I apologize to Beata Geppert, Kalina de Nisau and Robert Hoffman for the situation that occurred on the occasion of their contributions to my election run made to the fresh Left KW fund. They were asked to confirm Polish citizenship, and the reason was the sound of their names. They besides understood the regulation of the Electoral Code prohibiting the financing of political parties and campaigning abroad. I besides apologize on behalf of the Electoral Committee, who, of course, feels embarrassed, but is implementing the well-known directives of the State Electoral Commission in the belief that there is no another way, since the verdict of the PCW on specified a case could endanger to lose the subsidy and that would mean a major disaster for the full Left.
I am doing this public substance due to the fact that citizens of the “election kitchen” do not know at all and should know. Subject to the fact that I do not want to make a scandal, and especially to accuse the dense sins of the fresh Left, whose committee acts in the belief that work requires them to do this. However, the thing has a brown shade.
I would like to point out that what is incorrect is the ban on payments made by citizens of abroad countries, and what is different is the work to command Polish citizenship. In the context of PKW practices — and I realize that they are known by the activists of the Left, having experiences incomparably larger than mine — an additional light is shed by another case, which is devoid of even brown shades, but by Prussian and authoritarian spirit. My friends' matrimony must explain that the deposits from their joint bank account were made with the consent of both of them. I did not find this in the Code nor have I heard anyone's online payment always questioned due to this kind of situation. Firstly, we are dealing with an institution which, in its practice, is guided by the presumption that everyone lies and cheats, alternatively than taking the other presumption and reacting solely to a clear signal of a situation manifestly illegal.
Second, however, the “foreign sound” of names is simply a peculiarly delicate thing, not just a nuisance and degrading citizen to be a performer of authority recommendations. To the severity of this kind we should all be sensitive, and officials especially. The context is simply brown.
A somewhat embarrassing formal context besides needs to be explained. It's not the PKW that wants an explanation. This is done by the Left Committee, expecting, on the basis of experience, problems in controlling the settlement of gross and expenditure which PKW makes after the election is concluded very meticulously and highly harshly. I take the experience of the Left as a good coin. I have no reason to uncertainty that this is indeed the case. I besides have neither reason nor right (also moral) to question the conclusions drawn from these experiences by organization staffs.
I admit, I don't truly know how to act. I realize the procedure of the election committee very well — I would be very reluctant to quit even these individual contributions, for the financial needs of the campaigns are large and much depends on their fulfilment. However, it is crucial for me to protest. The talk that “this scandal” will not change anything, in specified situations—in specified situations my full experience confirms it—effective opposition requires a boycott of evil law and evil customs, everything else is consent, powerless cries of protest too. In my current situation, ignoring the call for clarification will simply consequence in the return of donations to donors. A situation as discriminatory as a request for clarification.
The Left Committee could refrain from requests of this kind, and the expected conclusions of the PCW would appeal in court as being discriminatory — and, if necessary, go through the full procedural way with global tribunals included. However, I realize the reasons for submitting to these absurd directives of the PCC. The failure of the subsidy is simply a large failure — winning in Strasbourg (always uncertain) does not settle the substance after many years that would gotta pass.
If I were alone as an election committee — as I had specified a committee 4 years ago, and now I could not — I would not make any specified suggestion. The hazard of failure of subsidies would not be anything in this situation that would be irresponsible. On the contrary, it would be an asset to increase the power of protest. I have experience here too. In a tiny substance of prescriptive sentences, in which I managed to force the courts to convert fines to prison sentences, it was adequate to go to prison 1 time for 2 days, so that in all subsequent cases I would simply be released. Whether there was any legal reason for it or not. I have reason to believe that the number of sentencing convictions after this motion of mine has besides fallen noticeably. The failure of even millions of subsidies due to the abroad name Hoffman, de Nisau, Geppert, would surely be a scandal that could not be overlooked. The absurd account we are facing present — giving up subsidies for the honor of defending individual people from (let's say) not so terrible a situation — would then be reversed: for 3 names and someone's associated paranoia, the Polish state risks a scandal of respective million and an global scandal.
I compose about it due to the fact that it's not about irresponsible, detached idealism. Rather, it is simply a cool profit and failure account on both sides of the dispute in this embarrassing and possibly sinister case. Why sinister? due to the fact that if we call the boycott of discrimination Hoffman, Geppert and de Nisau irresponsibly political suicide, we will besides call this “arcist” run of Frank Sterczewski on the Belarusian border and we will arrive on this road to those applause standing in the Sejm in honor of “border defenders” — those liable for the torture and death of innocent people in Podlasie. Almost all opposition clapped so together with brown PiS. The left didn't clap, which makes me feel comfortable moving from her letter today.
I know the measure, I don't justice these practices. I'm looking for a solution for me. And I don't. In this, however, I see another of many differences between organization politics and real politics, between organization representation in the Sejm and civic representation. There's 1 more thing I won't do but join any organization parliamentary club. I will not enter the Sejm alone, without a group of friends, subject to my ban on the Sejm. I will not make a vow to the Constitution knowing perfectly well that it is broken virtually on the ridges of people without a court without guaranteed in the Constitution of Rights. It will be worth not obtaining a mandate despite elections. It is not for me to calculate profits and losses — let the ruling majority worry about that.
I'll do it due to the fact that it's the right thing to do. Fascist regimes can't give back a millimeter without resistance, due to the fact that it always ends badly.
