Jankowski: The Devil is in the details

With this not first title, I invitation you to the gathering area of the Warsaw – Prague confederate Court, where, this time in a somewhat expanded company, I had the chance to observe the political process conducted by the president of the Confederation of the Polish Crown, Grzegorz Braun.

The affirmative character of this episode was to be a “indiscriminate and independent” historian, Jan Grabowski, supported equally by an “indiscriminate and independent” entourage from “Gazeta Wyborcza”.

Historical solution

On the surface, the case seems even obvious. Grzegorz Braun, hiding behind the MP's immunity, joined the historian's lecture and in an highly brutal way ripped out his microphone and destroyed the sound strategy to prevent the free presentation of investigation results. Only that no of it is actually true. The KKP leader realises how small parliamentary immunity means erstwhile it comes to political struggle. Here they can defend each other, e.g. KO Members with PiS Members, but this does not apply to others. Secondly, Braun did not conspire in any way only with the open helmet sat in the front row (and thus did not "interrupt" as the media reported behind Grabowski). The microphone did not "bring out" either, due to the fact that it was on the stand, and the "damaged" hair did not fall off the head. People who are fond of "verifying information" have late insisted on their articles "add context", so let's do the same and in this case.

First of all, due to the fact that it truly matters, the lecture was to be held at the German Historical Institute, a facility operating in Warsaw to preach concrete historical narratives – as it is not hard to know – favourable for Germany. Jan Grabowski was to teach. Titled “Professor”, although in Poland with habilitated doctor privileges (this procedure is intended to increase the authority of the recipients). He was, of course, expected to talk about the results of his research, whose main thesis is the work of Poles for the Holocaust. The consequence of specified publications, therefore, is (in my opinion, not "immediately") at least partial removal of guilt from the Germans, who thus consistently decision on the line of the criminal-victimist in the second direction. After all, we are increasingly proceeding about “nazis” alternatively of Germans, so the final version of this task will be the popular belief that in 1933 Germans got under Nazi business and after occupying the territory of the Republic they did everything to defend Jews from Polish anti-Semites. Grabowski creates a susceptible ground for this, the question of what methods.

However, before we go to those methods that Grzegorz Braun's defence presented to the court, let's look at this subtle example of manipulation utilized by the ruling Polish organization of Komradors, which tries to embarrass us from childhood to keep us as far distant from postulating our own sovereignty. It is “collective responsibility”. Well, the same people, who in the last fewer days curse to Poles not to justice Ukrainians by the prism of the priest's murderer in Jarosław, punish us at all turn with the alleged guilt of the Polish nation for the degree of the genocide of Jews during the German occupation. So it's not like we're looking at any defenders of civilization talking about individual autonomy, but alternatively other we have a full corp whose primary intent is to convince us of guilt for something that's totally against our will and without the slightest part of us at the decision level.

The shame operation

The defence of Grzegorz Braun on 92 pages of the paper gathered the criticism that appeared over the years towards the publication of Grabowski. The court wouldn't perceive to that. He besides did not want the “damaged” answer questions about the nature of his publication. Grabowski has holy status. That's what he came for. Yaroslaw Kurski, until late the deputy super-editor Adam Michnik (born brother of “the” Kurski, as if individual did not know), for this, too, among demonstrators before the court, he walked and provoked Wojciech Czuchnowski, another officer of this front. possibly it was expected to put extra force on the court. In any case, the effect was that in the courtroom we could not hear anything about Braun's motivation, and yet it is important, which, however, in the next part of the text.

In this document, which may besides be published as a publication, we can read the summary of the criticism of Grabowski's works, by historians specified as Piotr Gontarczyk, Bogdan had to, Tomasz Roguski. They're not my heroes, but that's all the better, due to the fact that at least I could get to that reading with the right distance. There's no way to study the full position, but let's just show what better flowers are there. Grabowski is besides very selective in applying witness statements. Even erstwhile a witness changes evidence at any stage, he repeats another people's stories (which Grabowski will not indicate), the findings of the case are opposed to the testimony, and erstwhile there are apparent contradictions between them, the authoritative historian of course settles them in favour of the chief one. It's precisely the same with sources. If Grabowski has 2 victims to choose from, he will consider the larger 1 valid. To make the impression that Poles have a greater share in any crime than “commonly recognized”, our lecturer can even change the order of events. Even the very presence of people of Polish nationality in a given place and a given time can service the thesis of co-judgment in crime, although it is likely that it came from the coercion of the occupier. And most importantly: Grabowski carefully omits this context, that is, the character of the German occupation, which was aimed at the demolition of Polish residents from the very beginning, not only Jews. So hoarded by “Gazeta Wyborcza” the “researcher” understands perfectly, that the actions of Poles in the conditions of German panic were dictated most frequently by the will of the occupier, forced by the harshest penalties, including death. Grabowski understands this, so he does not mention it, so it is our work to fishy his bad will.

The amount of manipulations that Grabowski does in his “search” makes this last word taken in quotes. But that should be crucial to the result of the court. Meanwhile, the judicial authorities of the Republic are trying to make an impression that this does not substance in the process. Grabowski's lecture at the German Historical Institute is to be protected from any interference within the framework of “free speech”. Only that the authority of the scientist must besides contain his responsibility. Especially erstwhile it comes to state counsel for science, and this is the case. Grabowski spoke not to a group of friends in a private lecture room, but under the auspices of the University of Warsaw, which gave its own patronage. And that's the key to knowing Braun's reaction.

Pursuit of the hunter

It is only after specified an vulnerability of the full event that we can effort to answer the question whether Grzegorz Braun found himself in a "state of higher necessity" and whether he responded to it accordingly. Braun, on all episode of this court series, is being accused of causing any individual harm to alleged victims. Jagielska was to be ‘unlawfully detained’, although the right to take is widely known and entitled Each. Even the subsequent designation of the deficiency of criminal work by the stated or, for example, the low harmfulness of the act, does not imply an acceptable responsibility. The law knows Article 28 of the Criminal Code, which regulates the issue of mistake as to the characteristics of a prohibited act, i.e. the situation in which the perpetrator misjudges the reality in relation to the elements of the crime described in the Act. However, the problem is that, in the case of Braun's intervention, law enforcement authorities are persistently neglecting their own responsibilities, so they do not even carry out a formal check on the actions of those covered by it. There's even a reverse process. People are judged to be “publicly commending the crime” in relation to Braun's actions, which no 1 has yet legally declared illegal. Natalia Ruś has already received a judgement for this, and Konrad Hand. The investigation has just been suspended. Thus, Grzegorz Braun acts under conditions in which this country does not fulfil its basic functions. But can he be blamed?

However, it would seem appropriate to examine whether a man utilizing the resources of a abroad state (which is the German Historical Institute in Warsaw) who possibly (this should be decided by the said authorities!) on order of the the thesis which reconciles with the good name of the Polish nation, utilizing apparent manipulations in this case, does not commit the crime referred to in Art. 257 kk, which besides obliges the State to react? And should the associate who intervenes in specified a case be tried first, even if the primary issue which the circumstantial state has created is not resolved? Should we truly focus on a passerby who stops a thief, or did he sometimes get besides damaged erstwhile a thief's state lets go? I don't know about Grabowski's guilt due to the fact that that's not my role. I note only the disproportionate reaction of state institutions to the participants of the event.

Finally, however, beautiful spirits will tell us about methods. That possibly Braun should just scream, or possibly just compose a polemic to Grabowski. This is as serious a proposal as the ones that fell during the protests of the EP. Andrzej Lepper “Let farmers not block roads!” Of course, as part of the protest, let them throw the rake into the field and stand forever. The right to protest is not an empty slogan, and if it does exist, it must besides consequence in the right to take over-normative action, specified as the dumping of poisoned grain or the interruption of the lecture with the prevention of it. It's against appearances that are very similar. Grabowski runs his business for more than 20 years. If at that time the state could not react, Braun has the right to a reaction that can attract attention. And that goal has just been achieved. How many people would fall for this education of shame supported by the German national Republic and directed towards the Polish people if it were not for Braun's intervention? We'll most likely never know, but this should be taken into account by a man who wears a chain with a Polish eagle around his neck.

Tomasz Jankowski