Yesterday (25.09.2023), in the Regional Court in Gdańsk, a hearing was held in a lawsuit filed by the Association of Families of Cursed Soldiers and members of families of the Steadfast Soldiers against Joanna Senyszyn. The lawsuit concerns untrue, damaging opinions and alleged facts about the Cursed Soldiers posted by the MP in social media. The subject of the lawsuit is 13 posts that Joanna Senyszyn posted on her Twitter profile.
At yesterday’s court session, the plaintiffs (children of the Cursed Soldiers) associated in the Association of Families of the Cursed Soldiers and members of the families of the Steadfast Soldiers, who filed a class action lawsuit against Joanna Senyszyn, testified.
During the court session, the plaintiffs emphasised how much pain was caused to them by entries made by Joanna Senyszyn, which in their opinion insult and defame the memory of the soldiers of the anti-communist underground. Moreover, they pointed out the harmfulness of entries published by a well-known person who, as a member of parliament, professor and teacher, introduces untrue information into the public space, which not only distorts the historical truth, but is also harmful to the plaintiffs, as it strikes at the memory of their parents.
The first of the witnesses, Tadeusz Płużański – President of the SRŻW (son of the Cursed Soldier – Tadeusz Płużański), in relation to the subject matter of the lawsuit, emphasised that he upholds the legitimacy of the lawsuit due to the ongoing statements, references of the defendant, which insult the Cursed Soldiers, insult the SRŻW and the plaintiff personally. The witness indicated that the defendant had committed a number of vilenesses in his statements, including attributing the worst qualities to the Cursed Soldiers, a formation that continued the fight against the Soviets and the communist regime after 1944. In addition, the witness pointed out that the respondent was unable to respect the legal order of the Republic of Poland, as he demanded the abolition of a holiday – the National Day of Remembrance of the Cursed Soldiers, which had been proposed by the late President Lech Kaczyński and then established by the Parliament of the Republic of Poland (by the votes of various political formations) and sanctioned by the signature of President Bronisław Komorowski.
The witness presented the court with information regarding his father’s activities, indicating, among other things, that he was Captain Witold Pilecki’s closest associate. He also spoke about his father’s anti-communist activities, pointing out that together with Rotamaster Pilecki, they were officers in the Polish army and belonged to the Polish intelligence group, and that their fight was related to intelligence activities, directed against the Soviet occupier and the communist authorities. Moreover, the witness emphasised that the Cursed Soldiers -fought with various methods, both with weapons in hand and with intelligence methods.
In his testimony, the witness also pointed to the actions of the communist authorities, which destroyed the memory of the Cursed Soldiers, making attempts to erase them from public memory, as well as constructing a narrative that they were bandits. The testimony also indicated the issues of the communist authorities’ repression of the families of the soldiers of the anti-communist underground, the personal perception of the content that the defendant published and the effects it had. The witness stressed that the defendant’s posts „echoed loudly, especially because they appeared around 1 March – the holiday of the ŻW – and the defendant spoke up at that moment to be heard as strongly as possible and to hit the Polish heroes and the legal order of the Republic, i.e. the established holiday, as hard as possible.”
The next witness, Maryla Ścibor-Marchocka, indicated that hearing Ms Senyszyn’s statements „was like a slap in the face, because the exact same language about the Cursed Soldiers was used by the people who interrogated them”, adding that she knows the language of the interrogators „bandits, murderers” from the stories of her father and his friends – soldiers of the anti-communist underground. In addition, the claimant spoke of the repression her family suffered, saying, among other things, „that she was called a bandit’s daughter”, and that Ms Senyszyn’s statements „are a kind of déjà vu of what she experienced as a child, not only listening to her memories, but also being aware of how she was treated”. The complainant made it clear „that she does not wish to be called a „nobody’s boy”, because she has worked hard for Poland all her life, and she does not wish to be called a „bandit”, because this is not only insulting, but hits her as his daughter”, she also added that „thanks to Ms Senyszyn she experienced a repetition of the past when as a child she was called a bandit’s daughter”. The complainant, while testifying, told about the fate of her father Stanislaw Pełko Scibor-Marchocki, his diversionary activity against the communist regime, and the fact that he was tortured after his arrest in 1949, consequently suffering permanent damage to his health. The claimant added that after his release from prison, her father devoted his life to work, to grassroots work, to serve the public with his knowledge, especially people living in rural areas. In her testimony, the claimant made it clear that the posts published by Joanna Senyszyn „are deeply painful and offensive to her, besides what is important – this type of posts, this type of language makes some childhood fears come back”. The complainant also testified „that Ms Senyszyn’s speeches had a large reach because she is an MP, she is a politician, she is a professor, she is a didacticist and she teaches the younger generation (…). All of this together means that her speeches, even more so in forms such as tweets, which are reproduced, cause” great harm, especially among the younger generation, which often accepts such information as true through the authority of the defendant.
When asked by Joanna Senyszyn whether the claimant had read her posts and opinions in the comments, in which recipients identified with her posts, Ms Ścibor- Marchocka replied that she had, adding that „identifying is again a sense of threat.” She added that „if the defendant had not written such tweets these comments would not have appeared and not in such numbers and would not have had the chance to appear in the public debate.”
To Joanna Senyszyn’s next question, which the respondent based on information presented by historians, and concerning the murder of the so-called „Cursed Soldiers” by the so-called „Cursed Soldiers”, the respondent said, „I would not have had the chance to write such tweets. The plaintiff firmly replied „first of all, I would like to know where you got such a number -187, a very specific one, and that this is not admitted by all historians”, adding „that I do not agree that one can throw the Cursed Soldiers with these, as you enumerate the victims, whether you say in your statements this, this, this – they murdered, you say generally – the Cursed Soldiers murdered.” She added „that the defendant, by saying that the ŻW were murderers and murdered children, is acting on the emotions of the audience and that this is more or less like saying that today it is very common to slur Poles that Poles murdered Jews, and we know very well that we have the most trees at Yad Vashem”. The claimant stressed „that she is the daughter of an Outlaw Soldier and she is proud of that.”
Next, Aleksandra Moroń, daughter of Tadeusz Przewoźnik pseudonym 'Kuba’ and niece of Jan Przewoźnik pseudonym 'Ryś’, who was killed in the 'Avalanche’ action prepared by the Security Office, gave her testimony. In her first words, the claimant said „that it is with great regret that I listen to and read Ms Senyszyn’s entries”, then the claimant quoted the respondent’s entry „The homeland is not grateful to the Cursed, because there is nothing to be grateful for”, Ms Aleksandra Moroń, pointed out „that three generations of her family fought for a free and independent Poland, fought for the Polish speech.” The plaintiff strongly emphasised that the Cursed Soldiers were heroes, not bandits as the defendant describes. She said, also, „that every resistance has a meaning, whoever fights knows what price he can pay, that is why we call him a hero.”
The complainant recounted the fate of her father, pointing out, among other things, that her father had been a soldier in the Home Army and the National Armed Forces and had miraculously survived in the „Avalanche” action, in which young boys „beautiful patriots” had been killed. Mrs Moroń pointed out the extent to which her father Tadeusz Przewoźnik had fought against the communist regime. After the war, Tadeusz Przewoźnik took part in armed fights against the communist authorities and the Soviets, among others, he was a commander of the security platoon of Major Henryk Flame a.k.a. „Bartek” and took part in actions against communist saboteurs. In her testimony, Ms Moroń referred to the statements of Joanna Senyszyn, who attributed Collaboration with the Germans to the Cursed Soldiers, cited examples of how members of her family had been murdered by the Germans and how her father had been threatened with the same.
The complainant also said that her father, after his release from prison (in 1947), was followed all the time. She also presented to the court a denunciation from the Security Office, which she obtained from the IPN archives, in which the author of the denunciation wrote, among other things, „that Tadeusz Przewoźnik was hunted by the security authorities like an animal and that Przewoźnik was a type of nationalist with extreme right-wing views”. She also testified that he was tortured during interrogations, e.g. beaten on the head with a pistol butt.
With regard to Joanna Senyszyn’s entries, Ms Moroń testified that „it was a trauma” and also referred to Joanna Senyszyn’s denial of the National Day of Remembrance of the Cursed Soldiers, and expressed her strong protest against the publication of such entries.
When asked by the defendant’s attorney why the entries were unlawful, the plaintiff replied „that they defame the good name of our heroes, the soldiers who fought against the German and Soviet occupiers.”
The plaintiff Zbigniew Człowiekowski, son of Kazimierz Człowiekowski alias „Niemsta”, a member of the Home Army who was murdered (in 1954) during an ambush carried out by UB officers in Krosno, in the first part of his testimony, quoted Joanna Senyszyn’s entry – „they murdered Poles and collaborated with the Nazis”, the message of which he considered to be a slander against his father (a soldier) and mother (a liaison officer), who were members of the Home Army. The plaintiff gave a broad description of his parents’ anti-German activities. With regard to post-war activities, the plaintiff pointed out that his father undertook conspiratorial activities, which included entering the structures of administrative units of government „to defend people, to defend their families from further Sovietisation”. Acting in these structures, he „resisted looting, resisted rape, by the so-called liberators, the Soviet army”. For a month and a half he reported and intervened with a Soviet officer on these matters. After which, for his family, he disappeared, was arrested and taken to a prison in Rzeszów and eventually imprisoned in a Soviet gulag. He returned from the gulag and, after taking his first job, was „invigilated, taken away from work for hours of interrogation, was tormented by the UB”. In addition, the claimant testified „that his father was arrested at work, and his mother and siblings were thrown out on the street, and his father was taken to the UB prison, where his mother and sister were dragged off to soften up his father, but also to show their strength.” The plaintiff, testified that his father managed to escape from this prison and indicated that he took an active part in the armed actions of the group of Jozef Cieśla alias „Topór”.
The defendant Joanna Senyszyn largely asked questions of the witnesses herself. These questions were both an attempt at a historical discussion, a personal polemic with the witnesses, but also an attempt to enter the competence of the court. The judge repeatedly overruled the questions asked by Joanna Senyszyn.
The next hearing will take place on 26 October 2023, on which date the witnesses who could not attend yesterday’s sitting will be questioned.
