Poland’s Freedom Lovers Call on President Duda to Veto Donald Tusk’s ‘Hate Speech’ Law

Tomasz Daniluk, Ordo Iuris

• Over 30,000 signatures were submitted by the Ordo Iuris Institute and the Center for Life and Family urging President Duda to veto the “hate speech” law passed by the Polish parliament on March 26.

• A separate appeal signed by philosophers, scientists, and publicists also called for a veto, warning of the law’s dangers to free speech.

• The concept of “hate speech” is seen as vague and open to abuse, potentially leading to censorship and suppression of public debate.

• Similar laws in other countries have resulted in legal actions and arrests for using traditional pronouns or stating biological views on gender, as well as prosecutions for religious speech or peaceful protests.

Petition Delivered: Over 30,000 Signatures Against Tusk’s “Hate Speech” Law

On April 4, representatives of the Ordo Iuris Institute and the Center for Life and Family submitted to the Chancellery of the President of Poland more than 30,000 signatures on a petition to veto the law on combating “hate speech.” The Polish parliament passed the law on hate speech on March 26. As of that day, President Andrzej Duda has 21 days from its receipt to veto it.

An Appeal to President Andrzej Duda, Signed by Dozens of Public Figures

Earlier, on March 31, the Ordo Iuris Institute sent an appeal signed by dozens of Poland's well-known philosophers, scientists, journalists, and commentators to the President's Office.

The signatories of the appeal point out that “the presidential veto on this issue is the last bastion of defense of constitutional rights.” They also argue that the concept of so-called “hate speech” is now becoming a tool used against freedom of expression.

“It is under this banner that censorship and gagging of public debate are carried out today. Initially, this phenomenon took hold in the digital space, only to demand a place for itself in the criminal codes after a few years,” the appeal stressed.

The signers of the appeal also note that the introduction of such regulations in other countries has resulted in numerous censorship actions.

“We are seeing cases of arrests for the use of gender-appropriate pronouns, criminal charges against people praying outside abortion clinics, or priests preaching on marriage and family. Proceedings are underway against organizations that remind people of the objective, biological reality of gender,” it was pointed out.

The signatories also stress that the law contradicts the principle of equal treatment.

“Instead of providing equal treatment to all citizens, the law favors selected groups, creating a hierarchy of 'protected' and 'unprotected' citizens,” it wrote.

Among the signatories of the appeal are representatives of various scientific fields—history, philosophy, sociology, pedagogy, theology, and psychology. The appeal was also signed by well-known Polish columnists and journalists alongside representatives of social organizations.

Legal Analysis from Ordo Iuris

The Ordo Iuris Institute also submitted a legal opinion on the amendments to the President of Poland. The author of the analysis, attorney Rafał Dorosiński, who is a member of the board of the Ordo Iuris Institute and the author of the book Hate Speech – The Trojan Horse of the Cultural Revolution, points out that the adopted amendments to the Criminal Code threaten the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. The analysis notes that the obligation—arising from the principle of a democratic state ruled by law—to maintain the requirement of sufficient specificity in legal regulation is not fulfilled with regard to the category of “sexual orientation.” In addition, the law is intended, as pointed out during the parliamentary process, “to implement international recommendations on the standard of protection against hate speech and hate crimes.” This “protection” or “fight” against “hate speech” is, in fact, the subject of much controversy and is legitimately seen as one of the most important threats to freedom of speech not only in Poland, but also throughout the Western world.

In its opinion forwarded to the President, the Ordo Iuris Institute further notes that laws restricting constitutional rights and freedoms (including freedom of speech) must comply with the requirements of Article 31(3) of the Polish Constitution. The censorship law does not meet these requirements. Ordo Iuris also notes that there are currently a number of criminal and non-criminal measures already protecting everyone (regardless of any particular characteristic or form of self-identification) from violence, incitement to violence, threats, insults, and defamatory statements. The introduction of this new regulation is therefore unnecessary.

Controversial Guidelines from Donald Tusk’s Justice Minister

Without waiting for the law to go into effect, Justice Minister Adam Bodnar, who assumed control of the prosecutor's office last January—dismissing the national prosecutor and appointing a new one without the legally required approval of President Duda—has already issued guidelines to prosecutors on the fight against so-called hate speech.

This is what Rafał Dorosiński wrote about these guidelines on April 2 on X:

“Shocking guidelines 'on the conduct of proceedings for a crime motivated by prejudice' were issued by Attorney General Adam Bodnar.
The quintessential 'fight against hate speech' doctrine—a veritable display of rule-making based on vague, discretionary, ideological criteria intended to create a mechanism to oppress ideological opponents and bury freedom of speech.

So how should this look in practice according to the ‘guidelines’?

1. Prosecutors specializing in prosecuting ‘hateful’ acts are to be appointed.
   Cases involving, among other things, ‘acts committed because of group affiliation or against the background of differences related to that affiliation’ are to be referred ‘exclusively to the offices of designated prosecutors’.
2. The document focuses on establishing the motivations, feelings, thoughts, and even views of both the author of the statement and the person or group to whom it is addressed.
   The document provides for an examination of the perpetrator's views.

They can 'have evidentiary significance and affect the assessment of the degree of social harmfulness of the act, as well as the final shape of the criminal response'.
In the course of the investigation, the offender's activity should be investigated to the fullest extent possible, in particular by analyzing the content he publishes on online social networks and other media’.

The prosecutor should also keep in mind that ‘statements phrased in the indicative mode may also be considered incitement [to hatred]’.

3. The utmost delicacy is to be exercised toward ‘victims’ of, for example, a statement or other ‘criminal content,’ including the use of preferred pronouns, while toward ‘perpetrators’ all circumstances are to be sought in favor of criminal prosecution.
4. Among other things, ‘intolerant views and attitudes’ are to be combated.
5. The point of reference is to be the publications of organizations lobbying for the socio-political demands of selected groups.

‘If the matter under analysis has not been the subject of scholarly studies, one should consult materials created by organizations dedicated to protecting the rights of discriminated groups and their members, or question the author of such materials or a representative of the relevant group.’

6. The guidelines provide for searches of email inboxes and seizure of electronic devices belonging to those suspected of posting ‘criminal content’ in public spaces.

The features to be protected by the ‘guidelines’ include:

• Race, nationality, affiliation or ethnicity, religion (in practice: non-Christian) or irreligion
• Sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex (despite the absence of these grounds in the Criminal Code)

These fit perfectly into the most fundamental and contentious public debates today, including:

• Mass immigration – an issue of almost existential importance for Europe and Poland
• Family – the environment in which a person grows up, forms, and roots himself in the heritage of previous generations

Of course, there is also the category of disability and age [in the new ‘hate speech’ law], but this is the typical ‘lipstick on a pig’—used instrumentally to create the impression that there is more at stake here than just the above two areas.”

President Duda’s Position

Meanwhile, in statements to the media this week, President Duda has already made it clear that he perceives the “hate speech law” passed on March 26 by Donald Tusk’s ruling coalition as an attempt by the liberals and the Left to gag public debate and restrict the freedom of speech of their political and ideological opponents.

The Ordo Iuris Institute therefore hopes that President Duda will indeed veto this new law.