Priests endanger 3 years in prison for "saying hate"

Fr. prof. Tadeusz Guz – a well-known philosopher and preacher – has just received an indictment. He is facing 3 years of imprisonment for “calling to hate”. This is simply a very peculiar case. That is why I am asking for your support, which will let us to supply the most professional defence for the priest professor.

However, the importance of this substance is much wider. The indictment is part of a run to exacerbate and extend punishments for “talk of hatred” in Poland. The bill will send Donald Tusk's government to the Parliament any day now.

The indictment against Fr. Prof. Guz is simply a extremist abuse of the law. Our conviction of the innocence of the priest and the scientist is shared not only by the listeners and viewers of his lecture, but besides by the law enforcement authorities and authorities of the Catholic University of Lublin – the professor's home university! His case had previously been dropped twice by the territory Attorney's Office in Warsaw. The decision was upheld by the territory Attorney's Office. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Ombudsman of the CUL besides dismissed the case of the lecturer, and this decision was sustained by the Disciplinary Commission of the CUL, after careful assessment of the content of his lecture and the explanations he had submitted.

How, then, is it possible that the priest will be brought to trial and threatened with imprisonment?

The prosecutor, Fr. Prof. Guza, has taken advantage of an extraordinary measure, which is simply a subsidiary indictment, acceptable erstwhile the prosecution powerfully refuses to prosecute the alleged perpetrator. The accusation besides included professors of KUL, who were accused of “publicly praising hatred speech”. How would they do that? Well, by failing to look at the responsibility of Fr. Prof. Guz and dropping the disciplinary case.

The content of the indictment itself is besides simplistic. In search of any arguments for the fact that Fr. Guz is spreading hatred, the accuser quotes extensively in him... comments of netizens under the video of the lecture posted on YouTube. The words of the prof. himself were besides mild. If the prosecution had presented them honestly and in the context of the full lecture, everyone would have come to the conclusions expressed by the Disciplinary Commission of the CUL: ‘No 1 has insulted and insulted’, ‘presented his own explanation of historical facts’, ‘not slanders and lies, but cognition gained from technological analyses based on available origin materials’.

What did Fr Guz say that his accusers are so stubbornly seeking to convict a priest? To be honest, in these first paragraphs of my letter, I did not compose anything more about the content of the professor's lecture or mention the name of the prosecution organization.

Before my letter reads the content of the accusation, it should be stressed again that the lecture of the prof. was examined respective times by competent – state and academic – bodies. Neither many prosecutors nor a university disciplinary committee have seen the crimes.

Our taking up the defence of Fr. Prof. Guz active a peculiar risk. The opponent wants to make his legally hopeless cause... a loud conflict with “Polish anti-Semitism”, attributed stereotypically to Catholics. In this way, the defence of Fr. Prof. Guz is to become impossible, and any defence of freedom of speech will be treated on an equal footing with the alleged crime of the "talk of hatred" of the priest himself. A informing for us and for all the priest's defenders is to be included in the indictment of members of the university disciplinary commission. It's a wonder the prosecutor didn't file charges... with prosecutors who have been making a number of mistrials.

We have months to work. The opponent wants to attack not only the priest and scientist, but besides the global storm around the alleged Polish acceptance for cultural hatred. Hence, only a step to the introduction of Adam Bodnar's already-prepared "speak of hatred" legislation. In this battle, all argument in the defence of Fr. prof. Tadeusz Guz will be torn out of context and presented in a curved mirror. Any defender will be a victim of slander.

However, if we refused to help, the way to destruct freedom of speech, freedom of thought and academic freedom in Poland would be an opening. The enemy of freedom does not want the substance of historical fact to be settled in a debate on arguments. He wants criminal law to replace research, discipline and reason.

I believe your support will enable us to carry out this highly delicate defence operation in victory. We defend not only the priest and scientist, Fr. prof. Tadeusz Guz, but we defend freedom of speech and science, and yet we defend the good name of Poland, which is one more time attempted unwarrantedly to "stick" with the image of the anti-Semitic country.

It is time I gave you the facts on the case of Fr. Prof. Guz. This will be a circumstantial list and will be without any grades. For all added word can be ripped out of context and can become water on the mill of accusers.

So:

1. On May 26, 2018, Fr Tadeusz Guz gave a lecture entitled “How God Will Complete the past of Salvation”. The lecture took place at the Pilgrim's home "AMICUS" at the sanctuary of St. Kostka in Warsaw, where there is simply a grave and museum of Blessed Fr Jerzy Popiełuszko.

2. The lecture was combined with the promotion of the book “Salvation Takes its Beginning From Jews” published by the Loretanek Sisters Publishing House, by Catholic convert American hebrew Roy H. Schoeman. The author of the book describes Judaism as an crucial phase in the past of salvation and acknowledges that it is complete in Christianity. Moreover, the author argues (by showing, for example, the roots of Nazi anti-Semitism) that attacks on Jews and Judaism were rooted, not in Christianity, but in anti-Christian forces.

3. At the end of the long lecture, Fr. prof. Tadeusz Guz digressiously considered the sources of anti-Semitism of arabian and European, recalling the fact that the courts of the First Republic condemned the Jews “for ritual murders”. This passage became the essence of the accusations, was investigated by the prosecutor and Disciplinary Ombudsman of the CUL. Abstaining even from historical assessments, the priest's words did not call for resentment or hatred at all, and the lecture resulted in an encouragement to pray together with the words of Saint Edith Stein, converted to judaic Catholicism, murdered by German torturers in Auschwitz.

4. When, after the organizers placed the lecture on YouTube, co-chairs of the Polish Council of Christians and Jews demanded the KUL to punish Fr. He pointed out that:

- "the in-depth examination of these historical facts in the spirit of fact serves primarily a reliable consequence to non-scientific anti-Semitic stereotypes";

- has repeatedly defended the dignity of Jews in his technological work to date, in peculiar against anti-Semitic writings by Marcin Luther or Georg Hegel;

- cases of ritual murders were undertaken both by contemporary publicists and contemporary historians, and were written about by prof. Ariel Toaff of Bar-Ilan University in Israel or... father of postmodernism, author and erudite Umberto Eco, defending prof. Toaff in a 2007 essay.

5. prof. Tadeusz Guz in the Open List invited all who demanded harsh penalties for him, for technological and public debate. In doing so, he announced his willingness to change his assessment of the facts if the arguments of his opponents led to this. The answer from the prosecutors never came.

At this stage, the initiative in the pursuit of Fr Tadeusz Guz took over the “Jewish Association B’nai B’rith in the Republic of Poland”, a well-known social organization whose lodges are established in many countries of the world.

However, the Polish branch of the organization has no good press or feeling in the national public debate. In 2021, Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski, the Jews' destiny in the selected districts of occupied Poland, became known for defending the authors of the controversial “Next Is Night. The B’nai B’rith Society then issued a peculiar message in which it named the authors of the book, widely criticized for their deficiency of credibility, “outstanding researchers”. On the another hand, the judaic B’nai B’rith Association claimed in the same message that “the fact that during the Nazi business Poles were like another nations – any saved Jews and others, much more numerous, spent – they had not yet reached Polish minds and Polish souls.” Let me comment that if Fr. Tadeusz Guz's accusation of "a speech of hatred" were to be admissible, the controversial historical views of the accusers of B’nai B’rith would besides be threatened by the trial. Freedom of speech so protects both sides...

There is no uncertainty that the subsidiary act of prosecution commissioned by the B’nai B’rith Association aims to trigger a national and global scandal in which Poland would be re-presented as the homeland of anti-Semitism, accepting the call for hatred, and the anti-Semitism itself would be again, insincerely "sticked" with the Catholic Church, with religion and Christian identity.

The accomplishment of this goal neither corresponds to the fact about the thousand-year coexistence of Poles and Jews nor serves dialog and cooperation in a spirit of knowing and common respect. The only beneficiary of the destructive confusion would be the prosecution's organization itself, which would present itself as the sole defender of the dignity of the judaic community after a tornado of charges.

Thus, while defending prof. Tadeusz Guz, we defend the Polish public debate against turning into an emotional whirl of mutual, frequently unreliable accusations and accusations. Overcoming the accusations made against the priest and the scientist is an crucial step towards promoting rationality and respect for arguments.

But this case can only be the beginning of a real ideological and political censorship in Poland, which present dreams of representatives of Donald Tusk's government.

The government is presently working on a bill that provides for the public prosecution of prosecutors throughout the country for ‘hate-invoking’ due to ‘sexual orientation or sex identity’ and ‘insulting groups of the population or individual individuals due to their (...) sexual orientation or sex identity’. The fresh offence is to be threatened with "punishment of imprisonment up to 3 years".

We may say that the services and the prosecution will gotta interpret these vague terms - which are not defined in the Act - according to the explanation of genderists. In practice, therefore, there will be a request for radicals calling for censorship in the name of combating the “talk of hatred”. As a result, people who pay attention to the absurdity and harmfulness of LGBT's political agenda will be punished as “hatemakers”.

LGBT activists organizations are pushing for fast changes in law. In July, Deputy Minister Maria Ejchart hosted representatives of the run Against Homophobia. The authoritative Communication published after the gathering states that 1 of the topics raised was "the revision of the Criminal Code on hatred Crimes and hatred Speech".

In our defence of freedom of expression, we gave the Members a position in which we discussed legal doubts about the government's draft amendments to the Criminal Code. It shows that the task raises serious doubts about compliance with Article 54(1), which "everyone ensures freedom of expression".

We have besides published a legal comment on the draft Irish law on the penalisation of the “hate speech”. It provides for the implementation of ideological provisions relating to sex ideology. According to the project, the word "gender" is to be 1 of the discriminatory grounds for criminal liability for hatred crimes. Under this ideologically defined concept there are subjective feelings of certain persons expressing their ‘sexual preference’ or ‘sexual identity’. The Irish task is more stringent than the Polish project, as its authors request punishment of “hatemakers” not 3, but 5 years in prison.

Without waiting for the bill to be put on the table, Minister Adam Bodnar set up in June a squad of anti-hate speech advisors and prejudice-motivated crimes aimed at "preparing systemic, comprehensive and detailed strategies against and punishing specified behaviours". It is so possible that the impact on freedom of speech will begin before the adoption of the bill. If that happens, our lawyers will defend the victims of ideological censorship.

In order to make our people aware of the dangers of fighting “the speech of hatred”, we published the book “The Speech of hatred – the horse of the Trojan Cultural Revolution”, by Adv. Rafał Dorosiński, associate of the Board of the Ordo Iuris Institute, which explains in an accessible way the genesis of the concept of “the speech of hatred”, its meaning and discusses concrete examples of victims of ideological censorship carried out in Western countries in the name of the fight against “the speech of hatred”.

The book reminds us that the first initiators of the fight against “the speech of hatred” were russian diplomats who powerfully urged to include a ban on the promotion of “hate” and “fascism” in global treaties. specified imprecise records in the Communists' head were to be utilized to fight the political enemies of communism. The thought was taken over and taken over by Western Marxists from the critical race theory, who shaped the concept of “talk of hatred” into a functioning figure. The model strategy of its application was created in the essay "Repressive Tolerance" by Herbert Marcuse, who proposed that, as part of his fight against intolerance, censor and discriminate everything that is incompatible with Marxist doctrine. In practice, it boils down to "an intolerance to right-wing movements and tolerance to left-wing movements"

In the book, we besides point out that “the speech of hatred” does not have a clear and precise definition, which translates into conceptual confusion. This is very convenient for people calling for a fight against the “talk of hatred” which thus has an almost unlimited chance to usage it. As a result, no one, and in no situation, can be certain that his message will always be regarded as a manifestation of “the speech of hatred”.

Discussing the stories of victims of the fight against “hate speech”, we write, among another things, about a Spanish biology teacher in a public advanced school, who was suspended in responsibilities due to alleged homophobia due to the fact that he taught that there were only 2 sexes: male and female. In the same country, a family-run tv station was fined €100 000 in the fight against the “speak of hatred” for issuing pro-family spots, in which LGBT images were combined with questions: “Do you want specified a society?”, “The pride of what?”. We are besides describing the case of the Swiss bishop, to whom proceedings were initiated for quoting the Bible during the debate on matrimony and family. In turn, the British politician moving for the European Parliament was arrested only for quoting a part of the book critical of Islam... Winston Churchill.

We have defended Fr. Prof. Dariusz Oko against allegations of “talk of hatred” in Germany

In the book we besides describe the outrageous case of the Polish priest and scientist, Fr.Prof. Dariusz Oko, who was sentenced in July 2021 by a court order by the territory Court of Cologne for alleged "inciting hatred" to a fine of EUR 4,800 or serving 120 days in German detention. The conviction was handed down without the participation of Fr Prof. Oko, who learned about the full case erstwhile he received a written sentence.

The pretext to cast unfounded accusations against the Polish clergyman was his concern for... the destiny of victims of sexual harassment. Fr. Prof. Oko published a technological article in the German renowned technological diary Theologisches, a fragment of the book “Lavender Mafia”, in which the clergy examined the phenomenon of an intra-ecclesiastical organized crime group connected with homosexual practices, acting to the detriment of minors and utilizing its dependent clerics. The text was accompanied by accurate technological bibliography and footnotes, including Pope Benedict XVI.

However, he aroused the opposition of the German priest, Fr Wolfgang Roth, whose past is confirmed by Fr. In the past, Fr. Rothe was vice-president of the seminary in the Austrian St. Pölten, about which the Italian paper “Corriere della Sera” wrote that it was “a cave of monstrous pedophiles, a perversion theatre, a Habsburg Sodom.” The German clergyman was removed from his position in an atmosphere of scandal erstwhile the media published photos on which Fr.Rothe kissed the clergyman, and the rector of the seminary Ulrich Küchl laid his hand on the genitals of another clergyman. erstwhile police conducted a search on the premises of the seminary, they found more than 40,000 pictures and pornographic films on a seminary computer. Presently, Fr. Rothe appears regularly in German media, where he talks about... his homosexual tendencies, admitting that he breaks celibacy. The German priest besides blesses single-sex couples.

The intervention of our lawyers, who, in cooperation with German lawyers, became active in the defence of Fr. Prof. Oko, ended with a favourable settlement for the Polish priest. The German prosecutor resigned from pursuing a clergyman who can now print his articles and books in Germany without hindrance.

Freedom of expression is the basis for all civilian rights and freedoms and a democratic regulation of law. The restrictions on freedom of expression in peculiar must not apply to the sphere of technological investigation and historical facts and spiritual teaching.

The introduction of censorship under the cover of “a ban on hatred speech” will affect all Pole over time, and in schools, churches, universities, workplaces and even in families, you will gotta look out for all word again.

The commitment to the defence of freedom is simply a necessity for us to bear advanced costs that we cannot bear without the aid of people like you who care about the defence of freedom.

We estimation that the costs associated with the defence of Fr Tadeusz Guz will be at least PLN 20 000. Without our participation, a brave priest will be deprived of professional legal support, which will likely translate into a triumph for the censors. The suing clergy organization active 1 of the most costly law firms in the country. All the more reason we cannot let go and leave Fr Prof. Guz without help.

With respect

Adw. Jerzy Kwasniewski - president of the Institute for Legal Culture Ordo Iuris

P.S. So far we have successfully defended freedom of speech and conscience in the loud issues of prof. Bogdan Chazan, Fr. Prof. Dariusz Oko, Prof. Ewa Budzyńska, worker of IKEA, printer from Łódź and defenders of life from all over the country. However, it is adequate to neglect in this 1 case, so that a series of victories become a question mark, and censorship of the word became a Polish reality.