Wojciech Olszański, known as “Jarat”, was duly convicted by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal for the words given at the Grudziądz Assembly in 2022. The judges qualified them as a public incitement to hatred against judaic people, and after correction they measured a year and a half restrictions on freedom. The case sets a legal limit on freedom of expression.
The appeal closed the proceedings
The court of appeal concluded the case of Wojciech Olszański with a final conviction. The basis were statements from the public assembly held in Grudziądz in 2022. The judges assessed them as incitement to hatred directed against judaic people.
Following the appeal, the punishment was reduced to a year and a half of restrictions on freedom. It's a punishment of a different kind than imprisonment, so she's not allowed to be portrayed as a year and a half in prison. The origin material made available does not describe the circumstantial obligations imposed on the sentenced or the full motives for the decision.
Freedom of speech is bound by law
Freedom of expression is 1 of the foundations of a free state. It besides protects harsh, unpopular and uncomfortable views for the ruling. Without this protection, public debate rapidly turns into a strategy of administrative consent to say only what they accept influential environments.
But protecting freedom of speech does not mean agreeing to call for hatred against people due to their nationality. In this peculiar case, the court stated that Wojciech Olszański crossed the line of law. The final nature of the judgement removes the earlier uncertainty as to the result of the procedure.
This limit must be applied precisely. The state cannot throw into a single bag of criticism of ideology, assessment of historical politics and actions aimed at people due to origin. Case of acquittal of the Reconquista chief She showed that the prosecution itself did not prejudge guilt. The final decision has already been taken in the Olszański procedure.
Liability of the person, not collective
The conviction concerns a peculiar man and his actions. It does not give emergence to the work of any wider environment or to limiting the legitimate political and social activities of others. The state of law is to justice individually, on the basis of evidence and regulations.
The same should be done to those against whom proceedings are pending. The State should prosecute real force and illegal acts, not views as such. The discrimination between extremist opinion and criminal incitement to hatred protects citizens from arbitrariness and at the same time protects the dignity of those attacked by origin.
National movement needs discipline of word
For the Polish right, the stakes are serious. Defending the national interest requires courage, but besides responsibility. Hostility towards people due to nationality does not strengthen Poland. It strikes the gravity of the national idea, distracts from the real problems of the state and gives the opponents an excuse to identify patriotism with cultural hostility.
The right should defend the sovereignty, historical fact and the safety of Poles without complexes. In doing so, he must clearly cut himself off from calling to hatred. A tough political dispute is within democracy. The action yet judged to be a violation of the law shall be charged to the perpetrator and should be named by name.
Source: WP News
Source: WP News
