Vitali Mazurenko, erstwhile deputy editor-in-chief of the “International Observer” portal, excluded himself from public space when, in the program “Debate with Gozdira” in Polsat News, he called the behaviour of the Polish president “behavior of Pachan”.
In doing so, he utilized the word taken straight from the dictionary of the Russian underworld, where “pachan” is the leader of the prison mafia – a figure of lawlessness, force and terror. Thus, he committed not only an utmost deficiency of respect for the head of state, but besides an act which bears the marks of a crime.
Vitali Mazurenko has lived in Poland for respective years and has besides Polish citizenship since 2019. 3 years earlier, he described the movie “Volyn” as “a retreat of 5 years” in Polish-Ukrainian relations.
The editorial he was active with immediately cut off from his words:
"It was a private opinion of the person, spoken without the cognition and consent of the editorial board. In no way does it reflect the position of our editorial board and does it fit into the values that we follow.”
In the following part, the editorial board made it clear:
"We inform you that a decision has been taken immediately to terminate cooperation with Mr. Vitali Mazurenko. This individual besides loses the function of deputy editor-in-chief in our editorial office.”
This decision was not only justified – it was necessary. Leaving Mazurenko in office after specified a scandalous speech would be in agreement with the unprecedented attack on the President's institution.
Mazurenko's speech of speech on the show was impudent and arrogant. At the attention of Agnieszka Gozdyra, that comparing to a prison leader was crossing borders, he replied:
“Don’t lecture me.”
It wasn't a slip of the tongue or an emotional effect. It was a premeditation, with full awareness of the weight of the word used.
The scale of outrage that broke out after the show was wide. The most crucial representatives of the state took the floor. The President's adviser, Blessed God, made it clear that the substance should not end with a media condemnation:
‘W. Mazurenko's scandalous speech confirmed the legitimacy of the proposal to extend the procedure for granting Polish citizenship. The Polish constitution does not let for the removal of citizenship, but we have the right to anticipate immediate actions of the prosecution with Article 135 §2 k.k.”
The mention to Article 135 § 2 of the Criminal Code leaves no illusions – it is simply a public insult to the president of the Republic of Poland, an act threatened with imprisonment of up to 3 years.
More specifically, the President's Chancellery chief Zbigniew Bogucki commented:
“A man named Vitali Mazurenko, stating the behaviour of Mr. president Karol Nawrocki by ‘pachan’ — which in Russian prisons means criminal leader — should be prosecuted for publically insulting the president of the Republic of Poland.”
He besides pointed out that Mazurenko was a individual who received Polish citizenship – so she became active not only formally, but besides morally. alternatively of gratitude and loyalty to the country that gave him citizenship, he chose to be publically insulted.
Under force of criticism, Mazurenko issued an apology statement. He said:
"Dear fellow citizens, I am profoundly sad to hear the fact that my message in the 'Debate with Gozdyra' programme has offended many of you. Vox populi, vox dei. As a citizen of the Republic of Poland, I want to emphasize that I have the institutions of the state at the head of the president of the Republic of Poland in full respect. I apologize to everyone whose feelings may have been affected by my words.”
However, it is hard to talk of sincere regret. It was not a spontaneous apology resulting from reflection, but a reaction to mass criticism and failure of position. Mazurenka's message was not a mistake – she was a manifesto who met with adequate resistance.
It is crucial that no passage of his earlier statements contained a shadow of authoreflexion. Only after public condemnation, dismissal and summons to prosecutorial proceedings, Masurenko “knew” that he may have offended someone. He lacked the courage to admit that his words were shameful. Instead, he took a defensive stance, utilizing empty formulas and generals.
This situation is simply a informing – both for journalists and for the media. Freedom of speech is not a shield for which state symbols can be unpunished. Everyone has the right to criticism – but nobody has the right to publically spit on the offices and people who hold them. Calling the president a "pachan" is not political criticism, it is simply a gutter language. And as such, it cannot be accepted in public space.
The editorial consequence was fast and unambiguous – and the glory of it. If she had not done so, she would have shared work for this compromising statement. Meanwhile, she made it clear that Mazurenko spoke only in his own name – and he suffered consequences for it. The reaction of state representatives was no little important. A clear signal: insulting the president will not be ignored, no substance who allows it.
There is no uncertainty that Mazurenko's speech has exceeded the limits of public debate. utilizing language from the underworld, he tried to attribute to the president of Poland the characteristics of a criminal, a prison warlord, a criminal. It was conscious, brutal and absolutely unacceptable. And although he is trying to retreat under force today, his words will be remembered as an example of abuse that had to face a reaction.
