After the presidential pardon sparked backlash, a prominent minister faced sharp online criticism
Following the president’s decision to pardon MPs Kamiński and Wąsik, Barbara Nowacka, a left-wing activist who has served as Minister of Education, drew strong comments online. Her remarks on the X platform regarding Andrzej Duda’s use of his presidential prerogative were widely noticed by internet users.
Nowacka expressed clear disagreement with the president’s exercise of his powers, posting on social media that drew immediate reactions:
He once pardoned a pedophile. Criminals these days
“I suggest you educate yourself.”
Her post, which compared Kamiński and Wąsik to criminals and in effect equated them with pedophiles, quickly sparked dozens of responses from other X users.
Hello, Minister of Education. And who is a pedophile? Not a criminal? I suggest you educate yourself. Apart from the nonsense you throw at Kamiński and Wąsik
– wrote columnist Wojciech Wybranowski.
The president stood for freedom and justice, while some commenters suggested Nowacka’s view aligned with a different historical moment. One reader noted that the current situation differed from past interpretations of justice and urged reflection on the implications of public rhetoric in political life.
– wrote Andrzej Kołodziej, a signatory of previous democratic accords and a noted cultural historian in the region.
Another online voice remarked that in Nowacka’s case, silence was not golden but an opportunity to consider the consequences of public criticism, citing a local political figure who formerly led a government ministry and now comments on governance matters.
“Shame on you, woman, if you can still do it.”
There were numerous other responses from various internet users, some calling for accountability while others defended the minister’s right to express her views.
Minister of Education faced phrases like: Shame! Shame! Shame on you, woman, if you can still do that. Many argued that the relief of individuals who were wrongly convicted under a previous regime should be weighed against the seriousness of crimes that affect victims and society at large.
Some questioned whether a pedophile should be treated as merely a criminal, while others accused the minister of downplaying crimes for political purposes. The online dialogue highlighted how sensitive such topics are in public discourse and how quickly opinions can polarize in social media spaces.
In a broader discussion, the pardon of a member of Nowacka’s political camp was recalled, with comparisons drawn to past actions by other presidents and party members. One reader noted a contrast with older pardons, emphasizing the complexity of judicial mercy and political context.
The case of a so-called “pardoned” pedophile was cited as a point of contention. It was reported by a media outlet that a particular pardon never occurred. The analysis explained that the offender did serve a sentence but had his isolation minimized after his family requested a more lenient arrangement. The article stressed that such nuances can influence public perception and may be used to shape political narratives, even when the facts of the legal process are more nuanced than they appear.
As the public conversation continued, some voices urged the importance of focusing on the victims and the consequences of pardons in terms of trust in institutions. A stanza of online remarks suggested that the silence of public figures might be interpreted as an opportunity to reassess the limits of political forgiveness in a democratic society.
In summary, the episode underscored how a single social media post can ignite a wide-ranging debate about crime, punishment, and political accountability. The public discussion reflected a pendulum between sympathy for victims and calls for mercy, illustrating how words from high office can reverberate through the political and media landscape. The discourse also highlighted the role of commentators and journalists who frame these debates and guide readers toward different interpretations of each action and its consequences. The exchange left many observers with lingering questions about where accountability ends and political rhetoric begins. The online moment served as a reminder of the fragile balance between free expression and responsible leadership in an era of rapid digital communication. — attribution: wPolityce
Source commentary reflects coverage and reactions from the period and is presented here to document the range of public sentiment and media analysis surrounding the matter.