Doubts of the President
President Andrzej Duda decided to mention to the Constitutional Court as part of the preventive review of the Criminal Code, known as the hatred speech bill. The fresh rules supply for an extension of the list of grounds for hatred crimes.
As is evident from the justification published by the President's Chancellery, the president has doubts as to the conformity of the bill with the constitutional rule of clarity and precision of the law. Attention was besides drawn to the possible risks to freedom of expression referred to in Article 54(1) of the Constitution.
The revision of the Criminal Code prepared by the Ministry of Justice aimed to introduce rules on the fight against hatred speech and to extend the list of characteristics covered by legal protection. Age, gender, disability and sexual orientation have been added to already existing categories, specified as national, ethnic, racial, spiritual and non-denominational. Under the fresh regulations, crimes motivated by prejudice against these qualities were to be prosecuted ex officio without the request for a private indictment.
Critical sentences...
Many politicians found the decision of Andrzej Duda to be reprehensible. Minister of Reconstruction after the flood Marcin Kierwiński assessed:
A. Duda fell in love with the hatred speech so much that he blocked the bill to fight this barbarous thing. Now you can see why Poland needs a president who is simply decent.
The Minister of athletics Sławomir Nitras besides spared critical words:
What you request in your head to not sign the hatred speech bill. Duda works in the interests of PiS and Nawrocki due to the fact that hatred and hatred speech are their primary asset.
Magdalena Biejat, a candidate of the Left for the office of President, besides criticized the President's decision, recognizing it as evidence of the priorities of the Law and Justice camp. In her opinion, the politicians of this organization do not intend to quit the usage of hatred speech due to the fact that it is simply a tool to support their position in public life. She besides declared that as president she would sign the bill immediately after receiving it and immediately withdrew the application to the Constitutional Court.
...and more favorably
Andrzej Duda's decision is defended by the politicians of the Law and the Confederation. The presidential candidate Sławomir Mentzen stated:
It is very good that president Andrzej Duda did not sign the censorship bill, called the hatred speech bill.
Bartłomiej Wróblewski of the Law on the fight against hatred speech, which president Andrzej Duda directed to the Constitutional Court in the framework of preventive control, threatened freedom of speech. In his opinion, it is unconstitutional and poses a serious threat to pluralism and freedom of public debate in Poland. He besides pointed out that Rafał Trzaskowski would have no opposition to sign it, which he felt required strong opposition.
Andrzej Duda himself, being a guest on tv Trwam, answered a question about the bill under consideration:
First of all, it is very distinctive that those left-left-liberal currents that shout so loudly about tolerance and shout so loud about diversity that it should be allowed everywhere, are the first to block the anticipation of speaking.
Duda “had no choice”
President Margaret Paprock's chief of law besides believes that signing the bill would limit freedom of speech.
Paprocka in Polsat News rated:
It's a bad bill, raising very serious doubts about constitutional compatibility. If you compose incorrect laws and effort to impose criminal laws on an ideology; if you misform it, inaccurately, in specified a way that a very crucial freedom of expression is violated, then the president had no choice.
Małgorzata Paprocka stressed that the further destiny of the bill depend solely on the Constitutional Court's ruling, and the end of president Andrzej Duda's word of office is irrelevant in this matter. She rejected allegations that the Presidential Palace ignored the problem of hatred speech towards LGBT people, women and people with disabilities, stressing that the president actively supports people with disabilities. She recalled that it was the president who submitted the bill of assistance for these people. She criticised the Sejm for the deficiency of advancement on this task and expressed doubts as to whether the revision of the Criminal Code could actually solve the problems of this social group.