Yesterday, two scenes surfaced that reveal a striking inconsistency in the so-called smiling Poland. The same circle in power that would have the country adopt a single lifestyle model now faces questions about its own performative virtue.
Inside the Sejm, several MPs, Equality Minister Katarzyna Kotula, and activists joined in a protest through dance against violence toward women. The value of the action aside, it isn’t the central point here. The focus shifts to what the moment represents and how it is interpreted by different audiences.
There is more to discuss.
READ ALSO: Disco in the Sejm? The left calls it a “fight for women’s rights,” while MPs began dancing. “Got Talent” without Marshal Hołownia’s participation, is the commentary that followed.
Officials highlighted that the disco on Ash Wednesday, the start of Lent for Catholics—a period of fasting and reflection—took place in a Catholic-majority nation. The question that follows is simple: should a parliamentary act on a sacred day be considered neutral, or is it inherently a cultural statement?
Neutrality is a legitimate aim for state institutions, including the Sejm, which are expected to remain secular.
Yet neutrality cannot slide into disregard for religious sentiment. The nation’s Catholic heritage is deeply woven into daily life, and events staged in the heart of government carry a symbolic weight. The choice of Ash Wednesday to stage the protest appears deliberate, signaling a message that goes beyond the immediate cause.
If the aim was only to raise awareness of violence against women, alternatives could have been chosen. The organizers pressed a clearly audible message by selecting the day and setting, which makes the message difficult to ignore.
It is important to note that the permission for the event was granted by the Sejm’s presiding officer, Szymon Hołownia, who publicly identifies as Catholic.
READ ALSO: Reactions to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson’s response drew online scrutiny. Comments ranged from “arrogant” to “unprofessional.”
Wroński and the journalist exchange
The second moment unfolded at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after a press briefing. Republika TV faced a refusal when the interior ministry spokesperson Paweł Wroński blocked journalist Michał Jelonek from asking a question of Minister Radosław Sikorski. When Jelonek pressed, querying whether one editorial office would receive three questions while another would be left without one, a former Gazeta Wyborcza journalist replied, “Sir, this is a good idea.”
The spokesperson, paid by the public, is supposed to serve all media and citizens. Yet, in this instance, the stance felt more akin to a private tone than official accountability. Such behavior raises concerns about accessibility and the duty of public officials to answer questions from any newsroom that represents the public interest.
Reasonable expectations for transparency clash with perceptions of arrogance. The comparison drawn by observers suggests that a different standard might apply to journalists from private versus public outlets, with implications for media freedom and institutional trust.
Questions persist about whether this approach will invite consequences or simply become part of a broader pattern. The prior work of a former communications figure on social media is cited by critics as evidence of how easily such exchanges can influence public perception and discourse.
Two routines from the everyday life of what some label a permissive Poland come under scrutiny. The underlying question remains for readers: is boldness in public demonstrations compatible with the expectations placed on public institutions?
Source: wPolityce