A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage)
archives of old posts
The last 100 posts, according
The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours |
of past 30 days |
of 2002 |
of 2003 |
of 2004 |
of 2005 |
of 2006 |
of 2007 |
of 2008 |
of 2009 |
of 2010 |
of 2011 |
of 2012 |
of 2013 |
of 2014 |
of 2015 |
of 2016 |
of 2017 |
of 2018 |
of 2019 |
Syndication Of A-Infos - including
RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
(en) Czech, AFED: Punishments for the Black Protest - The Court in Poznan, Poland, passed a judgment on the basis of collective guilt. [machine translation]
Thu, 2 Jan 2020 09:34:05 +0200
On Monday, December 16, 2019, a district court in Poznan, Poland, passed a sentence in a three-year trial of six persons taking part in the
"Black Protest" in Poznan on October 3, 2016. The process and the sentence itself recalls some cases from Czech Republic. ---- To begin
with, we can summarize the course of events that preceded the court itself. On October 10, 2016, about ten thousand people gathered in the
center of Poznan and took part in a protest against the total ban on abortion. Black protest. After the demonstration, a group of 1,500
people decided to spontaneously manifest themselves in front of the building of the law and justice office that submitted the bill. There
the police were ready to protect the party's office building. Several smoke bombs flew out of the crowd of protesters, then the crowd
stopped. Demonstrators and demonstrators spread banners on the ground and chant slogans. Meanwhile, the panicking police have already been
reinforced. Then there was a police intervention in which the police headlessly handed out blows to batons, even with police helmets and
using tear gas, which also affected non-stakeholders. Three people Maciej H., Jacek S. and Malgorzata C were detained at the scene of the
intervention. The detainees did not inform the detainees of the reason for the detention. After 23 hours, when they were not even provided
with water, they released them accused of attacking a public official.
Many people were injured lightly and seriously during the intervention. A group of people who wanted to report on police action during the
intervention was not released to one prosecutor. Joanna H., who was allowed to speak to the prosecutor, was subjected to scandalous behavior
by the prosecutor, who humiliated her, downplayed the matter and offended her comment. The investigation of her announcement, as well as the
announcement of two other persons (Iwony J. and Jilue H.), who also complained about police action, was postponed. Later, the investigation
into the violation of the authority of the public official in the intervention was stopped. Among other things, on the grounds that the
persons who were harmed by this act are active in or in contact with the Poznan anarchist movement. And for another, they say that
Joanna M., complaining that the investigation of her announcement had been discontinued, accused the prosecutor of "attending an illegal
assembly that she knew his participants wanted to commit a violent attack on police officers" by preventing the exercise of police powers by
digging into a police car. , by opening his door, hanging on the hood of the police car, standing and sitting in front of the police car,
spilling white powder of unknown origin on the police car window, and hanging on the windscreen grilles. The prosecutor who accused her
noted that she knew she had not committed the acts she was accused of, but that she thought she was "collectively responsible" for them.
Fingerprints or other laboratory examinations such as finding traces of clothing or detainees did not confirm that detainees were handling
After the investigation, six persons were brought to justice with the following charges:
Malgorzata C. was to challenge the public official; attend a rally that she knew was involved in a violent attack on the police service.
Joanna M. was supposed to attend a rally she knew her participants were jointly committing a violent attack on the police service; together
with other unidentified persons, it should have prevented police officers from serving, prevented them from arresting and transporting
detainees to a police station.
Iwone J. was to attend a gathering that she knew was involved in a violent attack on police officers.
Jacek S. was to assault a public official and was to attend a rally he knew his participants were jointly committing a violent attack on the
Maciej H. was supposed to assault a public official and was to attend a rally he knew was involved in a violent attack on the police service.
Pawel B. was to attend a rally he knew his participants were jointly committing a violent attack on the police service.
Four out of six persons were found guilty of participating in an illegal assembly with the intention of violently attacking police officers.
Malgorzata C. then the assault of a public official and damage to his organs. Joanna M. still from preventing police officers from serving.
Malgorzata C. has been given a 10-month sentence of imprisonment with 20 hours of community service per month and has to pay PLN 300 to
compensate a policeman. Joanna M. was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment with 20 hours of community service per month. Jacek S. also
received a 10-month restriction of freedom with 20 hours of community service per month. Maciej H. was given 12 months of freedom
restriction with 20 hours of community service per month. The convicts wish to appeal the judgment after receiving written notification.
The judge justified her decision by saying that "it is not necessary to prove that a particular participant in an assembly has committed an
individual act of violence, presence in the assembly is sufficient, knowing that the participants in that assembly commit a joint attack on
persons or property". The judgment is not yet final. The convicts draw attention to the absurdity of such a justification. They wonder what
would happen to those who are participating in football matches that often attack other people or property. Attacks of football hooligans in
stadiums occur more frequently than in non-violent demonstrations. Whole families with children attending such matches should assume what
can happen in such a match. Similarly, one might think that people taking part in the annual independence march in Warsaw, Poland, that any
other participant may or may be attacking another person or property. They point out that every congregation, be it a concert, a festival, a
sporting event or a scientific conference, may be someone who will behave violently.
We can guess where such an absurd approach can lead. The question is whether there will be a precedent that will apply to all types of
gatherings, or that it will only apply to a specific group of people.
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-Infos Information Center