However unsavoury Jobbik’s views are, Theresa May was right not to ban them

By ERIN SALTMAN | Originally Published in Left Foot Forward: 29 JANUARY 2014. Original linked here.

Last weekend, the Hungarian radical right party Jobbik (Movement for a Better Hungary) held an event in London in an attempt to rally support from London-based Hungarians in the coming national elections, to take place April 6.


The UK holds a large population of emigrated Hungarians – over 50,000 including upwards of 18,000 in London alone – whose support can prove crucial for marginalised parties like Jobbik, currently the third largest party in Hungary having won 16.67 per cent of the vote in the last national elections. Jobbik is viewed as an anti-Semitic and anti-Roma ultra-nationalist party.

The 35-year old party chairman Gábor Vona is a particularly controversial figurehead as the founder of the neo-fascist grassroots paramilitary group, the Hungarian Guard, in 2007. The Hungarian Guard was subsequently made illegal in 2009 due to the organization’s activities, which were deemed as going against human rights and the rights of minorities.

However, the group continues today under a myriad of different names.

Efforts from anti-fascist groups, supported by Labour MP Andrew Dismore, to ban Jobbik’s entrance into the UK the day before Holocaust Memorial Day included a 14,000 signature petition. Despite this, the UK home secretary Theresa May stood her ground, stating that the Jobbik event was lawful and to ban it would contradict democratic principles concerning the freedom of speech.

However unsavoury Jobbik’s views are, May was right to maintain her values in the face of considerable pressure.

Jobbik’s grand entrance into London was met by dozens of anti-fascist protestors, holding banners and declaring their distaste for the party’s xenophobic agenda. Jobbik ended up being corralled and cornered off by Metropolitan Police, stuck at Holborn station for over an hour.

Finally, Jobbik retreated to Hyde Park where a gathering of around 100 supporters resumed their intended rally. No violent incidents occurred and no arrests were made – infinitely less fuss compared to the furore that would have exploded had May bowed to the anti-fascist brigade.

Challenging radical narratives

For those who came out to challenge Jobbik’s xenophobic narrative there is much to learn from the continued power of peaceful protest and openly presenting counter-narratives. Supporters of Unite Against Fascism, members of the Jewish community and concerned London-based Hungarians successfully showed support against segregation and discrimination.

The traditionally strong facade of the radical right was made to look cowardly in comparison to a mere few dozen activists united in promoting equality.

Making the strong voice of equality heard was not achieved by banning the voice of inequality. Indeed there is a stronger message to convey by challenging extremism in an open dialogue and debate to allow for a healthy marketplace of ideas. A civil society response to extremism did what a legal response can never do – engage in the battle of ideas and win the hearts and minds of British society.

Banning and stifling extremist ideologies from the greater public has never eradicated extremism. However, cultivating democratic discourse, whether by social activism or civil debate, forces a broader view of the world and a greater understanding of perspectives.

Perhaps the Jobbik event in London did not turn already dedicated Jobbik supporters into moderate democrats, but it did force the UK, Hungary and Europe to openly question Jobbik’s dangerous presence in Europe.

Only by challenging extremism in broad daylight can the cracks in extremist ideologies be shown for what they really are: ideologies based on fear, false interpretations and misguided views of the world around us.

Dr. Erin Marie Saltman is a Quilliam research project officer


One thought on “However unsavoury Jobbik’s views are, Theresa May was right not to ban them

  1. ‘Jobbik’s dangerous presence in Europe.]

    Goodness! This really is a very heavily prejudiced article. Jobbik is not at all dangerous, unless you consider nationalism dangerous. (And there I would disagree with you.) What, in any case, is ‘extremist’ or ‘dangerous’ about Jobbik? Has it ever done anything in the style of this protest on the same day as Vona’s visit, but in Paris? (You will see that the 17,000 marchers here chanted slogans like ‘Jew, France is not yours’; ‘Jew, out of France.’ ):

    Do you not feel that you should at least have explained why you think Jobbik, a Hungarian parliamentary party, ‘dangerous’?

    You must have noticed that the Dismore-supporting media arms were screaming long and loud fascist/racist slur at Gabor Vona. None of the screaming media arms managed to reveal that this ‘racist’ happens to me an admirer of Islam: He told four university audiences, during his recent visit to Turkey, that in his view, Islam is ‘the last hope of the world’. Had this been known, fewer of the UFA thugs would have joined the (very small) protest outside Holborn Station, since many of them are Muslims. And none of these media slurs mentioned that this ‘racist’ is the leader of the party that has brought off the unique feat (in one of the two councils it controls) of having the denizens of a small town/village living in harmony and increasing prosperity, despite its majority Gypsy population.

    ‘Jobbik ended up being corralled and cornered off by Metropolitan Police’

    No: Jobbik was neither ‘corralled’ nor ‘cornered off’ (whatever that means). The Met kept the UFA thugs out of Holborn Station while the assembled Hungarians waited for arrangements for a new venue when they learned that the booked one had been cancelled by the owner. Then the Met escorted the Hungarians to Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park, and kept the small clutch of UFA thugs (about 30) away from them. The Met behaved admirably. Violence came only when two Hungarians, making their way home on foot, where severely bashed by the 30-odd UFA thugs. One of the two Hungarians was hospitalised for his injuries. (Only the Hungarian press reported this.) This is not a ‘first’ for the UFA, as you know. Yet you appear to champion this group of thugs.

    And you refer to ‘members of the Jewish community’ who protested the Jobbik presence. Why did you not note that, of them, the Neturei Karta came to support Jobbik?

    ‘Only by challenging extremism in broad daylight can the cracks in extremist ideologies be shown for what they really are: ideologies based on fear, false interpretations and misguided views of the world around us.’

    Are you saying that the protesters against Jobbik did this challenging? How, other than by intimidation? And do you think this acceptable? Also, are you implying that Jobbik has an ideology that is ‘based on fear, false interpretations and misguided views’? Should you not have explained your implication? Nothing short of that is consistent with scholarly discourse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s