It's not about protecting the nation, Fidesz is out to punish those who are critical of the government

“It is absolutely necessary, because our sovereignty has repeatedly come under attack in recent times,” Péter Szijjártó told Telex on Friday in Győr when we questioned him about the bill entitled “on transparency in public life” which had been submitted to parliament by Fidesz MP János Halász a few days before. According to the foreign minister, the law is necessary because recently, certain external parties have been attempting to interfere in Hungarian elections and have tried to shape public opinion, “and that is not good.”

Minister of Construction and Transport, János Lázár defended the proposal to 444 by saying that it serves transparency and that all Hungarian voters have the right to know if a foreign organization is trying to influence Hungary.

However, János Halász's proposal is not targeting foreign organizations or external parties intent on manipulation. According to its text, the Sovereignty Protection Office (SPO) can label a Hungarian organization as foreign-funded even if it receives as little as a one thousand forint (2,5 euros) donation from a person with dual citizenship, i.e. a Hungarian individual living abroad. If this condition has been met, the SPO would investigate whether the organization engages in public affairs and whether it poses a threat to Hungarian sovereignty.

János Halász's proposal spells out in detail what is meant by this: if someone “offends, portrays unfavourably or supports activities against” the values listed in the Fundamental Law. We went through the bill point by point to see which topics or which of our previously published articles could, according to the draft law, give the Sovereignty Protection Office grounds to put Telex on the list.

• Hungary is an independent, democratic state governed by the rule of law.

This is the first sentence of the Fundamental Law, it follows immediately after the name of the country. This sentence was already included in the first version of the text adopted in 2011 and was previously part of the Constitution. After Viktor Orbán came to power in 2010, not only did he replace the Constitution, but he also established a new system called the System of National Cooperation (Nemzeti Együttműködés Rendszere – NER). By now, it is not only his critics who believe that the establishment of the new system has led to the erosion and dismantling of democracy and the rule of law, but so do almost all EU member states, which have, at the recommendation of the European Commission taken measures against Hungary for “breaches of the rule of law.” Telex has already written hundreds of articles about the still ongoing proceedings. It is questionable whether the name of the draft law could even be mentioned in an article, let alone providing a detailed account of it calling into question that Hungary is a state governed by the rule of law.

It would also be considered a threat to the country's sovereignty that we had reported on the fact that the European Parliament's rapporteur on the rule of law had referred to János Halász's draft law as a major step towards cementing autocracy.

We could also be blacklisted for reporting that anti-government protesters were chanting “fascist dictator” at a protest. But our big interview with political scientist András Körösényi, who believes that Hungary has become an authoritarian regime with a democratic mandate, which has – by its own admission – strayed from the path of the liberal rule of law, would never make the cut either. In 2014, speaking in Tusnádfürdő, Viktor Orbán said that he was building an illiberal state in Hungary – it's a good thing that we no longer have to wonder whether this speech would make it past the Sovereignty Protection Office.

• Hungary is committed to the unity of the Hungarian nation, and as such, it feels responsible for the fate of Hungarians living outside its borders, facilitates the preservation and development of their communities, supports their efforts towards preserving their Hungarian identity, the exercise of their individual rights and their rights as a community, the establishment of their communities' local governments, their prosperity in their homeland, and promotes their cooperation with each other and with Hungary.

The question begs to be asked: was the government taking responsibility for the fate of Hungarians living outside its borders last year, when 120 Hungarians from Transcarpathia who had fled the war in Ukraine were kicked out of their lodging in Kocs? While this might not be seen as a threat to the nation’s sovereignty by Tamás Lánczi (the head of the Sovereignty Protection Office) he would likely consider it a threat that Telex published a video report about this. It is also likely that it is not the Prime Minister who would be seen as undermining cooperation between Hungarians living beyond the border and Hungary by approvingly quoting an extremely anti-Hungarian Romanian politician, but rather the newspapers that report on the speech and its effects.

We may have already violated this point in the current article by stating that, according to János Halász, dual citizens, including Hungarians living beyond the country's borders are considered foreigners, so if we take the proposal literally, organizations receiving support from them could also be added to the list.

• Hungary protects the institution of marriage as a voluntary union between a man and a woman and the family as the basis for the survival of the nation. The family unit is based on marriage and the relationship between parents and children. A person is either male or female. The mother is female, the father is male.

This point of the Fundamental Law has been amended several times, most recently a month ago, when, inspired by one of Donald Trump's first decrees, the phrase “a person is either male or female” was added. According to the draft law we couldn't have written about scientists having refuted this. In 2020, when the gender of the father and mother was enshrined in the Fundamental Law, participants of several demonstrations called these points into question, as did many NGOs. Additionally, it would have also been difficult to write about Imane Helif so that Tamás Lánczi could not find fault with it.

According to the proposed law, we could be added to the list if we refer to childless couples as families, especially those whose members are not married. Fidesz would like to prevent us from writing about women who have consciously decided not to have children, and about men who are raising their adopted twins as a gay couple. They also would want us not to report about the members of the LGBTQ community who marched with the rainbow flag in downtown Budapest on Saturday.

• Hungary is committed to working with all peoples and countries around the world in order to establish and maintain peace and security and to ensure the sustainable development of humanity.

Anyone who has heard Viktor Orbán speak even once in recent years knows that this idea is at the heart of Fidesz's foreign policy, that it is “the core of the Hungarian grand strategy.” The Prime Minister is committed to peace and believes that Hungary should be on good terms with everyone in the world. Or as he calls this approach: connectivity. Except for the Ukrainians, that is, because the worse off they are, the better off we are. When minister János Lázár said this, he was also calling into question this point of the Fundamental Law, but he will of course not be investigated by Tamás Lánczi, only the newspapers that reported on his words.

But it is more likely that they will not find fault with this, but will object to things like questioning whether anyone other than the Chinese and Lőrinc Mészáros (the richest man in Hungary, and PM Orbán's childhood best friend) will benefit from the Budapest-Belgrade railway, or from the country being flooded with Chinese battery factories. And of course, not a word should be written about what the world thinks about Péter Szijjártó having a fancy dinner with the Russian foreign minister on the day of Alexei Navalny's funeral, or that he is a regular guest in Minsk, or that Russian hackers have been traversing the Hungarian Foreign Ministry's computer systems for years. And if someone did write about these things, Tamás Lánczi (director of the SPO) might end up saying that they oppose the government's efforts to cooperate with everyone.

• Protecting Hungary's constitutional identity and Christian culture is the duty of all state institutions. An independent body has been established by cardinal law for the protection of constitutional identity.

It was with this provision that the government laid the groundwork for the establishment of the Sovereignty Protection Office at the end of 2023, which has been met with widespread criticism both at the time and since. János Halász won't have this though, and would have Tamás Lánczi punish those who claim that his office writes propaganda reports, serves the ruling party, and uses language that is reminiscent of communist times.

Perhaps this alone is enough to show that, based on this law, the Sovereignty Protection Office could find fault with anything and put anyone on the watchlist. Just as it is also clear that there is also a common thread running through all of the above: and that is that if someone infringes on or questions these principles of the Fundamental Law, they are in fact not threatening their fellow citizens, a social group or the nation itself, but are questioning the foundations of Fidesz's policies or the decisions of the government. The purpose of János Halász's proposal is not to seek to avert threats to national sovereignty, but to punish any criticism of those in power.

This will not affect Telex's work even if the law is passed. We will continue to report on everything we consider important and interesting, since the Fundamental Law, at least in its current wording, still protects and recognizes the freedom and diversity of the press, and guarantees the conditions for freely providing information. This has been repeatedly confirmed by the Constitutional Court, which has also stated that “the free expression of ideas and opinions, even if unpopular or peculiar, is a prerequisite for the existence of a truly vibrant society capable of development".