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

Only by challenging extremism in broad daylight can the cracks in extremist ideologies be shown for what they really are.

Dr. Erin Marie Saltman is a Quilliam research project officer

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.

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

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

  1. swatnan

    Its the Hungarian version of the EDL. They came to London because if they tried that thing on in Hungary they’d probably be locked up. A constructive dialogue rarely works with these numbskull facists; the only way language they understand is to dish out what they themselves give. You might get a few likeTommy Robinson to see sense through a socratoic dialogue, but the vast majority of facists are born that way, and won’t be convince by argument.

  2. RicardoFromage

    No one is born that way, they are taught by an ignorant society and media. what is learned can be unlearned. It is our obligation to do that, for a better humanity.

  3. swatnan

    The Nature/Nuture argument has its merits, but is not infallible.

  4. Matthew Blott

    I don’t like banning things if only for practical reasons. So I’m content that people can say what the like short of inciting violence. But that’s for citizens and residents of the UK, I don’t feel any obligation to allow visitors overseas who are only going to cause trouble. We ban hate preachers from the Middle East (not enough in my view) and Grand Wizards from the United States so why should European fascists get a free pass? I’m not a fan of Louis Farakhan but his organisation’s events are always peaceful and never associated with violence yet he’s been barred from entry into this country for years.

  5. neilcraig

    I assume that if a Hungarian government ever publicly considered banning expression of the views held by the British Liberal Democrats our own state owned “balanced” news broadcaster, the BBC, would make it a major news item and denounce the potential banners as illiberal and opposed to free speech.

    Of course, since the BBC Charter requires to be “balanced” rather than a state owned propagandist, we can be certain that they have equally denounced the UK government in the same terms.

    Or not as the case may be.

  6. bootsyjam

    So how does this work against those who want to come and talk about Islam. Seems like there isn’t much consistency. I’m half Jewish and I have no problem with this bunch coming to my country because we should embrace freedom of speech. But there is no freedom of speech if these ideals are applied selectively.

  7. thebetterview

    swarnan: ‘Its the Hungarian version of the EDL.’
    Obviously, you know nothing about Jobbik, nor about its leader Gabor Vona. Let me explain a few things to you:
    EDL is not a political party. It is an ad hoc organisation of uneducated misfits with a ‘J*ew*sh Chapter, and it hates Muslims. Jobbik is a parliamentary party that holds 17% of seats, all of them occupied by university graduates. Jobbik is a supporter of Palestine, and its leader is an admirer of Islam. Jobbik is the first choice of voters 30 years old and younger. EDL would be an anti-democratic disgrace if it were not essentially a non-entity.

  8. Dave Catleugh كافر

    You’re obviously talking about Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller. It was a disgraceful, cowardly decision to ban them from the UK. Thankfully they can not be banned from the Internet, so I have full access to their views (and those of their opponents).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.