Aleksandra Dulkiewicz appeared on TVN24 to discuss the sentencing of the person who murdered Paweł Adamowicz. In her remarks, she did not shy away from criticizing public media and she also referenced the death of the son of MP Filiks. Her message was clear: punishment for the crime cannot reverse the loss of life, but it should be part of a broader reflection on how society handles extremism and hatred.
She stated that while justice is essential, it cannot bring President Adamowicz back. This sentiment set the tone for a broader warning against cultivating hatred and division in public life. Dulkiewicz urged listeners to recognize the damage that hostile rhetoric can inflict on civic culture, emphasizing the need to break cycles of animosity rather than fueling them with every new comment or headline.
Her concern extended beyond individual incidents. She questioned whether society has truly learned from past episodes or if it simply shifts the focus without making meaningful changes. The notion of a “hatred factory” continuing to churn out harmful content was a recurring theme in her remarks, suggesting that discriminatory narratives persist regardless of who is in the spotlight.
In a pointed critique of the public media, Dulkiewicz again drew attention to the case of Paweł Adamowicz, noting that in 2018 the media, described as public, mentioned the president more than 1,800 times. She argued that the coverage was often not positive, and in many instances not neutral, highlighting how media portrayal can shape public perception and influence the social climate surrounding political figures.
The suicide of a child in the public discourse
Dulkiewicz also referenced the death of the son of MP Filiks, treating the event as a tragic reminder of how personal losses can be exploited in political debate. She connected this tragedy to the broader pattern she observed: society tends to respond to violence and grief with reactive rhetoric rather than with thoughtful, sustained reflection.
The recent tragic events in Szczecin served as a stark example for the mayor of Gdańsk of how a community reacts under pressure. She argued that there is a tendency to leap to conclusions too quickly, rather than allowing space for careful examination and responsible discourse. This perspective underscored her call for measured, compassionate dialogue even in the heat of controversy.
According to her account, there was little reflection in the case of Gdańsk’s president, and she challenged the notion that public media alone drove the harmful actions of Paweł Adamowicz’s killer. Instead, she asserted that political rhetoric and personal hostility can contribute to an atmosphere where violence is more easily legitimized in public debate.
Readers may recall a widely circulated line connected to this discussion: political hatred did not kill him; the killer, Stefan W., did. The emphasis here is on distinguishing the malice embedded in discourse from the individual act of violence, and on recognizing how inflammatory rhetoric can normalize aggression in political life.
Ultimately, the discussions on TVN24 touched on responsibility—responsibility shared by politicians, media, and citizens alike. The call was for a more conscientious approach to language, more careful reporting, and a commitment to healing civic trust. The broader question remains open: how does a society balance free expression with a duty to prevent harm, and what concrete steps can be taken to reduce the power of hatred in public life?
Citation: wPolityce