Solidarity counts the most. Human rights after Adam Bodnar

Share

Ph.D, Assistant Professor in the Poznań Human Rights Center of the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of…

More

Poland of 2020 openly undermined the present concept of human rights protection on an unprecedented scale. The same year saw an awakening of social awareness and mass mobilization in defense of human rights. What will come next?



We know the illusoriness of lofty declarations of respect for human rights as a permanent state in confrontation with “realpolitik.” However, never before have we seen such an open undermining of the very foundations on which international systems of human rights protection are based.

 

Never before has this reality been so meekly accepted by the public. Perhaps one of the causes of this submissiveness hides in the evident takeover of the human rights discourse by populists and circles that understand human rights in a manner completely opposite to their true essence.

 

A telling example is the issue of freedom of speech and its guaranteed protection in the context of promoting content that is xenophobic, infringing on the LGBTQ+ people’s dignity, or offend people with particular social and political views. Under the guise of protecting the freedom of speech of a “discriminated minority with conservative views” or even protecting the “majority rights,” hate speech gains the status of an equal type of utterance in the public space.

 

In such a reversed narrative, it is no longer those who deny nonheteronormative people fundamental rights and freedoms that are treated as violators of human rights – they cast themselves as victims of such violations instead. Vulgar jokes about victims of the Holocaust broadcast on public television are now but a “commentary” to the current political events.

 

A perversion of justice

It seems that Poland of 2020 experienced a long time coming and rather successful change in the positioning, understanding, and observance of human rights in social and legal dimensions. On the one hand, we witnessed the radically dangerous tendency to undermine the very legitimacy of the legal protection of human rights and freedoms, namely the campaign to denigrate – on legal and purely psychological levels – the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women. Recently, the Ordo Iuris Foundation submitted a bill to denounce the Istanbul Convention signed by 150 thousand people.

 

In 2020, we witnessed violations of basic human rights and freedoms committed with a perversion of justice, phasing out of the constitutional court that protects civil rights, depriving us of the right to a fair trial understood as an impartial and independent judiciary, and an unprecedented attack on the dignity and other fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ persons. All this was accompanied by the helplessness of international human rights monitoring bodies and the inaction of most of the Polish population.

 

On the other hand, the state of affairs simultaneously led to an unprecedented awakening of public awareness about the role of the guarantees of human rights protection and a mass mobilization in their defense.

 

However, the question remains open whether the process of relativizing and undermining the essence of human rights has not already penetrated Polish social tissue so deeply that even mass protests and movements formed around them will be unable to change the course of those threatening tendencies without reaching a critical mass.

 

Seeking means of defense

Human rights defenders face an exceptionally daunting task: to find effective methods to stop the negative phenomena, to relentlessly activate social forces to defend human rights, while continuing to fight for the implementation of particular rights and freedoms.

 

One of the methods may consist of pointing out all half-truths and attempts at hijacking the concept of human rights by its enemies, systematically reminding in public space what legal protection against hate speech is and what it is not. Another method is to not give up the fight for the implementation of a standard of protection of a particular right or freedom that exceeds the established minimum.

 

Another necessary matter is for us to introduce human rights education as early as possible.

 

However, all this requires reflection, coordination, and space to undertake action, ensure the cooperation of various actors, and mobilize also on the international level. Moreover, it requires financial support, which is a particularly troublesome measure given the systemic exclusion of human rights NGOs from the ability to obtain funds.

 

Lawyer’s responsibility

At no time or place can even the noblest and most courageous civic initiatives fully counterbalance actions of the state and its institutions that do not comply with standards of human rights protection. After all, it is the state that exercises power, concludes or denounces acts of international law, and implements (or not) their provisions. Finally, it is the state that mostly shapes social policy, education, international relations – all of which are vital for human rights in every country.

 

In such a situation, one of the key roles plays the social responsibility of lawyers who regardless of their specialization, should defend constitutional human rights and freedoms, and those deriving from treaties under international law. Lawyers should uphold civil society, support victims of human rights violations, and relentlessly remind us about the key role of guarantees enshrined in law. The Free Courts initiative can certainly be called a model for such an approach in Poland.

 

How to understand human rights

The imminent departure of Adam Bodnar (one of Wiktor Osiatyński’s disciples) from the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights will constitute a defining and critical moment for the protection of human rights in Poland. Alongside Bodnar will leave an understanding of human rights that we associate with him, which is symptomatic of current reality. It is a reality different from the one during overt oppression – yet somehow similar.

 

In The Power of the Powerless, Václav Havel writes about a society under dictatorship and oppression as composed of “interconnected vessels,” about the interdependence of attitudes, about the potential of civic courage of an individual, which will ultimately translate into fundamental systemic changes. Today, in addition to various methods of defending human rights, we actually require the same thing: civic courage. Supported by the steadfastness of courts and the active work of international institutions, civic courage may be capable of upholding the status of human rights established over the past decades, and consequently protect each and every one of us.

 

Solidarity counts the most

We do not know whether the idea of civic panels promoted by Adam Bodnar will come to fruition. But it remains the best solution in times when some negate elementary human rights and values. One of such panels should be devoted to a general reflection on human rights. Together, we may reflect on what human rights mean to us, how some try to take human rights away from us, and how to make human rights a foundation resistant to attacks of populists.

 

Human rights lawyers should carefully listen to the conclusions of such a debate and propose appropriate legal changes. In turn, this joint effort may well become the catalyst for rebuilding the value behind every system of human rights protection: human solidarity. In Poland, it is solidarity written both with lower- and uppercase “S.”

 

Dr. Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias is Assistant Professor in the Poznań Human Rights Center of the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences



Author


Ph.D, Assistant Professor in the Poznań Human Rights Center of the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of…


More

Published

March 22, 2021

Tags

Supreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsDisciplinary Chamberrule of lawjudicial independencePolandEuropean CommissionConstitutional TribunaljudgesCourt of Justice of the EUZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticeEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human Rightspresidential electionsjudiciarypreliminary rulingsdemocracyCJEUmuzzle lawJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsHungaryEuropean Arrest WarrantMateusz MorawieckiAdam BodnarCOVID-19Kamil ZaradkiewiczEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary commissionerPresidentfreedom of expressioncriminal lawOSCENational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberProsecutor GeneralSupreme Administrative CourtconditionalityConstitutionCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational ProsecutorelectionsMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWmediaPaweł JuszczyszynimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of EuropePrime Minister2017freedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaFreedom HouseVenice CommissionEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaMinistry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionWojciech HermelińskiAndrzej ZollMarek SafjanGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiPresident of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISMaciej NawackiTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan ŚwięczkowskiPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikdemocratic backslidingViktor OrbandecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJLech GarlickirecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeSupreme Court Presidentreportmedia freedomArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroconditionality mechanismMichał LaskowskiMarek Pietruszyńskihuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekcourtsOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekAK judgmentSimpson judgmentEU law primacyForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUJustice Defence Committee – KOSC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUStanisław BiernatTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaWhite PaperKazimierz DziałochalustrationMirosław Granattransitional justiceAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy Stępień2018Piotr TulejaNations in TransitSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczCouncil of the EUMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek Zubikmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerDidier ReyndersKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaOKO.pressUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatetransferK 3/21PechOlsztyn courtKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatetrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill