By Agnieszka Wądołowska (tekst dostępny również w języku polskim)
While Amnesty International was active in Poland under communism – helping repressed workers and the democratic opposition – only in 1990, after the transition to democracy, could it become officially established in the country.
We spoke with Draginja Nadaždin – director of Amnesty International Poland – about her organisation’s 30-year history in Poland and the issues it deals with there today, including LGBT and women’s rights, the defence of judges, and the threats to freedom created by the pandemic.
Agnieszka Wądołowska: You wrote in spring that, “as a result of the pandemic, government politicians will attempt to hold on to their extended powers, forcing the choice between human rights and safety”. Have the Polish authorities managed to find a compromise between these values during the pandemic?
Draginja Nadaždin: In Poland, the main thing we have to deal with is enormous legal chaos. That is shown by the way measures to combat the pandemic have been undertaken. We see it at several levels.
For example, the fact that for a long time the obligation to wear a mask was not regulated by law, while restrictions on freedom of assembly, one of our constitutional freedoms and civil rights, were introduced with a regulation and in a way not commensurate to restrictions in other areas.
That shows that the pandemic has not been treated wholly and solely in terms of life and public health, and that it has been used to attempt to hide several things that were very awkward for the government.
This all shows that the pandemic, which is a huge challenge for every government, has not been treated as a priority in Poland, and in the steps that have been taken there is scant respect for human rights, rule of law or safety – meaning public health.
In the pandemic situation, though, where health and lives need to be protected, it seems essential to restrict certain freedoms or rights.
The right to protest and freedom of assembly are fundamental human rights, and any decision to restrict them, even if it might be rational in relation to the pandemic, should be implemented in a clear, marked and proportionate way.
Restriction of freedom of assembly must be commensurate with other restrictions. It cannot be the case that this right is restricted, while other situations in which the disease might be spread are not covered.
The restrictions on freedom of assembly were introduced arbitrarily. Court rulings from recent days have emphasised that a regulation cannot prohibit freedom of peaceful assemblies.
On the other hand, we also saw that they were not introduced at an equal speed in comparison to the restrictions introduced in other important situations where infections might take place.
Safety concerns must not be abused or be a way of stifling the possibility of expressing opposition to any government decisions. Unfortunately, the Polish authorities did not treat freedom of assembly as one of the fundamental human rights.
Which other human rights do you think are threatened in Poland?
Amnesty International also deals with issues concerning the rule of law, because the threat of independence of the judiciary directly translates to human rights, and especially to access to an independent court and a fair trial.
I also say this in the context of the decision of the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court to strip Judge Igor Tuleya of his immunity. That is one of these issues that are the best demonstration of what is happening regarding the independence of the judiciary in Poland and the attack on judges’ independence.
Another is the question of reproductive and sexual rights and of the discrimination, and even demonisation, of LGBTI people. Here we see a certain universal mechanism which can be applied to different social groups. And that is why this is an area that we absolutely must not neglect.
How has Amnesty been involved in such matters as the Judge Tuleya issue?
The core of our activities in such situations is all kinds of solidarity actions, both in Poland and in the world. Above all, it is important that we do not allow a person to be abandoned who is attacked solely because he adjudicated in a case, and at the same time expressed critical views concerning the reform of the judiciary.
On the other hand, in several cases, Amnesty has also functioned as an amicus curiae, that is as a third party before the human rights court in Strasbourg, which is considering the cases of judges who found themselves in the government’s sights.
Our job is also simply to document the effects of the so-called reform of the judiciary and to show what it means in practice when enormous power is transferred into the hands of one person – the justice minister, who is at the same time the prosecutor-general.
Judges inconvenient to the government may be suspended, and others will start to be afraid or will have the potential impact of their pronouncements on their own situation in the back of their minds, or whether they will face consequences for the decisions they have taken in accordance with the law. This is the “chilling effect”.
Some have said that AI’s actions regarding Judge Tuleya or in defence of an LGBT activist indicted for creating an image of the Virgin Mary in a rainbow halo are proof of the politicisation of the organisation, which declares itself to be “impartial, independent and apolitical”.
The starting point for us is defence of human rights. When the government is not protecting those rights, and is even attacking them, regardless of whether we agree with the opinion or actions of a given person whose rights are violated, Amnesty defends them.
Regarding the activist who faces imprisonment for sticking up posters with the image of the Virgin Mary in a rainbow halo, that is a case that brings together both questions of freedom of expression and those of protection of LGBTI people.
We are witnesses to LGBTI people being attacked by the authorities, by people in very high positions in the state, and that is a situation when we cannot remain silent. Our experience shows that every government that we criticise will go to great lengths to dismiss or undermine the choice of matters we deal with.
As for the question of the judiciary, although this is an issue involving major structural changes, the campaigns to vilify judges operate with similar mechanisms to the demonisation of LGBTI people, which Amnesty cannot fail to respond to.
This mechanism of vilification has already been used by the government more than once towards other social groups. That was the case during the election campaign in 2015, when we witnessed the scapegoating of refugees and immigrants.
We also see that this kind of system of attacking and dismissing combined with threats is used towards people fighting for women’s rights and taking part in protests against the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal on limiting access to legal abortion.
But still, although Amnesty has been operating in Poland for 30 years, it became especially active when the Law and Justice (PiS) party came to power. Would you agree?
Amnesty International’s activity in Poland, in terms of momentum, depends on the public support that Polish society gives to the organisation. Since Amnesty is gaining in strength, we also have more resources to act and our activities are more visible.
On the other hand, unfortunately for the last few years we have been observing a distinct attack by the government on human rights. The government generates this whole mechanism of hatred and demonisation of specific groups. In this situation, Amnesty absolutely cannot be passive.
But Amnesty didn’t undertake so many activities during the Civic Platform (PO) government, e.g. against the increasing surveillance of citizens or after the editorial office of the Wprost weekly were raided.
Amnesty International was very much involved, for example, in issues concerning abuse of so-called national security in the context of the struggle against terrorism, secret CIA prisons and torture of people detained in Poland.
Those were subjects which we devoted a lot of attention to at the time, and which directly concerned the actions of both the prosecutor-general and the executive. Although that was a very awkward problem for the government of the time.
For reasons unknown to me, the prosecutor’s office did not complete that investigation in any way, did not draw any conclusions or held anybody culpable.
There is one more thing too. A social movement like Amnesty will never be able to replace the public prosecutor’s office and state structures. That is why our situation will always be that if we concentrate on one issue, we might not have the chance to react to another one.
Amnesty’s involvement in the abortion protests has also been much criticised. The right-wing media have written that Amnesty is lobbying for “killing on demand”. What is Amnesty really doing in this regard?
Back in 2007, we spoke out against the criminalisation of women who decide on an abortion, regardless of the reasons. We also noticed that everywhere where the right to abortion is restricted, the law is de facto not respected, and in practice these obstacles to performing a legal abortion are much larger and more common than the law suggests. There is also very often stigmatisation.
In 2018, however, the global Amnesty movement decided that a broader approach to this issue was necessary. Regarding abortion, we appeal for acknowledgement of autonomy and the right to decide about one’s own body. But also for the limited right to abortion to be viewed as something that increases inequalities. We call for decriminalisation of abortion and universal access to safe pregnancy termination for all.
I think that one thing that might be striking regarding the situation of access to legal abortion in Poland is the fact that there is a false belief that Polish society is very conservative in this respect, whereas many studies show that Polish society sees this issue completely differently.
A few years ago, you were mercilessly attacked by then MP (now Constitutional Tribunal judge) Krystyna Pawłowicz, who wrote on Twitter, “go back to your own country, woman”, and accused you of representing a “leftist” organisation. Are such attacks common?
Attacking specific people to dissuade them from acting is a well-worn model. Unfortunately, it is a shared experience for many defenders of human rights, many activists, not only of Amnesty, but generally social activists fighting for human rights.
Hugely important in such moments is solidarity – between activists and social organisations, between various movements, between various areas, between various sectors. I experienced it myself when they tried to discredit me.
This solidarity is one of the things they are jealous of. This is the power of the powerless, which is based on stamina and solidarity.
* Draginja Nadaždin, since 2007 director of Amnesty International Poland. Member of the Social Council at the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights. In 2014 she was awarded the Gold Cross of Merit by the President of Poland.
Main image credit: Krzysztof Cwik / Agencja Gazeta
Agnieszka Wądołowska is deputy editor of Notes from Poland. She has previously worked for Gazeta.pl and Tokfm.pl and contributed to Gazeta Wyborcza, Wysokie Obcasy, Duży Format, Midrasz and Kultura Liberalna
