Szubartowicz: The government failed the exam. Duda gave them his hand

It is astonishing that the politicians of the ruling coalition did not chorally brag about the success, that Andrzej Duda signed the bill on the posting of judges, prepared by the Minister of Adam Bodnar, but publically avenged that the president had sent the fresh rules on "talk of hatred" to the Constitutional Court of Bogdan Święczkowski.

Meanwhile, in the second case – most likely involuntary – the head of state helped Rafał Trzaskowski and his campaign.

Hell of censorship and self-censorship

In the sense that the rulings were, in effect, shielded from unleashing the incriminating debate on the dangers of the state limiting the top accomplishment of liberal democracy, which is freedom of speech. Especially at a time erstwhile this agenda is all over The West is taken over by the populists of the fresh kind and the extremist right under the slogan "restore normality".

In the case of an amendment prepared by the authorities, those who believe that the hell of censorship and self-censorship are the good intentions of fighting hatred in public debate. The authors of the changes decided to supplement the existing catalogue of premises for hatred crimes. Age, gender, disability and sexual orientation were added to national, ethnic, racial, spiritual and non-denominational affiliation. According to critics, specified a set would give area for free overinterpretation.

Of course, in the very assumption, it is very noble that the legislator wants to defend the selected groups (and characteristics) from the weight of words, which, especially in the digital era, increasingly service as stones, but which is simply a kind of severe, but nevertheless sublimation. A word is not a thing, and you gotta do everything to keep it from becoming one. Meanwhile, extending the codex restrictions, at the same time the field of abuse is widened, which requires at least deep reflection in specified a fundamental substance for Western civilization, which is freedom of speech.

Political correctness disease

And that thought was lacking. Like a serious debate that would end with a political and social consensus. The authority simply felt that the fight against “the speech of hate” should be started with fear, not with education and prevention. And it's in an age in which liberal mainstream is scattered with social fears. The consequence was a paradoxical situation, that the right abruptly began to defend freedom of speech against liberals and the left. This reversal of roles may be a symptom of our time, but it is besides a symptom of pure hypocrisy.

Because it is the right hand that is always the first to punish for the insult "religious feeling", even erstwhile acts of "profanation" are carried out as part of artistic provocations in art galleries, theatres or cinemas, so where freedom of speech should be peculiarly protected. possibly now the right-wing opposers of change felt that if they wanted to restrict freedom of speech in a delicate area, they would now be tempted to restrict that freedom in spheres that they willingly criticized or attacked.

I am neither a right-wing opponent of these changes nor a liberal supporter of them. I am besides not a lover of hatred or an opponent of fighting her. I simply believe that at a time erstwhile the illness of political correctness destroys all proportions in public debate, the knowing of metaphors dies and social media turns into safety vents for anonymous frustrations, it is not adequate to punish and gag to accomplish the intended goal.

Tutors for the ruling

Wise power – especially 1 whose tradition dates back to times erstwhile censorship was an enemy, freedom of speech a goal, and allusion, irony or mocking with weapons – should take account of the relation between ideas and reality. It is worth sending the rulings back to tutoring on these issues, whose in-depth analyses will be successfully found, for example, in prominent films by Miloš Forman, specified as "Scandalist Larry Flynt" (1996) or "The Ghosts of Goi" (2006), as well as in the celebrated "Ghost of Freedom" (1974) by Luis Buñuel.

I would truly like to live in a country where there will be a rational debate about whether men who consider themselves women should compete in women's sports and usage women's toilets. A debate without tiresome concern that the state will look at it through the prism of the penal code, in which the "talk of hatred" is linked to the sex issue. And sex has become strictly political in fresh years.

There are inflections both right and left. To this day, I remember my exchange with left-wing politician, erstwhile Deputy Minister of Justice, and a large admiral of changes to the rules on the “talk of hate” by Krzysztof Śmiszek, who, known as the phraseological relation “discovering America” I used, called “Rasist neocolonialism”. Among another things, freedom of speech means that everyone has the right to even specified absurdities. But that's what makes you laughter to usage it under these circumstances.

Freedom of speech besides means that while it should always be responsible, at the same time society usually has to pay for its existence a part of its comfort. At the very least, with the next effort to make changes, I hope there is simply a serious debate which would scope citizens, and the power would be more delicate to not necessarily right-wing arguments.

Przemysław Szubartowicz