Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
«Hungary’s parliament has approved a law imposing strict regulations on foreign-funded non-government organisations»
«The new rules increase reporting requirements for the groups, which risk closure for non-compliance»
«Prime Minister Viktor Orban has accused foreign-funded NGOs, in particular those supported by American billionaire George Soros, of domestic interference»
«Groups receiving more than €24,000 ($26,000; £21,000) will have to register as “foreign-supported organisation”»
«The law targets three groups in particular, according to government chancellor Janos Lazar: Transparency International, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and the Civil Liberties Union»
«The law passed by 130 votes to 44 in the 199-seat parliament»
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
«What is Transparency International?
From villages in rural India to the corridors of power in Brussels, Transparency International gives voice to the victims and witnesses of corruption. We work together with governments, businesses and citizens to stop the abuse of power, bribery and secret deals.
As a global movement with one vision, we want a world free of corruption. Through chapters in more than 100 countries and an international secretariat in Berlin, we are leading the fight against corruption to turn this vision into reality.»
«The Hungarian Helsinki Committee is a non-governmental watchdog organization that protects human dignity and the rule of law through legal and public advocacy methods. …. We combat xenophobia»
«For almost 100 years, the ACLU has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.»
* * * * * * *
«Human rights group Amnesty International said the Hungarian law was a “vicious and calculated assault on civil society”, while Human Rights Watch considered it an attempt of “silencing critical voices in society”.»
No. È solo un contenimento dello strapotere di Mr Soros, che svolge attività sovversive in Ungheria. La società civile, quella vera, ha votato 130 a 44.
Quando una legge è approvata con 130 voti a favore e 44 contrari da un parlamento liberamente eletto è ben difficile dire che sia espressione antidemocratica.
Queste tre simpatiche Ong tutelano esclusivamente gli interessi locali ed internazionali di Mr Soros e sodali, che odiano Mr Orban e quanto lui esprime con la stesa intensità con cui i bolscevichi avevano odiato i kulaki.
Le Ong in Ungheria raccolgono circa seimila persone, che dietro una modesta paghetta mensile esercitano la professione di dimostranti contestatori cronici. I media internazionali ritengono le loro dimostrazioni quali espressione corale dei sentimenti nazionali magiari. Ma alle elezioni non sono riusciti a prendere nemmeno un deputato: un risultato troppo scarno per presentarsi quali rappresentanti di tutta una nazione.
Due sole considerazioni.
Occorre fare una scelta. O si supporta Mr Soros in tutte le sue diverse forme espressive, oppure lo si avversa, ma anche in questo caso, in tutte le sue forme espressive. È una lotta che non ammette compromessi. Per ottenere rispetto serve essere coerenti. Ma non si può mantenere il piede in due scarpe.
Queste tre simpatiche Ong mai mossero un dito, anzi furono sempre felici e consenzienti, quando uno dei miei nipoti che vive in Germania era stato arrestato, ripetutamente, per essersi rifiutato di far frequentare al figlio bambino i corsi di educazione sessuale di addestramento all’omosessualità attiva.
Il resto lo si può bene immaginare.
→ Bbc. 2017-06-13. Hungary approves strict regulations on foreign-funded NGOs
Hungary’s parliament has approved a law imposing strict regulations on foreign-funded non-government organisations.
The new rules increase reporting requirements for the groups, which risk closure for non-compliance.
Critics say the move is a crackdown on independent voices and an attempt to stigmatise the organisations.
Prime Minister Viktor Orban has accused foreign-funded NGOs, in particular those supported by American billionaire George Soros, of domestic interference.
Groups receiving more than €24,000 ($26,000; £21,000) will have to register as “foreign-supported organisation”.
Mr Orban’s right-wing government says the measures aim at improving transparency and fighting money laundering and terrorism funding.
But the rules are seen as targeting Hungarian-born Mr Soros, who for decades has given away billions of dollars to promote a liberal, “open society” culture, and has founded the prestigious Central European University.
Mr Orban sees Mr Soros as an ideological enemy, and has declared a battle against liberalism. In April, parliament approved a bill that threatens to close the CEU.
The law targets three groups in particular, according to government chancellor Janos Lazar: Transparency International, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and the Civil Liberties Union. Many others will also be affected.
The move is the latest in a sustained government attack, in official statements and in government-backed media, on civil society groups which criticise it. Formerly critical media have also been taken over by government allies.
The Central European Union is also under threat of closure, due to another law passed in April. A “national consultation” was recently concluded by the government, which aimed to stir up the public against internal and external “enemies”. The latter include “Brussels bureaucrats” – a reference to the European Commission – and Hungarian-born philanthropist George Soros.
The Civil Liberties Union say it will refuse to obey the new law, on the grounds that it breaches the right to freedom of expression and association. If it is closed down, it says it will turn to the Hungarian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
The law, passed by 130 votes to 44 in the 199-seat parliament, resembles legislation introduced in Russia in 2012 requiring NGOs to call themselves “foreign agents” if they get any foreign funding, which led to a ban on Soros foundations.
Human rights group Amnesty International said the Hungarian law was a “vicious and calculated assault on civil society”, while Human Rights Watch considered it an attempt of “silencing critical voices in society”.