Home About persons Dr Dénes Kosztolányi

Dr Dénes Kosztolányi

Dr. Kosztolányi Dénes - Fidesz budapesti területi lista - Az Önkormányzati és a Nemzetbiztonsági bizottságok tagja, a Megfigyelési vizsgáló bizottság elnöke!
Dr. Kosztolálnyi Dénes

I am angry eith Dénes Kosztolányi, too. Why? – I ask myself. As far as I remember I have never met him in person, never have had personal contacts with him. I am watching my own self and I do not really understand my own reactions. It is not typical of me that anybody (might he be a contemptible character of our everyday life) could bring any hardly disguisable emotinons of mine to the surface.Although Dénes Kosztolányi has no „antecedents” in our public life. I consulted the 1998 „Hungarian and International Who is who” and it did not even mentioned this former doctor of the Eötvös Lóránt University of Science. He got into the Parliament in 1998 from the Budapest regional list of FIDESZ and become member of two committees (national security and commune) right away,then after Viktor Orbán’s disreputable statement he became the chairman of the Shadowing Committee as the main treasurer of the prime minister’s „trustworthiness”.

As I had already touched it in many of my writings, in my opinion Viktor Orbán was both „misguided” by his well-informed colleagues before his ominous shadowing-statement and fell victim to the pressure of having to make statements as it happened many times with politicians. The point of this polite sentence is that Viktor Orbán’s statement does not square with the facts. Though it is not nice of a prime minister I still do not show temper when Viktor Orbán appears on television, though I disapprove his sentences defended by Dénes Kosztolányi, but I do not overvalue them.

Then what is the matter with Dénes Kosztolányi, who is so weightless both in politics and public life and whose role in execution is not more than a politics-puppet? Until the time of this writing of mine he had not made even one self-made proposal in the Parliament, he had altogether fourteen remarks. As to most things there is an answer to it but so hard to reveal. That look, that style, that calmness, that way he faces me from the television: that is so insulting. Insulting, because violating all democratic legal principles with so perfect calm and declaring the evident untruth looking in my eyes degrade the viewers so deeply. It beams: „I can say anything and you have to accept it, you deserve only this level”.

And can we really do anything against it? Anything more than just waiting the elections in 2002? To tell the truth it neither offers areal solution, because neither 1998 the electorate wanted to see him against the MPs, we received him as a present from the Budapest regional list.

I really think that Dénes Kosztolányi passed the verges of the democratic legal system in the senses the moral, the politics and even penal law. In connection of waiving György Atyánszky’s (I think – undeserved) parliamentary immunity I strove to point the contradictions of the ruling-mechanism in the Parliament. I am afraid that our feeling of legal security is going to get the next „snub” in connection Dénes Kosztolányi. For me it was definitely a good feeling to read that among several touched ones the management of the Pinpoint Ltd. Have had enough of the conspicuous trampling of their rights to the dust and the discrediting of them without any legal consequences. However, unfortunately it is easy to predict the future of their „denunciation” addressed to the main public prosecutor. Even if it is a publicly committed violation of law and perceptible by people with even an average knowledge of law, before the investigation and the charging the parliamentary immunity of the perpetrator should have to be waived.

Even the parliamentary immunity committee itself claims and the parliamentary practice points that in the case of an application of waiving somebody’s parliamentary immunity they do not examine whether it is reasonable or not, but in cases of slander, frame-up, etc. They „safeguard” the MP’s parliamentary immunity without examining the case thoroughly. This is how some people can become „taboo” while the complainants have to endure the disdain of a lot of their constitutional rights. Although I truly believe that sooner or later the Parliament will change this practice, I still can not believe that its possibility will be provided just by the case of Dénes Kosztolányi, who defended the Prime Minister of the parliamentary majority so shamefully.

János Palotás