Will Nitras “file” Terlikowski?
Nitras did not stop at making fat-shaming remarks about PiS politicians. He also directed a pointed, almost provocative remark at Tomasz Terlikowski, the host of the broadcast. When asked about his other controversial lines, including the claim about Catholics submitting, he suggested he could also “submit Terlikowski.” The exchange left listeners puzzled and raised questions about how far his rhetoric might go in public discourse.
The lawmaker later amplified his message with a blunt and unsettling statement, saying that if someone who is Catholic wished to enjoy the privileges granted to the Church in Poland at the expense of others, he would ensure they were made drunk. This stark comment drew immediate criticism for its tone and implications, prompting observers to call for clearer boundaries in political dialogue.
On the other hand, he framed his position as a call for equal rights, asserting that believers and non-believers should share the same civil rights and that the Catholic Church should face tighter legal and financial limitations on its privileges. He suggested that such a reform could be achieved through constructive agreement, positioning the stance as a potential basis for bipartisan compromise.
“These are not sick people, they looked normal.”
When asked about whether the link between public officials and access to state funds involved stigma toward obesity, Nitras emphasized that his aim was not to insult individuals who are overweight. He argued that, in his view, those who benefited from public money were misusing it. He asserted that the critique targeted the use of state resources rather than people’s appearances.
He reminded audiences that appearances from two decades prior are irrelevant to current accountability, while insisting that public money should be spent with responsibility. He reiterated his belief that anyone who siphons funds from the state ought to be held answerable, and that the practice of drawing on state resources without restraint must end as part of a broader reform of public finance.
Defending his language as symbolic, he claimed that the word “disintegrate” was not an insult but a metaphor for excessive, unchecked use of state funds. The phrases about Brudziński and Sasin were presented as examples of the way some officials appear to lose control when handling public resources, not as an indictment of their character as people.
In this context, he reiterated the controversial line about those two figures, insisting that the concern lay with how public money is managed rather than with the individuals’ health or integrity.
Cooperation with PSL and Hołownia?
Speaking on the potential electoral coalitions, Nitras outlined a clear objective for the coming elections: to secure reforms to the abortion law in Poland, allowing abortion up to 12 weeks, aligning this stance with the program of the People’s Platform. He framed this as a decision to be left to the voters, rather than a political maneuver aimed at short-term gain.
He also left space for possible cooperation with Poland 2050 and PSL, acknowledging that conversations could take place privately rather than in the glare of public debate. He suggested that working quietly behind the scenes might help bridge differences and facilitate pragmatic agreements, even if his party would not necessarily receive universal backing for every policy point.
He noted that dialogue with other factions extended to a discussion with his co-chair and deputy speaker in the Sejm. While acknowledging divergent paths, he asserted that the party remained supportive of the broader left-leaning coalition and wished the left the best in the electoral process.
“I think we’re going to win this election”
In assessing the electoral landscape, Nitras expressed confidence that the opposition could secure victory in the parliamentary elections. He described the opposition as a larger assembly with corresponding responsibilities, and observed two opposing trends: a gradual, steady rise for his side and a steady decline for the ruling party. He suggested voters are watching the dynamics closely and expect a shift in tone from political groupings that have often clashed publicly.
He commented that, regardless of whether voters back KO or other parties, there is a shared expectation for a more constructive style of political communication. He criticized the recent internal bickering and suggested that the electorate desires a more measured and respectful discourse from all players. He emphasized that coalition partners should align their language with voter expectations and avoid inflaming tensions further.
Ultimately, Nitras argued that the public will reward clarity and accountability. The opposition’s aim, he suggested, is to present a credible alternative and to communicate a vision that resonates beyond partisan lines, while remaining mindful of the broader political climate and the responsibilities that come with leadership.
In summary, the discussion highlighted a mix of confrontational rhetoric, contentious policy proposals, and strategic openings for coalition-building. The central issues—economic accountability, church-state relations, and reproductive rights—were framed as battlegrounds in which the public will decide which path to take. The conversations underscored the complex, often volatile nature of political dialogue in Poland and the fragile balance between accountability and civility in the public sphere.