The Wrocław court found that erstwhile oppositionist and erstwhile MP Władysław Frasyniuk in his speech violated the dignity and good name of soldiers protecting the state border. It's about the words "vatah dogs" and "drash" that the politician said on TV.
Frasyniuk was accused of utilizing the state border-protected military terms "insulting and humiliating them in the public opinion and endangering the failure of trust needed to serve."
This is simply a message about safety officers protecting the Polish-Belarusian border, which in August 2021 was on TVN24.
The word soldier is humiliating for all those who were on Polish missions abroad. I have the impression that this is simply a pack of dogs that surrounded poor, weak people," said Frasyniuk.
He added that this is not the way soldiers do. "Laugh. These are not human behaviors. You should be straight. It's anti-Polish behavior. These soldiers do not service the Polish state. On the contrary – they spit on all the values that their parents or grandparents most likely fought for," he said.
Court: Frasiniuk violated the dignity and good name of the soldiers
On Monday, the territory Court for Wrocław-Śródmieście concluded that Frasyniuk violated the dignity and good name of the soldiers. He sentenced him to a fine of PLN 15,000 for this offence (Art. 216 par. 2 kk). The conviction is invalid. Frasiniuk announced that he would appeal.
Judge Piotr Górecki stressed in his oral justification that Frasyniuk had the right to criticism and benefited from this by most of his tv speech, without violating his rights. However, these 3 words describing the soldiers presented on the tv screen as "trash" and "wataha dogs" were a violation of the right to criticism and violated the dignity and good name of the soldiers.
"It does not substance whether these soldiers have been affected or offended, due to the fact that it is not a subjective assessment of a given man, but an nonsubjective meaning of these terms and words. It is apparent to everyone that the terms 'trash' and 'watha dogs' are pejorative, degrading and violating the dignity of the person, his humanity," the justice said.
The justice explained that the court did not find grounds in the defendant's statements to convict him for, as the D.A. wanted, insulting an officer in the performance of his duties (Article 226 kk), but that Article 216 par. 2 kk concerning the violation of dignity and good name was violated.
Frassiniuk reaction
After his judgment, Frasyniuk assessed that the justification was most beneficial to him, since the court considered that the Constitution of Poland and the European Charter of Human Rights were not violated and that it was possible to talk harshly and critically in public statements.
“What the court spoke of me in a kind way does not translate into what he said at the end, or my fault. But why did the court feel that I should endure the consequences? The court said that human dignity must not be violated. I realize that the justice is simply a racist and that the dignity of the white man – officers of Polish services was violated. ... Despite the double investigation, no of the soldiers considered that Frasiniuk had insulted them. More – there is 1 officer who said: I heard, I saw, I was there. I don't feel offended by Frasiniuk. It may be that, since they are 'puppies', human rights, dignity and sensitivity do not apply to those with different skin colors," Frasyniuk told journalists.
When asked if he would repeat these words in public statements, he said yes.
First judgement
The territory Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw directed the indictment of a erstwhile MP and oppositionist from the times of the Polish People's Republic of Poland Władysław Frasyniuk to the territory Court for Wrocław-Śródmieście on 23 December 2021. The trial began in June 2022. He was classified.
In August 2022, justice Anna Borkowska issued the first ruling in this case. The court conditionally dismissed the case for a year of trial. Frasyniuk was besides expected to pay PLN 3 1000 to the Fund for Harmful Assistance and Postpenitentiary Assistance.
Judge Borkowska, on the basis of the ruling, stressed that the facts in this case did not rise any uncertainty as it was the subject of Frasyniuk's media statement.
"The suspect did not dispute at the proceeding the declaration of certain marks on soldiers serving on the Polish-Belarusian border last August. The issue is, however, the legal assessment of this statement," the justice said.
The justice pointed out that the most crucial issue in this case was the conflict of 2 goods, 2 values.
"The right to dignity and the protection of a good name and the right to criticism and expression of the opinion provided for in Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms," said the judge.
She added that erstwhile examining the defendant's statement, the court came to the conclusion that, to a large extent, this message "uses the protection provided for in Article 10 of the Convention as an expression under the right to criticism and freedom of expression."
"Words: 'translation of cowards', 'watah of dogs', which has cornered poor, weak people, 'this anti-Polish behavior, these soldiers do not service the Polish state', although they are negative, strong and offensive, they are in the law for criticism. These words constitute a critical assessment of the activities of Polish services during the exile crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border last August. They were spoken by the suspect with the intention of drawing the public's attention to the problem of the way Polish services act and strength towards immigrants" - said the judge.
"He crossed the right to criticism"
She added that "a different judgement was made by the court in relation to the word 'trash' utilized in the same message to the soldiers".
"The usage of this phrase is not justified for the defendant's statement, which was to draw attention to the problem of the treatment of immigrants. The phrase 'trash' is offensive, demeaning and contemptible for all average recipient," said the judge, adding that at this point the suspect exceeded the right to criticism and expression, and this wording exhausted the marks of the crime with articles 216 kk.
The justice added that the degree of social harm done by the accused “although undoubtedly higher than the insignificant, is not significant, nor is the defendant’s fault.”
The appeal process in this case took place before the Wrocław territory Court – besides excluding disclosure. The Court of First Instance annulled the judgement of the Court of First Instance in November 2023 and referred the case to review. The ruling of the first instance challenged the defence, which demanded acquittal, and the prosecution who applied for the conviction of Frasyniuk.
PAP
