"Where's the bride?" asked two female cyclists, standing before the cordons on the square outside Saint Stephen's Basilica in Budapest, surprised at the sight of the line of policemen. "What bride?" the commander of the riot police, all wearing helmets, asked in return, then answered that no one was going to watch a wedding procession here, and that he wasn't going to allow anyone to pass through. Last Saturday afternoon, all the streets leading to Szabadság Square and the Basilica were blocked by cordons and riot police. The demonstration - organised in protest against the banning of the Hungarian Guard Association last Thursday and in favour of György Budaházy, charged with (having committed) terrorist activities - had not been authorized by the police. The demonstration was announced for 5 p.m., but all over the country, the police started harassing the Guards in the morning, saying they were committing a breach of the peace just by wearing their uniforms, since "their clothes induced fear, indignation and alarm in others". Because of this, the members of the dissolved Guard changed into their uniforms on Erzsébet Square, and commenced a sit-down strike.

The police started dispersing the crowd after a few members of a group of several hundred sympathizers, standing around the guards, started throwing bottles of mineral water at the police. Therefore, they could say that the demonstration was no longer peaceful. The guards were removed from the crowd one by one. When Gábor Vona, chairman of Jobbik was handcuffed, the sight of it brought back memories of the years preceding the change of the political system. In a communiqué, Krisztina Morvai, the party's representative in the European Parliament signalled that Jobbik now considered Fidesz as its main rival. Morvai compared the present behaviour of Vona to that of Viktor Orbán on October 23rd, 2006, saying that the chairman of Jobbik did not leave the demonstrators in the lurch. (While hundreds of policemen were transported to Budapest from the countryside to close off Erzsébet Square, Gábor Vona was allowed to join his followers well after the dispersion had begun: not a single policeman had tried to prevent him from sitting down among the guards and becoming a martyr.)

The police arrested even more people than they had on October 23rd 2006, and the main topic of all the news programmes was the Hungarian Guard, and indirectly, Jobbik. "The judgement banning the Guard has unforeseeable consequences, the decision that was made is bad both politically and professionally, it undermines the authority of the court, and increases the popularity of Jobbik" - This was Gábor Vona's evaluation of the events, published in Heti Válasz. However, the way the police acted was more widely disputed than the judgement. The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU), a liberal human rights NGO, was also of the opinion that wearing the uniform of the Guard was not an infringement.

The fact that there was a "traitor" among the guards played a key role in the outcome of the judgement, which declared the dissolution of the Guard. The court was in possession of a recording - made during a secret session - where Gábor Vona had said that the task of the association was "to ensure the aura of legality" for the Guard. In other words, through the association, they could appear as a legally registered organisation. At the mention of dissolution, they can argue that movements cannot be banned. This formulation became one of the strongest points against them; according to the judgement, the movement and the Guard are organisational units of the association, in other words, they can be dissolved along with it.

Referring to the Associations Act, the court stated that if there was anything in the operation of the Guard that was unlawful, then it must be dissolved. The association violated the basic rights of others when István Dósa, the former captain of the Guard, "talked about Zionist rats" and "traitors of the nation with alien hearts", and at their gatherings, the expressions "Roma criminality" and "Roma terror" were regularly mentioned. In accordance with several decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, in the event of hateful remarks being spoken, freedom of speech no longer prevails if the remarks incite violence. Things didn't go that far, but according to the judgement, it was only thanks to the presence of several hundred policemen that they didn't. (In certain places, the Guard was met by counter-demonstrators, and on the basis of the judgement, the Guard was to blame for their emotions, too.)

However, this does not mean that the uniform of the Guard cannot be worn by whoever chooses to wear it. The freedom of expression implies the right to wear a uniform, "even if the given symbol can be associated with a political system, the memory of which triggers revulsion in others" states the preamble of the final judgement, made available to us by the Foundation for Legal Defense of Hungarians' Rights (Nemzeti Jogvédő Alapítvány).

What's more, the judgement establishes that "the right of assembly extends to the right to march". If so, what was the point of all that fuss last Saturday, one may well ask. It can be seen from the court judgement that marching and uttering commands are acceptable in themselves, but are unacceptable together with the speeches, for they "intensify each other's effect". Moreover, in some of the small villages where the Guard marched, together with police detachments of sometimes several hundred men, they virtually flooded the settlements. The locals could not keep out of the way of the march, they inadvertently became participants of the event, in other words - and here comes the next infringement on the basis of which they decided that the Guard should be dissolved - their fundamental freedoms were restricted.

From all of the above it follows that in Erzsébet Square, in the capital, where there was no speaker, and the inhabitants were able to avoid meeting the Guard, this kind of infringement did not take place. In spite of this, however, the police dispersed the demonstration as if the Guard had been preparing for a Fascist takeover. For if the reason for their action was that the demonstration had taken place without official authorization, then they should have treated all the participants of the demonstration in the same way. In contrast, they classified all details that were characteristic of the Guard's uniform as unlawful; in the case of a woman - who can be seen on the cover of our paper - having a crocheted bag with Árpád stripes was enough for her to be arrested, while others were allowed to remain in the square for hours.

The behaviour of Gábor Vona also gave rise to dispute. Political analyst Péter Tölgyessy criticized the party chairman's behaviour on Info Rádió, and reminded us that up till now, it was part of the general agreement that the parties would respect the judgement of the court. However, in an interview for our paper, Vona said: "I protest against it (the judgement), I refuse to accept it, I don't have to agree with it."

It is not only the police, but also society that has difficulty with interpreting the judgement, for today, no one would argue that the Guard called our attention to real problems within the society. However, according to the court, the solutions it offered to these problems were racist and induced fear. Nevertheless, in television programmes where viewers could phone in, the majority defended the Guard. To this, the court's judgement replies the following: "It is possible that on a social level, they inititated a debate, but their (behaviour) right there was definitely not heading towards a peaceful settlement of the conflicts, instead, it only increased tension even more."

WHAT IS THE JUDGEMENT ABOUT?

What did the court ban: the Hungarian Guard Association or the movement?

Both, the Hungarian Guard cannot operate.

Is it forbidden from now on to wear the Guard's uniform?

No, that is a constitutional fundamental right.

Have the marches been prohibited, too?

No, as a basic rule they can march.

Why was the Guard dispersed last Saturday?

The demonstration had not been permitted, and the wearing of uniforms had falsely been classified as disturbing the peace

Why is the Guard an infringement?

According to the court, mainly because at their meetings, they make hateful remarks that incite violence.