Hungarian Anti-Terrorism

 You Risky Terrorists, Stay Away!

 

Preventive anti-terrorist Hungarian legislation on financing terrorism

 

Emilia Berenyi

 

 

© Index, the new Hungarian fence on the border, in ‘free-movement’ Europe

 

I have left Hungary 6 years ago. The far-right Fidesz regime is in power since 2010 and I don’t feel like living there anymore. I don’t agree with what they are doing. Hungary makes it to international media only through news like the fence built against immigrants, posters claiming all Muslims are terrorists. Hungarian terrorism-law discourse has became a mere discussion of pre-crime by the preventative state. The latest, 2017/LIII. Law on the prevention and deterrence of money laundering and terrorist financing renders terrorism and financial crimes together. Financing terrorism has become an act of pre-crime and the state became preventive.

 

Hungarian Anti-Terrorism: Background

To catch up if you’re new to the topic, in Hungary, the originally democratic but now far-right Fidesz government is in 2/3 majority power since 2010. With 2/3 in Hungarian parliament, they can push through any legislation, because even the most serious laws only require 2/3 consensus. The Fidesz anti-immigration discourse started to escalate in 2015, when the government placed refugees in public places as a ‘show off’ to the citizens (at train stations, stadiums), and built a fence . Later, from 2016 onwards, anti-terrorism became one with anti-immigration in Fidesz discourse. And since Fidesz owns the majority of popular media, in public opinion terrorism and refugees (and immigrants) are now meaning the same. 

 

The Hungarian Risk Society

According to Mythen & Walklate (2006), in criminological accounts it is often justifiable that terrorism, financed globally, is a ‘new’ kind of threat. The Hungarian Law on the prevention and deterrence of money laundering and terrorist financing is specifically focusing on the same issue regarding terrorism.

Through Beck’s risk society lens, this law reflects the ‘connections between macro-social transformation and the rising cultural prevalence of risk’ (in Mythen & Walklate, 2006, p. 383). First, the Hungarian law against terrorism is particularly focusing on the beyond-borders issue of terrorism: financing. Therefore, the fear of uncontrollable mobility in time and space (Beck in Mythen & Walklate, 2006, p. 383) is trying to be controlled by making the funding of terrorists illegal – because mobility requires money. 

Second, this law reflects the ‘exceptionally’ great harm that can be caused by terrorism in the modern era (Beck in Mythen & Walklate, 2006, p. 383-384), because it focuses on preventing such attacks, rather than handling it as any other ‘normal’ crime, such as physical harm – that only receives reactionary, post-crime attention in Hungary. By making terrorism ‘special’, that requires pre-emptive measures, the seriousness of the harm is being escalated in the legal discourse – which pre-crime justification will be discussed later.

Third, to protect the existing insurance (Beck in Mythen & Walklate, 2006, p. 384) of Hungarian citizens’ safety – granted by the state –, anti-terrorism laws, such as this one, are being formulated, regardless that Hungary has never been a victim of Islamist terrorism.

Consequently, all of Beck’s (2002) three pillars of the risk society are represented in the Hungarian 2017/LIII. Law on the prevention and deterrence of money laundering and terrorist financing.

 

Hungary: The Preventive State

This national-level terrorism related law from 2017 represents not only Beck’s (2002) risk society theory, but the Hungarian state’s preventive nature as well. Preventive state stands for a government that pushes preventive measures (e.g., increased policing, surveillance, border control) to prevent (terrorist) crimes from happening, rather than reacting once the crime has been committed (Zedner & Ashworth, 2019).

Hungary, a country that has not yet suffered any foreign terrorist attack, is formulating anti-terrorist laws. This well represents a preventive state (Zedner & Ashworth, 2019). Not to mention that the law itself is framed as ‘prevention’ of the financing of terrorism.

Yet, the preventive state is problematic in Hungary, because societally, it fuelled an increase in racism and hatred against all refugees and migrants with any other skin-colour than white. Framing refugees and migrants as the potential risk-carriers of terrorism, a crime that has not happened in Hungary yet but needs to be prevented, has been pushed through all government-corrupted media platforms (so, the majority of Hungarian media, from papers to TV) since 2015. And today, in Hungarian public opinion Brussels, who wants to invite refugees is inviting terrorists, as the posters below also frame the two to be related.

 

© 24.hu, Fidesz-government poster: ‘Did you know? Brussels wants to bring a town-worth of illegal immigrants to Hungary’

 

© Index, Fidesz-government poster: ‘Did you know? The Paris attacks were committed by migrants’

 

Therefore, the preventive legislation of the state – on financing terrorism –, with the combination of government-media connecting migration with terrorism results in social hatred, leading to a not only legal but social prejudice on all refugees and migrants, regardless their connection to terrorist groups. This toxicity has led to my emigration from Hungary. Am I now also one of those who need to be ‘hated’ and seen as a terrorist threat?

 

The Hungarian Pre-Crime Discourse

Closely linked to Zedner and Ashworth’s (2019) preventive state (whereby state legislation is focusing on preventing crimes which did not yet happen, or in the case of Hungary, never have happened), pre-crime (McCulloch & Pickering, 2009) is justified through this preventive nature. ‘Pre-crime links actions to suspicion without the need for charge, prosecution or conviction’ (McCulloch & Pickering, 2009, p. 628). Whereas preventing crime is, criminologically a non-punitive measure, pre-crime justifies punishment before any signal of (terrorist) action (McCulloch & Pickering, 2009, p. 629), purely based on speculation on behaviour (from Google searches to shopping) and personal network (Stoughton, 2019). This discourse of pre-crime is used by the preventive state of Hungary: the 2017/LIII. Law on the prevention and deterrence of money laundering and terrorist financing justifies punishment for financing, or even just trying or wanting to finance anyone related to terrorism, without any terrorist crime being committed. This is a true mixing of ‘impartial criminal justice with politically charged national security frame’ (McCulloch & Pickering, 2009, p. 631). If I, as someone who has migrated, search for financing terrorism in Hungary to write this law blog, will I become a punishable pre-crime target of the preventive Hungarian state? 

 

Conclusion and Takeaway

Everyone is a target of the preventive state for pre-crime punishment, regardless their connection with terrorism. The preventive state justifies applying its post-crime measures for pre-crime purposes by framing terrorism as a ‘uniquely great threat’. The Hungarian government not only formulates preventive laws, such as the 2017/LIII. Law on the prevention and deterrence of money laundering and terrorist financing, but also links terrorism to refugees and migrants. As someone who has migrated away from this toxic environment, I am not sure anymore if I am not targeted by the pre-crime punishments of the preventive state in Hungary. Can I travel home without being a target for surveillance after writing this paper for my studies and searching for terrorism-related terms on Google?