During a broadcast of Debata Dnia on Polsat News, Paweł Jabłoński held up a photo of Tomasz Zimoch and alleged that the new Polish MP deliberately flashed a crude gesture during a parliamentary debate. Guests on the show, including opposition MPs, defended Zimoch and even pressed him to state his side of the story. Zimoch himself said he was stunned by the accusation and demanded a public apology from Jabłoński, which the deputy minister issued later on Platform X. Yet Zimoch remained dissatisfied.
In the published image, Zimoch appears with his middle finger resting on his chin. Jabłoński claimed the gesture from the new National Council of the Judiciary member was meant to convey a vulgar message. The moment was described as a provocative cue directed at voters who supported PiS.
“Please take a look. Everyone can judge for themselves; I am simply illustrating it,”
emphasized the PiS MP, underscoring his belief that the action was not accidental. Jabłoński argued that the gesture was directed at Poles who cast ballots for his political coalition, turning the moment into a larger debate about standards in public life and the behavior of MPs.
He recalled a past incident involving Joanna Lichocka, pointing out that she faced strong scrutiny for a similar gesture. He challenged critics who would lecture about norms, suggesting that they apply double standards when judging members of the ruling party. The exchange highlighted the fierce partisan rhetoric that tends to accompany conflicts of this kind.
Anger and confrontation
The deputy head of Poland’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, Jabłoński’s remarks sparked strong reactions among Zimoch’s colleagues. Piotr Borys picked up the phone to ask Jabłoński to clarify the basis of his claim and to push for accountability in a public setting. The tension quickly escalated as voices rose in defense of Zimoch and a call for precise language about intent surfaced in the conversation.
“Mr Paweł Jabłoński, if you say something like that, you are a total liar, a person without any principles, and not just good manners. It’s a scandal what you say. I’m furious,”
said Tomasz Zimoch, reflecting the offense and the sense that the moment had become a personal attack rather than a mere comment on parliamentary conduct.
Clarification and apology
In the days that followed, Jabłoński issued a post on the X platform attempting to de-escalate the situation. He stated that Zimoch’s extended middle finger was not intended as an insult but described it as an unconscious “palm-palming” behavior. While he admitted that certainty about intent could be debated, he expressed a reluctance to assign malice and offered a formal apology for suggesting deliberate provocation.
“I do not want to presume bad intentions, even if the standards applied to MPs differ,”
the deputy head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote in his message, signaling a move toward reconciliation, though it did not fully quiet the dispute. Critics argued that the response was overdue and questioned the consistency of accountability across the political spectrum.
“Mr MP, you could have chosen to withdraw from the air and simply say, I am sorry. Instead, you let the moment pass, and now there may be consequences,”
commented Zimoch, signaling that the dialogue might continue within parliamentary ethics channels and potentially shape future discussions about decorum in political life. The atmosphere around the exchange underscored how a single image can ignite a broader conversation about expectations, speech, and public intent in professional politics.
In the aftermath, observers noted the rapid evolution of online discourse: an allegation, a clarification, and a near-instant public response that attempted to reframe the incident as a matter of interpretation rather than deliberate provocation. The episode illustrated how political figures navigate sensitive moments on air, with repercussions ranging from public perception to formal ethics scrutiny.
The exchange also highlighted a recurring pattern in contemporary politics: when a controversial gesture or remark occurs, both sides quickly mobilize arguments about norms, double standards, and the boundaries of acceptable discourse. The incident served as a case study in how politicians manage reputational risk and respond to accusations in the modern media environment.
In summary, the debacle centered on a controversial gesture during a parliamentary debate, the accusations and defenses that followed, and a cautious attempt at reconciliation through a public apology. It reflected broader tensions over accountability, standard of conduct, and the strategic use of media to shape public interpretation of events.