Fuck State Arrogance

After being reported to police by unnamed individuals, Dopeman, a Hungarian rapper was summoned to the police station and questioned as a witness after coming out with a rap song which contained lines from the Hungarian National Anthem.

Gabriella Skoda, spokesperson of the Attorney General’s Office has previously told the press that „the district attorney has viewed the music video and based on its contents contended that a misdemeanor crime against a national symbol has been committed and the suspicion of crime has been ascertained, therefore an investigation was initiated”.
The suspect of a crime has the right to defense and has the right to remain silent. No one can be bound to incriminate himself, or to provide evidence against himself. Witnesses do not have these rights, except in a few cases, and are otherwise are bound to answer questions asked by investigators. 
The district attorney is fully aware of who committed the ’crime’, so it is clear that the only reason for questioning the rapper as a witness was to deprive him of his rights.  
At the police station, Dopeman, accompanied by Andrea Pelle, Head of the HCLU’s Legal Aid Service, refused to answer questions, stating that contrary to the district attorney’s opinion, he believes no crime was committed and he would like to live by his rights.
It is the HCLU’s distinct opinion that no crime was committed. In order to determine that a crime did take place, the offensive or degrading expression has to be in direct relation to the national symbol. There is no offensive or degrading expression aimed at the National Anthem, the word ’fuck’ is aimed at political parties, politicians or parking fines for example. It is clear that the unnamed accusers have trouble understanding the lyrics, however the HCLU does not believe this is the case with the district attorney’s office. In their case, the HCLU believes it was either real or imagined political expectations that led to the investigation and the attempted violation of the rapper’s rights, which indicates the state’s arrogance, which is far worse than having trouble understanding lyrics.
If someone were to make offensive or degrading comments aimed directly at a national symbol, it would still be questionable whether criminal prosecution serves to conserve the prestige of the state. State prestige – represented by national symbols – functions by deeds of the state, it is never derogated by critics, even if strong language is used. The HCLU believes that it is the prosecution of free speech and the state’s arrogance which degrades democracy as well as the Hungarian state’s prestige today.

Share

Related articles

Human Rights Organizations from Across the Globe Call on UN to Protect Human Rights in the Context of Social Protest

March 20, 2013 GENEVA – As the United Nation’s Human Rights Council prepares to debate a draft motion on social protest, human rights organizations from around the world have joined their voices to call on the UN to provide meaningful protection for this essential democratic right.

Fundamental Rights Are Violated by the New Hungarian Church Law

The Act CCVI of 2011 on the right to freedom of conscience and religion and the legal status of churches, denominations and religious communities of Hungary has established one of the greatest curtailment of privileges since the transition in 1989. In defence of 9 churches, deprived of their legal status, the HCLU, seeking remedies, has turned to the CC and to the ECtHR.

States Must Assume Their Fair Share Of Responsibility

The British Chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers will be holding a High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights in Brighton, United Kingdom (18-20 April 2012). The Declaration to be adopted in Brighton will lay the ground for a number of reforms, including amendments to the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). These reforms could seriously undermine the authority and integrity of the Court and its ability to ensure the effective protection of human rights in Europe. In particular, the damaging proposals would introduce additional admissibility requirements in the Convention and codify the principles of subsidiarity and margin of appreciation in the treaty. To insert these principles in the text of the Convention, and to define their nature and content, risk undermining the interpretative role of the European Court of Human Rights.