No one has done more for the social advancement of Hungary’s Roma community than the Fidesz government over the past more than 15 years.
This is also clearly shown by the fact that, according to the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH), the employment rate of Roma people has been steadily increasing since 2015.
Moreover, Fidesz is a political community where, if someone makes a mistake, they are capable of apologizing — as Lázár János did.
By contrast, members of the Tisza movement are incapable of apologizing.
They have never apologized for disregarding the interests of the Hungarian people by supporting the acceleration of the Migration Pact.
Magyar Péter has never apologized to women for the humiliating way he spoke about them.
We believe in responsibility, work, and equal opportunity — that is why Fidesz is the safe choice.
No one has done more for the advancement of Hungary’s Roma community over the past fifteen years than the Fidesz government. And that is a fact.
And the situation is this: I am very glad that Fidesz is a political community where, if someone makes a mistake — even though the quote is always cut off at Lázár János’s statement and everything he said after that sentence is never discussed — still, it is a political community where, if someone makes a mistake, they are capable of apologizing.
This is something that your political community, the Tisza movement, cannot say about itself at all.
Magyar Péter has never apologized, for example, to the women he offended, whom he spoke about in front of others in the way he did.
You have never apologized for the betrayal you commit day after day in the European Parliament when you vote to accelerate the Migration Pact.
Nor has Ms. Kinga Kohlár, your representative, ever apologized to the Hungarian people when she smilingly and smugly explained how good it is for your electoral chances if things get worse for Hungarians and hospital developments fail to materialize — and the list could go on.
So the reality is this: yes, that is the great difference between your political community and ours — that we have serious people. Serious people like Lázár János, who, when it is justified, is capable of apologizing. You do not have a single such person among you.
🔴 The starting point is NOT a “mistake,” but humiliation
When a politician speaks about an ethnic group in a way that ties them to a degrading, stereotypical job, that is not:
- a slip of the tongue
- a misunderstood sentence
- a “quote taken out of context”
but collective stigmatization.
This is a question of human dignity, not a communication mishap.
No statistic can “balance this out.”
🟠 What is Alexandra doing in this text?
This is a textbook rhetorical operation:
1️⃣ Downplaying the severity of the insult
“They always only quote the beginning of the sentence.”
This suggests that
👉 the problem is not the statement itself, but that people talk about it.
That’s shifting responsibility.
2️⃣ Apology = moral superiority
The logic:
“He made a mistake, but he apologized → therefore morally it’s fine.”
But:
⚠️ Ethnic humiliation is not like giving a wrong data point.
An apology does not erase the mindset that the sentence reveals.
Here, “being able to apologize” is not a virtue, but is used as a damage-control PR tool.
3️⃣ Topic diversion (whataboutism)
Look at the structure:
Lázár’s statement →
⤵️ sudden shift →
Péter Magyar → women → migration pact → EP → hospitals
This is not a defense.
It is distraction, so we don’t talk about the racist content.
4️⃣ Statistics as moral absolution
“Roma employment rates have increased”
Even if true:
❗ This does not entitle anyone to publicly assign a degrading, stereotypical role to an entire ethnic group.
It’s like saying:
“We’ve done a lot for women, so a demeaning remark is acceptable.”
It isn’t.
🔵 The deeper, real message
The core of the speech is not about Roma uplift.
It is this:
“Our side is morally superior, because at least we apologize.”
That’s a moral framing, not a factual argument.
Meanwhile, the underlying claim — tying an entire ethnic group to a degrading role — is not truly withdrawn, only communicatively softened.
⚖️ From a human dignity perspective
From the mouth of a public figure:
- ethnic generalization
- association with low-status labor
- collective labeling
➡️ This is structural devaluation with long-term social impact.
This is not “political debate.”
This is a violation of dignity boundaries.
🎯 In summary
Alexandra’s speech tries to:
✔ reduce the severity of the insult
✔ turn the apology into a moral shield
✔ divert attention to other scandals
✔ use statistics as moral absolution
But the core fact remains:
A humiliating, stereotypical statement was made about an ethnic group.
And this is not merely a communication issue, but a human and societal one.