma -- Aid -- Segregation -- Disciplinary society -- The transformation of discourses -- Research methods -- Panopticon : Roma policy, 2010-2015 -- The Hungarian National Cooperation System -- The anti-egalitarian character of the system -- Changing minority legislation -- New social policy? -- Violence -- The shift -- Summary: Decades of exclusion

"The case known in the public discourse as the Roma murders was a series of attacks on Roma committed with a distinctly anti-Gypsy, racist motive by Árpád Kiss, István Kiss, Zsolt Pető, and István Csontos – the latter having joined them later – between July 2008 and August 2009.
The perpetrators had previously committed a gun robbery in Besenyszög and then carried out firearm and Molotov cocktail attacks on Gypsies in a total of nine settlements across five counties, killing a total of six people. The investigation revealed that several of the offenders were related to the skinhead community in Debrecen, and their motive was retaliation for crimes related to gypsies and incitement of anti-Gypsy sentiments among the population.
They were arrested on 21 August 2009, in a nightclub in Debrecen, where two of the perpetrators worked as bouncers. Their criminal proceedings began on 25 March 2011, and the verdict was pronounced on 6 August 2013. The first-, second-, and third-degree defendants were sentenced to actual life imprisonment, while the fourth-order defendant was sentenced to 13 years in prison, of which he could not be released on parole, so he is expected to be released at the end of August 2022.
The publication presents the events, the process of the investigation, the arrest, and the perpetrators. The author seeks to find motivation for the events and broader social aspects."

The aim of the discussion paper is to assess the current state of Romanian−Hungarian relations in Transylvania, the causes of the problems and possible ways to improve interethnic links. The proposals include legal and non-legal solutions. From a Hungarian point of view, is not possible to circumvent the redesign of the dialogue; it is necessary to be able to explain why the goal is to achieve consociational democracy. In this context, it is also necessary to write a short programe document in Romanian outlining the ideal model of coexistence. The legal instrument for moving forward still seems to be the Minority Act provided for in the Constitution but never adopted. In this regard, Romania is in a situation of anti-constitutionality due to omission. Resolving the problem of language use in the judiciary is also a key issue. The establishment of training centres in Cluj-Napoca and Iași within the framework of the National Institute of Magistracy in the short term may be a step forward to tackle the under-representation in the judiciary, while consociational democracy is the solution in the long term for this issue as well. The topic of cultural autonomy, which already exists in certain elements, is also open and may lead to progress, and this must be resolved within the framework of the Minority Act.

The study undertakes to clarify some basic issues that have been erroneously recorded in the public consciousness, to make a kind of confrontation in order to take the initial steps of improving the Romanian−Hungarian relationship. In order to achieve the above goal and basic thesis, it is a primary task to illuminate and banish the mistakes and myths recorded in the public consciousness from both sides. In this context, it is revealed that neither the topos of the "millennial Hungarian oppression" simplified to the extreme nor the thesis of the "slow − anti-Hungarian − Romanian national occupation" can be held. In the interest of constructive dialogue, it is worth returning to the position that prevailed in the Hungarian reform era, and even at the time of the unification of the Romanian states, according to which the interdependence and commonality of destiny of the two peoples is a real and common path. To this end, the study uses legal history to present the original meaning of nationalism, the majority and minority arguments made during the drafting of the Hungarian Nationality Act of 1868, the models that can be interpreted in the majority−minority relationship, and the relationship of the two states to these models then and in the present day. In this context, the constitutional conceptions of Hungary and Romania are analysed in connection with the minority issue with the intention to prove the legitimacy of the needs of the Hungarian minority. The basic premise of the study in this area is that if a minority demand was legitimate from the Hungarian side within the Hungarian state, then the argumentum a simile from the Hungarian side is necessarily legitimate within the Romanian state.