According to Pál Völner, Parliamentary State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, the political leadership in Sweden is “widely known to be pro-migrant” and has already “flooded” its own country with migrants; however, the Hungarian government continues to resist this.
In his communication sent to the Hungarian news agency MTI, Mr Völner responded to the fact that Sweden is intervening on the European Commission’s side in the lawsuit instituted against Hungary before the European Court of Justice due to the legislation relating to non-governmental organisations sponsored from abroad.
The Parliamentary State Secretary of the Justice Ministry stressed that pro-immigration forces are seeking to interfere in Hungary’s internal affairs.
He said in continuation that we were aware even before that “pro-immigration organisations financed from abroad” had lobbied with the Swedish Ambassador to Hungary in their own interest.
According to the Hungarian government, however, it would be desirable if everyone concerned themselves with their own problems. He indicated that the Hungarian people are the most important priority for the government, and also in the future their security will be the government’s number one concern. Therefore the government is ready to face the Brussels dispute.
He drew attention to the fact that due to the need for vetting the “Soros network”, the law on the transparency of organisations funded from abroad continues to remain a legitimate piece of legislation. The vast majority of the Hungarian people, too, agree with this, and proof of this is the fact that 99 per cent of respondents taking part in the relevant national consultation stood by the law.
Mr Völner said that all Member States are entitled to take part in the procedures heard before the European Court if they wish to state their position. Hungary itself frequently does so, and not only in relation to Hungarian affairs.
At the same time, in the infringement procedures instituted by the Commission, Member States typically intervene on the side of other countries, rather than on the Commission’s side, he added. In his view, the Swedish government’s decision is all the more surprising because Sweden is a “champion of transparency”, and the purpose of the Hungarian law which the Commission found objectionable is to create transparency.
He said the Hungarian government will examine the observations to be submitted by the Swedish government later, and will respond to them within the framework of the procedure.
Regardless of the intervention, in the procedure instituted by the European Commission in connection with the law on the transparency of organisations funded from abroad, the government presented its arguments both before the lawsuit and before the court with which it refuted the objections raised by the Commission, Mr Völner said.
During the procedure the Hungarian government argued that the legislation does not restrict either the right of the foreign sponsor to provide funding, or the right of the Hungarian non-governmental organisation accepting the funding to accept such funding and to use it for the activities laid down in its deed of foundation, he explained.
The purpose of the legislation is to ensure transparency in the case of non-governmental organisations which are capable of influencing public life in order for members of the public to be aware that a given organisation also receives funding from abroad, and in order to eliminate or reduce the “risk to public order or public security” which funds originating from illegal sources may pose, Mr Völner added.
The government rejects the idea that the publication of the fact of receiving foreign funding is stigmatising as it publishes a mere value-neutral legal fact, similar to other details featured in the relevant court records such as whether an entity is a non-profit organisation or not, or the type of the organisation’s form of association, he said.
According to the government, the Commission has not presented any specific evidence proving that the allegedly stigmatising nature of the legislation has resulted in a decline in the readiness of donors to provide funding or in the frustration of the activities of the organisations so sponsored.
The law itself makes its clear that the level of transparency that is sought to be attained through its provisions serves to eliminate risks posed by funds of unknown origin which are capable of negatively influencing Hungary’s political and social life. The Commission itself does not dispute the purpose of the law and its legitimacy, and acknowledges that the protection of public order and public security and the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism may justify measures designed to enhance the transparency of capital movements even if it does not agree with the specific measures, Mr Völner’s communication reads.