Participants in Donald Tusk’s march, which has commonly been described as the so‑called “March of Hate,” confronted an opposition leader and a journalist from TVP outside the network’s headquarters on Plac Powstańców. The clash erupted as Adam Borowski spoke during an on‑site interview. Derisive chants and insults were directed at Borowski, but no one attempted a physical assault. The crowd’s chants included the name of the PO chairman as the confrontation unfolded.
Witnesses said they heard hostile remarks as Borowski conducted the interview with TVP. He responded by saying that those gathered were asserting a vision of “democracy” that would deny him the right to speak. He characterized the crowd’s behavior as an example of a political culture in decline, contrasting it with the principles of open debate that he believes should underpin any democratic society.
In Borowski’s account, the moment reflected a broader pattern of intimidation tactics that were perceived by some as aimed at silencing dissent. He stated that the episode did not involve physical contact, but described the atmosphere as tense and disrespectful. He suggested that the confrontation was part of a broader scene at the march, where aggressive language and provocative statements were common occurrences for participants and bystanders alike.
According to Borowski, organizers had allowed certain forms of expression that, in his view, bordered on vulgarity. He argued that the rhetoric observed on the ground indicated a lack of respect for opposing viewpoints and for the norms that govern public demonstrations. He pointed to noise, insults, and personal attacks as evidence of a political climate that had drifted away from constructive dialogue.
Additional remarks from participants highlighted a sense that the event was marked by a division between protesters and those who dissent. Some former opposition figures who were in the assembly commented on the mood of the day, noting that the atmosphere would have benefitted from more orderly conduct and clearer boundaries between freedom of expression and respect for others. They emphasized that no one should be subjected to intimidation, regardless of political affiliation.
Observations at the scene suggested that there were varying levels of involvement among attendees, with individuals from different age groups taking part in chants, which some described as aggressive or provocative. Reports noted the absence of a visible police presence at a critical moment, prompting discussion about crowd management and public safety during large demonstrations. Critics argued that stronger security measures could have helped prevent escalation, while supporters contended that the event should be allowed to proceed with minimal interference in order to preserve the right to assemble and to express political opinions.
The discussion surrounding the march extended beyond the events of the day. Debates emerged over the responsibility of organizers to set a civil tone and to ensure that protests remain focused on policy differences rather than personal attacks. Observers called for a clear distinction between legitimate political expression and actions that degrade the exchange of ideas or intimidate opponents. They also urged media coverage to maintain balance, accuracy, and accountability in reporting on demonstrations and their participants.
READ MORE:
– OUR REPORT of the March of Tusk. What do the authors of vulgar passwords have to say? “Hitler rules us”; “The Good Ending”
– Spooky slogans on Tusk’s march, inscriptions reminiscent of earlier crises. “I am a hunter’s daughter. I am good at shooting ducks”
kk/TVP info