Hungarian American Coalition News, 2009 (17. évfolyam, 1. szám)
2009 / 1. szám
striking the required balance,” (meaning the balance in Slovakia regarding the protection of minority rights and the protection of the state language). Three years elapsed between the current government coming to power in June, 2006 and the publication of the first version of the High Commissioner’s Opinion in July, 2009. Obviously, the phrase “recent years” (also) includes this recent period. In fact, during the mentioned three-year period there was no action in the legal framework designed to strengthen the use of minority languages. At the same time, a law on cartography was amended in 2008, forbidding the use of minority languages and designations in maps published in Slovakia. Since many local designations on Slovak maps (for example the names of municipal lands at the edge of a town [often ancient place-names alluding to their historical or economic function]) were in the language of the local population, these names had to be replaced by the obligatory use of artificially created Slovak names. Also in 2008, the Ministry of Education mandated that textbooks in the language of the minorities use Slovak geographical names. Later - because of international pressure - this was changed to requiring the minority language name followed in parentheses by the Slovak designation. Nevertheless, the final outcome was more restrictive than the original conditions. Human rights practices suffered a serious setback with the case of a Hungarian student, Hedvig Maiina, who in the summer of 2006 sought assistance from the police because she was assaulted for using her native language. Instead of protecting her, the Slovak authorities prosecuted her. Based on the facts, it cannot be claimed that in the last three years the balance between the state language and the protection of the minority languages has improved. Exactly the opposite is true. • Chapter 1 of the Opinion characterizes the drafters of the Slovak law as “open and cooperative” for alleged consultations with concerned parties and foreign partners. In reality, the Slovak lawmakers took in consideration only the Czech objections. They neglected to take into account the reservations expressed by the Hungarian minority and by Hungary. The Slovak side, although it initially promised to hold formal consultations requested by Hungary - in keeping with the Basic Treaty between the two countries - later reneged on that pledge. From the Hungarians’ perspective, the Slovak lawmakers’ attitude was anything but “open and cooperative.” Indeed, the Hungarian side considers a lawmaking process which takes certain partners’ opinions into account while ignoring Hungarian opinions to be discriminatory. • Chapter 2 of the Opinion states that the requirement that the minority; population ’s proportion meets or exceeds 20 percent in order to allow official minority language use is in line with international standards. According to the international documents cited by the Opinion, this limit has gained acceptance because the mandatory protections of minority languages with a lower threshold would place a disproportionate burden on the state. In Slovakia, however, the Law does not require, but rather allows the use of minority languages. There are no financial resources for bilingual communication and omissions are not sanctioned. The issue here is not that it is mandatory to use minority languages over 20 percent, but, rather, that below 20 percent it is forbidden. The amended State Language Law reinforces and sanctions this prohibition, which is not warranted by the international documentation cited in the Opinion. Article 10.2 of The Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities cites “in substantial numbers” along with “in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally” when referring to the areas populated by national minorities. In the case of Slovakia, this is important because the administrative districts - ignoring the opposition by the Hungarian minority - were gerrymandered to minimize those with a 20 percent minority population. The use of language of county authorities, for instance, is dependent on the proportion of the population of the town which serves as the county seat [regardless of the ethnic proportions which prevail in the county as a whole]. In 1999, a redistricting scheme was carried out to make sure that there is no single county seat where the Hungarian population exceeds 20 percent. • Also in Chapter 2 of the Opinion it states that the use of geographic names as provided in Slovak State Language Law §3/a does not cause concern for minority rights. This conclusion does not take into account the restriction that the amended Law creates in the maps. It also fails to take into account that Slovak laws do not allow the display of bilingual designation of localities, even if the minority population exceeds 20 percent of the total population, if the locality’s Slovak-language designation is based on a Slovak historical personality. (Many settlements with Hungarian majorities were deprived of Hungarian designation; for example Stúrovo, that is Párkány in Hungarian, Hurbanovo, which is Ogyalla or Kolárovo, which is Guta). • Continuing with the Chapter 2 assertions, it states wrongly that in the area of the police and the military services no change took place. In reality, up until now “only” the handling of paperwork and the documentation was obligatory in the Slovak language. The amendment to the Law requires that all official contact be in Slovak, which means that in these organizations all in-service information has to be communicated in Slovak. In addition, all of this - contrary to prior regulations and practice — the rule is subject to supervision and sanctions as provided by the amendments to the Law. sje 4 - September 2009 - Hungarian American Coalition
