GYPSIES ENJOYED POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION IN HUNGARY ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE TOLD
Press Release
RD/859
GYPSIES ENJOYED POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION IN HUNGARY ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE TOLD
19960307 GENEVA, 7 March (UN Information Service) -- The Government of Hungary did the best it could for the country's Gypsies, but it accepted criticism that this was not enough, Hungary's Permanent Representative told the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning.According to the delegate, there was no discrimination against Gypsies in Hungary, or rather, there was positive discrimination, especially in the area of employment. And although about 25 per cent of Gypsies did not finish primary education, this actually represented very substantial progress compared to the past. More could not be done due to Hungary's difficult budgetary situation.
The representative's comments came as the Committee concluded a general discussion of Hungary's report on how it gives effect to the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Other issues raised included the scope of Hungary's Act on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities and the prohibition of incitement to racial hatred. The Committee will adopt observations on the situation in Hungary later in the session.
Also this morning, the Committee postponed consideration of reports from Venezuela and Panama, scheduled for next week, after receiving new information from those countries. The Committee had earlier postponed discussion of documents from the Governments of India, Pakistan, Nepal and Swaziland.
Discussion of Report of Hungary
According to the report, pointed out one expert, personal information concerning racial origin, nationality, ethnic affiliation, political opinion, party affiliation and religious belief was qualified as "special data". That information was private and solely the privilege of the individual. Why was that data collected and by whom? The Penal Code did not punish the use in the presence of others of insulting or derogatory expressions with respect to "the Hungarian nation, a particular nationality, people, religion or race". Only incitement to hatred was punishable. Was an exception being made with regard to the Hungarian nation? There was also no mention of national or ethnic minorities.
Several experts noted that the report did not provide many details on the enjoyment by minorities of economic, social and cultural rights. They requested information regarding unemployment among the most vulnerable minorities, particularly the Roma (or Gypsies), and the measures taken to ensure their competitiveness in Hungary's market economy.
Responding to questions posed yesterday and this morning, PÉTÉR NARAY (Hungary) said Gypsies had been in a disadvantageous position throughout their history in Hungary. However, there was no discrimination against Gypsies in Hungary, or rather, there was positive discrimination, especially in the area of employment. Gypsies represented 5 to 7 per cent of the population. About 25 per cent of them did not finish primary education. At first sight, this might seem bad, but it actually represented very substantial progress compared to some years ago. Unemployment was also very high among Gypsies, a problem that was linked to educational difficulties. There were 15 educational institutions with special programmes for Gypsies.
The Government did the best it could for the country's Gypsies, but it accepted criticism that this was not enough, he added. Hungary's difficult budgetary situation meant that it could not give financial support to one sector of the population to the detriment of others.
Concerning the prohibition of the dissemination of racist propaganda and incitement to racial hatred, as provided by Article 4 of the Convention, he said that, given the recent history of Hungary, freedom of expression was very highly valued. This was why, after a ruling from the Constitutional Court, the Penal Code no longer punished the use of insulting or derogatory expressions with respect to the Hungarian nation, a particular nationality, people, religion or race. Only incitement to hatred was punishable. This did not mean that there was any less of a commitment to applying Article 4. Amendments to the Penal Code proposed by the President for more effective prosecution of acts committed with a racial motivation would further clarify the situation.
Responding to comments on the Act on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities, he said Hungary understood that self-determination was a right of peoples, not of minorities. Hungary had concluded a number of bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries on cooperation for the promotion of the rights of minorities. An agreement with Slovakia, for example, provided that the two countries would not advance territorial claims on each other. The promotion of relations between the country's minorities and their mother countries was one of the pillars of Hungary's foreign policy. That was part of good neighbourly relations. He did not think that other countries would incite their minorities to act against Hungary. As for the crime of "incitement against the Hungarian nation", he said it could be committed by anybody. It was not the purpose of this provision to subordinate minorities to the Hungarian majority.
- 3 - Press Release RD/859 7 March 1996
Regarding the situation of economic, social and cultural rights in Hungary, Mr. NARAY said there had been substantial changes in all developed countries due to budgetary problems. This was especially true in Hungary, which was a country in transition. Draft legislation would curtail the amount of resources for social welfare. However, the most needy would retain the right to receive social benefits.
Asked why compensation had been paid to Jews and not to other groups whose property had also been confiscated during the Second World War, Mr. NARAY said all those who had suffered from illegal actions, including Gypsies and foreigners, would be compensated. He had referred specifically to Jews because they had not yet been compensated. As for what Hungary was doing in relation to those people who had lost their self-identity as a result of Hungary's now abandoned "homogenizing" policy, he said there should be some reciprocity in that regard. Other countries had adopted similar policies. Hungary's conscience was clear as far as that was concerned.
Concerning violence against foreigners and Gypsies, he said attacks against anyone were punishable by law. He had no specific figures on the number of Gypsies in pre-trial detention because there was no obligation to report on the ethnic background of prisoners. However, anyone in prison was there according to the legal procedure. Those who felt they had not been treated fairly had recourse to domestic and international appeal procedures.
In the collection of personal data concerning racial origin, nationality, ethnic affiliation, political opinion or party affiliation, and religious belief no names were used, he continued. Moreover, that data was confidential.
Summing up the discussion, country rapporteur LUIS VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ said members required further information on the Act on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities. Some questions remained on the implementation of Article 4. Perhaps the amendment to the Penal Code this article would be given full effect. Also, experts had noted the measures taken by the Government in the way of positive discrimination in favour of Gypsies, but many problems persisted. The Committee welcomed the undertaking by the Hungarian representative that information requested by the Committee would be included in the Government's next report.
* *** *