It is highly likely that the consequences of the legal changes proposed by president Nawrocki will put thousands of net users, for example commenting on social media, in prison.
It will be a whip against average citizens who, in public discourse, have criticised power a small more harshly.
Dangerous paragraph
The amendment to the IPN Act and the amendments to the penal code in §2 propose the following provision: ‘§ 1a. The same punishment is subject to who publically promotes Nazi ideology, communist, fascist, ideology Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists faction Bandera and Ukrainian Insurgency Army or ideology calling for force to influence political or social life”.
I draw attention to the last part of this paragraph "(...) an ideology calling for force to affect political or social life". So let's put together this most risky part of the amendment, which has nothing to do with IPN and flagism: "The same punishment is subject to who publically promotes an ideology calling for force to affect political or social life".
At your discretion
According to the Polish dictionary PWN, ideology This "system of views, ideas, concepts of individuals or groups of people". The legislator writes about Violence without defining it, therefore, the catalogue of actions that may be considered force is open ‘in criminal law, the concept of ‘violence’ does not have 1 statutory definition, but includes intentional action or omission that violates human rights or individual property, causing harm to wellness (physical or mental), suffering or harm. The ultimate Court has explained that force covers both physical and intellectual violence, even if it is not mentioned in the characteristics of a given prohibited act.". In summing up what the prosecutor considers to be violence, and the court will “cap” the defendant—will be “violence”.
Questions for the President's Chancellery
We asked about changes in the law at the source, in the Chancellery of the President, and in addition to the government spokesman: ‘- How does the president measure the introduction of the alleged IPN Act and the penalisation of flagism (changes in the penal code) of specified a wide scope of behaviour that will be subject to penalisation?; – Should specified a provision be included in the amendment of the IPN Act and the ban on the promotion of flagism (changes in kk)?; – Will it be possible to punish people on the basis of this evidence for speaking views, sometimes expressed a small more harshly, which is common in the discourse we know from social media and general debates in modern electronic media?".
British example
At the beginning of this year in the UK it was loud about CaseLucy Connolly, 41-year-old kindergarten caregiver who wrote on social media in an emotional entry after the knife attack: ‘Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f—ing hotels full of the b—–ds for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now gotta endure. If that makes me racist so be it’. For this statement, a female has been given 2 years in prison and is serving time.
A female calls for the arson of any hotels, but not circumstantial ones. He insults a group of people, but not specific. On the basis of the laws presently in force in Poland for specified a statement, it is hard to conviction the offender to prison. How about a fine for misconduct? Her message is ideologicalized (results from her socio-political views), and the action she advocates is violence. He's doing it so the British can change their attitude towards the government. Would the operation of this British woman, if they were transferred to the Polish penal code after the amendment of president Nawrocki, fulfil the mark of the forbidden act of Art. 256 couples. 1a?
Dangerous Interpretation
More and more public opinion polls say that Poles – unlike the government – do not want to go to NATO war vs. Russia-Belarus. In public space I met many filmsIn which men say that if they are forced into the army, they can go to Warsaw. They don't talk about attacking the constitutional organs of Poland, they don't call for coup d'état, they usage euphemism (there's no reason to punish them). for these statements Article 127, par. 1 kk, 128 par. 3 kk, 255 kk– I think). Whether specified statements/calls will be subject to penalisation in accordance with the revised Article 256 pairs. 1a of the Criminal Code? Whether protests declared illegal by the authorities against sanitary restrictions or the closure of companies as we know from the time of covid-19 will exhaust the signs of an act prohibited by Article 256 couples. 1 kk?
Questions to the President
Back to the bill. president Nawrocki in the above-mentioned task proposes as a condition for the application of the provisions of Article 256 pairs. 1a penalisation of any ideology that calls for violence. How is force understood under the penal code? Is it just physical violence, or is it intellectual violence, and does the definition of ideology have a different meaning for the application of this provision than is universal as a set of views? In the President's view, can we say that this is the rear door of the hatred speech bill? Or should this draft law be read as government ordering Poles to self-censorship in the run-up to the state of emergency?
Does the president think this is simply a good amendment?
Piotr Michalak
