The judge explains in the "Jézus caricature" trial

An extremely primitive and immeasurably tasteless graphic "joking" about the crucifixion of Jesus and mocking the national chief medical officer, Cecília Müller, was published in the political daily Népszava in April last year. At that time, every person with good taste thought that the creator of the paper and the cartoon had crossed a line that could not go unnoticed.

Dr. Imre Vejkey, the deputy faction leader of the Christian Democratic People's Party, did what is expected in such a case: he tried to enforce his opinion through legal means. In January of this year, however, he lost the lawsuit against the paper. The judge, Zsófia Lívia Gál, rejected the claim, saying that the caricature was not offensive, but rather "good-humored", which an average Hungarian citizen would - so to speak - perceive as a joke. The judge did not even allow the politician - who is, by the way, the chairman of the Parliament's Justice Committee - to speak at the trial.

Completely surreal scenes reminiscent of communist times took place - said Vejkey about the trial, adding that it was completely incomprehensible what had happened. Even the statutory court gives the accused the opportunity to have the last word. The jury must have felt that they missed the target, because after two months of deep silence, they came up with another written justification. (I wonder what they were thinking so much about?)

The Capital Court added two new, rhetorical reasons to its previously sent written verdict - the plaintiff of the case wrote to the of Vasárnap.hu . Here are some thoughts:

"In the written judgment, the judge also explained that she rejects the title of protection of our Christian community, because if she covers the text on the Jesus caricature that says 'His underlying disease caused addiction', as well as other pictorial representations, and only the crucified Christ looks at, then according to him this is nothing more than a conventional depiction of Jesus! The judge almost asks me, what's wrong with the caricature? What is wrong with the Christian community?  

Well, "dear" judge (...) the problem with your approach is that you established the facts by consciously covering up half of the facts. It is a serious professional mistake to consider only half of the facts! This huge professional error is further exacerbated by the judge when she completely surreally accuses me, as the plaintiff, in the justification of the judgment, that my lawsuit is extreme, hurtful and humiliating, because as a Christian I dared to criticize the drawing and its maker, and also because I said the truth, that is, that this caricature is Christ-defaming and blasphemous!

(…) I find it outrageous that the judge is holding me accountable because I exercised my right as a citizen to stand up for the protection of our Christian community and refused the caricature defaming Jesus Christ! It is outrageous that the court equates a citizen who stands up for his rights with the person who commits the delict, saying that just as Népssava has to tolerate that I describe the caricature as blasphemy, I also have to tolerate that Népssava expresses its relationship with the Christian community in this way !

(…) Judge, you are seriously mistaken, because based on the relevant law, you should not have classified my claim, but the caricature published in Népsva in its entirety!"

Imre Vejkey appeals against the first instance verdict. The politician previously stated that if necessary, he would turn to the Constitutional Court. According to him, "the message of the first-instance decision of the court is clear: Christians can be insulted with impunity in Hungary today."