On the 1 hand, we have the protection of religion and individuals of a peculiar religion. On the another hand, in the same law, the protection of the sexual alleged ‘orientation’. These 2 types of protection cannot be together. The Church has the task of pointing out to people that homosexuality and its promotion is evil, is sin. On the another hand, there's nothing incorrect with homosexuals. What do you do about it? I think that the practice in the courts will look like they can number on acquittals, and we will be condemned," says Kaja Godek, leader of the Life and household Foundation.
How did you take the consequence of your Thursday vote on the alleged hatred speech?
I draw attention to the most crucial thing in this case: this is simply a prelude. Prelude to the introduction of various laws that implement the LGBT agenda and which are either in preparation or are already waiting for the adoption. The ruling coalition is well aware that Poles do not want these laws, that there will be immense protests. Therefore, the rulers request first to take care of a kind of prevention measurement – to suppress criticism of the LGBT agenda. For this reason they start by penalizing criticism of LGBT. erstwhile adopted, all another items of the LGBT agenda, specified as partnerships, will enter. We can even anticipate gay couples to adopt children. There will besides be more force to introduce the elements of demoralisation under the dictatorship of homolobby into schools.
There will besides be a sharp trial with the Church. The palalization of LGBT criticism is aimed mostly at the Catholic Church, especially at priests. Priests will be able to go to prison, for example, for reminding what a sodomy sin is or quoting the letters of St Paul, who wrote explicitly that homosexual relations are a perversion.
We are talking about extending the scope of Article 257. It is commonly said that it concerns “the speech of hatred”. There have been respective categories protected by this article for a long time, including confession. However, as we observe, courts frequently regulation in cases of profanity or blasphemy or insults directed at Catholics or saints we worship, that there has been any artistic creation, permitted publicist or that we are dealing with a low harmfulness of the act. Why are you worried that, for example, the LGBT environment will be dominated by another explanation of the same article?
That's due to the fact that we're talking about rules that are mutually exclusive. I draw attention – referring to the last example with priests – that it is impossible to defend the LGBT environment and defend the Catholic Church or the clergy at the same time.
Priests are obliged to preach the teaching of the Church, and the teaching of the Church on perverts is absolutely clear. And now there's confusion. On the 1 hand, we have the protection of religion and individuals of a peculiar religion. On the another hand, in the same law, the protection of the sexual alleged ‘orientation’. These 2 types of protection cannot be together. The Church has the task of pointing out to people that homosexuality and its promotion is evil, is sin. On the another hand, there's nothing incorrect with homosexuals. What do you do about it? I think the practice in the courts will look like they can number on acquittals, and we'll be convicted. I have no uncertainty about that.
As the situation in the judiciary is already looking, I can tell you quite a few things firsthand. I'm just following a judgement in a case that's been dealt with at first instance for the second time. The justice ordered me to apologize to homosexuals, which, of course, I will not do, I intend to appeal this sentence. This is the process which I had in 2018, in the civilian mode of 16 LGBT activists, presently there are 15 of them, 1 died along the way. Long before I received the lawsuit, they walked across various left-wing media and told them why this trial, what's in the lawsuit, and what they wanted to achieve. They raised the point, among another things, that due to the fact that the penal code does not penalize what they call “the hatred speech”, they must hotel to the replacement of the civilian procedure. They described their tactics directly.
What we are experiencing present – activists, public figures, journalists criticizing LGBT movement and then having processes – is the reality that awaits all of you. All of them. due to the fact that here's the Facebook entry where you criticize the LGBT lobby or even laughter at people walking in the Parade of Equality and looking stupid – this is already to be punished. What's more, it'll be a criminal case, a completely different trial than a civilian one. They won't gotta force themselves to look for reasons, prove that there's been a violation of any kind of goods. This behaviour will be pursued by the prosecutor!
Next: The critical voice at school against lessons that contain LGBT propaganda will besides be penalized. You won't be able to defend your children. Further, the sermon in which the priest will begin quoting Saint Paul will be penalized.
This reality, which touches us present – publicists, activists, journalists, public figures, will become the participation of each of you. Everyone will be able to be held responsible, and even have to.
It is hard to find a priest who will usage insults against homosexuals, although condemning their lifestyle; fewer LGBT critics actually pose real threats to this environment or to circumstantial individuals. More aggression – ridicule, vulgar insults, threats, profane images of our saints – meets on the another side. Are we the Catholics expected to go to jail due to the fact that we're gonna make fun of a female wearing a beard?
We are in a happy situation, not the first country to effort to introduce akin rules. We can see the effects they had in the West: they hit average people. The problems in schools had teachers who told students that there were only 2 sexes – we remember casus Mr Jose Luis Barron Lopez of Spain, who was stripped of his wage and was suspended from his profession. In Canada, 1 of the students of the school was arrested for a akin claim – nominally Catholic.
I will besides draw attention to this phrase: "hate crimes" or "hate speech".
The dictionary definition of hatred says that this is simply a certain strong feeling. However, the law is not written in specified a way as to penalize feelings or to convince individual of specified or another intentions. You should penalize circumstantial actions.
Currently, the full LGBT lobby, due to the fact that they deficiency arguments, is looking for a substitute for its argument. He is making a decision to conjecture or to emphasize feelings. Let me give you another example from my last trial. A week ago before the verdict was announced, I had a chance to attest that since gays rape children, it's in the children's interest to tell and inform their parents. At the time, I was asked by the lawyer for reasons: “Did you not think at least for a minute that a homosexual might hear and be sorry?”
In this way, the LGBT community tries to match 2 incomparable values: the physical safety of children and its subjective feelings, the question of whether they are actual at all. They effort to make the emotional component more crucial than the harm that can become a child. I was truly shocked that I received a question brought to the dilemma: “Why do you inform against kid rape erstwhile a homosexual can hear it and feel bad about it?”
We'll get to a planet in which values are absolutely reversed. Children are not safe, you cannot inform against pedophiles due to the fact that we focus on whether the delicate hearts of 1 LGBT activist or another will tremble with sadness.
Are you hoping for any presidential veto? It seems to be the last instance that can halt this tragic revision of the Criminal Code.
I don't count, I definitely anticipate him. The president cannot leave Poles in this situation! Honestly, I'm a small scared. I have the impression that president Duda, at the end of his second term, very much hopes for a position in an global body and likes "political correctness". I mean, for example, the signing of the Finance Act. in vitro A year and a half ago. another gestures he made to various leftist lobbies. Let me put it this way: the interest of Poland is veto for this bill, a definite veto, not e.g. signing the amendment and sending it back to the Constitutional Court, due to the fact that in this case the fresh bill will be valid for at least a while. This should be a clear veto – throwing these recipes in the trash can. If the veto doesn't happen, we'll all have a large problem in a minute. As I mentioned, this amendment is being prepared as a prelude to many another laws implementing a dangerous LGBT agenda – a dangerous 1 for the society, which compromises spiritual freedom, which threatens those who have the least defence capabilities – that is, children.
The household environment should, Do you think you can aid the president make the right decision? Are they gonna do that?
I think all citizen should be demanding a veto from the president at this point. On the way is the Senate, whose composition is not optimistic. On the another hand, I believe that Senators – those who inactive think about Poland – should besides protest this bill.
What do you think of the PSL attitude that supported the amendment in the Sejm?
Donald Tusk is implementing a plan to destruct the PSL. He brings the PSL to areas specified as voting for the LGBT criticism penalization bill. This will be a well-known fact in agrarian areas, in tiny towns – that it was PSL that allowed gay and lesbian communities to dare and that any criticism against them was strangled. It's the PSL vote that's gonna hurt. Tusk ordering the people to vote in this way implements a clever plan to destruct this group from the political phase by cutting off from their own voters.
Roman Motoła spoke
