Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width 198

Rydzyk gets away with racism yet again


mvefa 5 | 591  
10 Aug 2009 /  #91
We are getting out of topic here, the guy insulted a peer by making reference to his colour and the stereotypes that come with it: WRONG

Imagine the repercusions this might have : Well if its ok for a priest to do it, then it is also ok for us to do it...

What he did was wrong, he should just own up to it, apologise and hung up the robes, he is clearly not worthy of preeching the teachings of Jesus, he is a hipocrite.
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
10 Aug 2009 /  #92
Imagine the repercusions this might have : Well if its ok for a priest to do it, then it is also ok for us to do it...

That's because: as far as the law is concerned, it is okay for us to do it, and it is okay for a priest to do it.

What he did was wrong, he should just own up to it, apologise

You are correct this far in. Why don't you try sending him a letter to that effect, and see if you can get him to do just that?
mvefa 5 | 591  
10 Aug 2009 /  #93
well if i spoke polish i would, and i doubt he speaks other language...
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #94
You almost got me there, except that Rydzyk is not represented within the Polish government. I don't actually know: are there any clergymen in public office these days?

A rule common in democracies is that only people who are eligible to vote are permitted to run as candidates for election. I'm not Polish and so can not stand for election to the Sejm or Parliament. If I started influencing Polish politics like Rydzyk does, there would be public outrage!

That's because: as far as the law is concerned, it is okay for us to do it, and it is okay for a priest to do it.

Wrong. "The Prosecutor’s Office in the southern city of Czestochowa decided, however, that the statement made by Rydzyk was not meant to insult or humiliate the missionary from Africa, which is a precondition to open an investigation." How is it neither insulting nor humiliating for a black man to be called "dirty" because of his skin colour?
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
10 Aug 2009 /  #95
A rule common in democracies is that only people who are eligible to vote are permitted to run as candidates for election.

I'm aware of that; I was asking specifically about the rights of the Church in Poland, as I've been out of the country for a while.

I'm not Polish and so can not stand for election to the Sejm or Parliament. If I started influencing Polish politics like Rydzyk does, there would be public outrage!

I'm pretty sure you could start, say, your own stand-up comedy routine on television and make political statements to your heart's content, and nobody would really think twice about it.

Wrong. "The Prosecutor’s Office in the southern city of Czestochowa decided, however, that the statement made by Rydzyk was not meant to insult or humiliate the missionary from Africa, which is a precondition to open an investigation." How is it neither insulting nor humiliating for a black man to be called "dirty" because of his skin colour?

Ask, rather, not 'how is it not insulting or humiliating', but 'how could he have said something insulting or humiliating without meaning to'. Which is quite possible. Though, he hasn't publicly or privately apologized as far as I know, which doesn't help his case too much there.
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #96
Ask, rather, not 'how is it not insulting or humiliating', but 'how could he have said something insulting or humiliating without meaning to'. Which is quite possible.

And quite irrelevent too. If we apply the test of mens rea, while there it can be argued that is no direct or oblique intention, it's very hard to argue against the 'knowingly' level (in this case if he did not know what the result of his words would be, he should have known) and impossible to claim that he was not at the very least reckless.
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
10 Aug 2009 /  #97
And quite irrelevent too.

Apparently, it's actually a prerequisite to an investigation, so actually quite relevent.
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443  
10 Aug 2009 /  #98
Personally I have different political views and dislike his political choices. However you wrongly consider him to be a politician. He is just one of many people from media circles who openly express his political views and try to convince as many people as possible.

I was joking, he is not a politician but he behaves like one.

You call it false hope, but what is false in trying to preserve traditional Christian values in Poland?

yes, I do. He is not preserving traditional Christian values in Poland unless by traditional Christian values you mean racism, anti- semitism, I am sure you know his sins, or are you in denial. I am Christian myself and I don't remember being thought that I should hate anybody because I am Christian when taking religion classes in Poland. Have things changed?

but to say that he shouldn't speak in public because he's a priest is absolutely ridiculous.

I never said that he should not. Filtering what he says in not his forte.

is either liar or an idiot - is there any point in
discussing matters with such creature?

yet you do come back with more insults like a bumerang.

What he did was wrong, he should just own up to it, apologise and hung up the robes, he is clearly not worthy of preeching the teachings of Jesus, he is a hipocrite.

true

Though, he hasn't publicly or privately apologized as far as I know, which doesn't help his case too much there.

Oh, now we are getting to the point. I think he should.
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #99
Apparently, it's actually a prerequisite to an investigation, so actually quite relevent.

As I said, the point is not whether he meant it to cause offense but whether he should have known it would cause offense.

If the only test was "Did the person mean it", a man who pointed a gun at somebody and shouting "You n*gger bastard! I'm going to f*cking kill you!" could simply say that he expected his words to be taken as a joke. As it is impossible to prove that he did not mean his words to not be a joke, he would be not guilty. But if we apply the test of whether a reasonable person would know that such words would not be taken as a joke, the man is clearly guilty.
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443  
10 Aug 2009 /  #100
But if we apply the test of whether a reasonable person would know that such words would not be taken as a joke, the man is clearly guilty.

amen
mvefa 5 | 591  
10 Aug 2009 /  #101
yes, I do. He is not preserving traditional Christian values in Poland unless by traditional Christian values you mean racism, anti- semitism, I am sure you know his sins, or are you in denial. I am Christian myself and I don't remember being thought that I should hate anybody because I am Christian when taking religion classes in Poland. Have things changed?

Well said,,exactly what i meant!

the man is clearly guilty.

Couldnt agree more!
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
10 Aug 2009 /  #102
As I said, the point is not whether he meant it to cause offense but whether he should have known it would cause offense.

Not to the Prosecutor’s Office in Czestochowa. Are you trying to determine whether he was a bastard, or whether he should have been held legally accountable? Or if the legal system needs revision?

If the only test was "Did the person mean it", a man who pointed a gun at somebody and shouting "You n*gger bastard! I'm going to f*cking kill you!" could simply say that he expected his words to be taken as a joke.

Well, bad example. Pointing guns at people is quite illegal, regardless of accompanied slurs.

As it is impossible to prove that he did not mean his words to not be a joke, he would be not guilty. But if we apply the test of whether a reasonable person would know that such words would not be taken as a joke, the man is clearly guilty.

No. The law is not held as to rely on absolute proof. Court decisions are instead a matter of esablishing reasonable doubt.
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #103
Not to the Prosecutor’s Office in Czestochowa.

There's a shock, eh?

Are you trying to determine whether he was a bastard, or whether he should have been held legally accountable? Or if the legal system needs revision?

a) It's obvious he is a bastard. And a racist one at that.
b) He should have faced a trial.
c) When a man can be arrested for farting at the name of the president but another man isn't arrested for public racial abuse, yes the system does need overhauling.

Well, bad example. Pointing guns at people is quite illegal, regardless of accompanied slurs.

What about if the person didn't mean to point it at the person he was abusing?

But so as to avoid the nit which you wish to pick: If the only test was "Did the person mean it", a man who waved a knife at somebody and shouted "You n*gger bastard! I'm going to f*cking kill you!" could simply say that he expected his words to be taken as a joke. Would that be acceptable to you?

No. The law is not held as to rely on absolute proof. Court decisions are instead a matter of esablishing reasonable doubt.

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man in my example did not mean it as a joke. You can't. Not unless you compare him to what a reasonable person would have known his words to be understood as.
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
10 Aug 2009 /  #104
c) When a man can be arrested for farting at the name of the president but another man isn't arrested for public racial abuse, yes the system does need overhauling.

I agree; that law about slandering the president has really got to go. And so does the one about derogatory names for homosexuals.

What about if the person didn't mean to point it at the person he was abusing?

Since you ask, it's still illegal, since he obviously meant to possess it.

But so as to avoid the nit which you wish to pick: If the only test was "Did the person mean it", a man who waved a knife at somebody and shouted "You n*gger bastard! I'm going to f*cking kill you!" could simply say that he expected his words to be taken as a joke. Would that be acceptable to you?

I'm not sure that knives are legal in public, either, or at least waving them at people. But, nonetheless, I don't think that laws regarding violent threats are quite the same as laws regarding slander.
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #105
I agree; that law about slandering the president has really got to go. And so does the one about derogatory names for homosexuals.

So you support harassment on the grounds of sexuality. There's a shocker.

Since you ask, it's still illegal, since he obviously meant to possess it.

And if he has a licence for it and therefore possesses it legally?

Harry:
But so as to avoid the nit which you wish to pick: If the only test was "Did the person mean it", a man who waved a knife at somebody and shouted "You n*gger bastard! I'm going to f*cking kill you!" could simply say that he expected his words to be taken as a joke. Would that be acceptable to you?

I'm not sure that knives are legal in public, either, or at least waving them at people.

OK, so as to avoid the second nit which you wish to pick: If the only test was "Did the person mean it", a man who was working in a slaughter house and waved a knife, which he had just been using to cut up a cow, at somebody while shouting "You n*gger bastard! I'm going to f*cking kill you!" could simply say that he expected his words to be taken as a joke. Would that be acceptable to you?

But, nonetheless, I don't think that laws regarding violent threats are quite the same as laws regarding slander.

The fact you think racial harassment is the same as slander shows how little you know about law. Or how far you are willing to go to make excuses for racial harassment. Pity I was beginning to think that you were one of the more intelligent posters here.
Ironside 50 | 10,933  
10 Aug 2009 /  #106
yet you do come back with more insults like a bumerang.

What insults? Another empty statement or should I said false?

a) It's obvious he is a bastard. And a racist one at that.

I think that you are not only bastard but sick bastard and I'm sure I can find others with similar picture of your person.

Should it be OK for us to go and prosecute you to or to call the court to held a trial against you?
You don't like Rydzyk - fine.
I don't like you and as long as you are not doing something illegal I'm powerless to stop your blabbing.
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #107
Should it be OK for us to go and prosecute you to or to call the court to held a trial against you?

You can try. In fact one poster here has already tried to report me to the police (for daring to talk about Polish concentration camps). Ask Sokrates how well that went.

You don't like Rydzyk - fine.
I don't like you and as long as you are not doing something illegal I'm powerless to stop your blabbing.

Here's the point: racially abusing somebody is illegal.
mvefa 5 | 591  
10 Aug 2009 /  #108
Let's Apply the shaira on him, spank him with a spiked ruller by 4 africans, let's see if he feels like offending again.

Priests of god,, my a.s.s hipocrite...
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
10 Aug 2009 /  #109
So you support harassment on the grounds of sexuality. There's a shocker.

Support harrasment, because I don't think that private verbal communication should be censored? Okay, yes, I support harassment on the grounds of sexuality. And also on the grounds of religion, and race, and sex, and age, and weight, and clothing... a lover of harassment am I!

And if he has a licence for it and therefore possesses it legally?

I'm actually unfamiliar with Polish gun laws, and so cannot comment.

The fact you think racial harassment is the same as slander shows how little you know about law. Or how far you are willing to go to make excuses for racial harassment.

So I thought that suggesting that somebody hadn't washed completely was slander, sue me.

OK, so as to avoid the second nit which you wish to pick: If the only test was "Did the person mean it", a man who was working in a slaughter house and waved a knife, which he had just been using to cut up a cow, at somebody while shouting "You n*gger bastard! I'm going to f*cking kill you!" could simply say that he expected his words to be taken as a joke. Would that be acceptable to you?

Okay, let's talk law. Character witnesses: what do they say about the demeanor of the person in question? Has he ever before been known to express racist views or feelings (Rydzyk, haha, I know)? What is the nature of his relationship with the person in question? Are they friends? Was there reason to believe the target would understand the statement as a joke?

I traded slurs with a black friend of mine on a regular basis in the States, for example. Him on my Polish origins and Poland, mine on his African and that continent's. We laughed it off every time, but I'd hate to think that, in a Polish court of law, he could for whatever reason suddenly decide to have me fined/sentenced one day...
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443  
10 Aug 2009 /  #110
Another empty statement or should I said false?

empty statements because you don't agree with them? Interesting indeed. How do you feel about Rydzyk supporting EU, although previously he was a big enemy of EU (maybe it has something to do with him needing some EU finances) - latests news. Or this one I made up too? LOL
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #111
Support harrasment, because I don't think that private verbal communication should be censored?

You really do know bugger all about Polish law!

I'm actually unfamiliar with Polish gun laws, and so cannot comment.

You already have commented about Polish gun laws.

Character witnesses: what do they say about the demeanor of the person in question? Has he ever before been known to express racist views or feelings (Rydzyk, haha, I know)?

He's got form for this kind of thing. Remember his comments about Jews and shoes & trousers & coats?

What is the nature of his relationship with the person in question? Are they friends?

As far as we know they have no relationship at all.

Was there reason to believe the target would understand the statement as a joke?

As far as we know there is no reason to believe that the target would consider being told, in front of thousands of people, that his skin colour showed he needs to wash better a joke.

I traded slurs with a black friend of mine on a regular basis in the States, for example. Him on my Polish origins and Poland, mine on his African and that continent's. We laughed it off every time, but I'd hate to think that, in a Polish court of law, he could for whatever reason suddenly decide to have me fined/sentenced one day...

If he could (which he most certainly could not), you could do the same to him.
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
10 Aug 2009 /  #112
You really do know bugger all about Polish law!

You know, that's actually quite true. As such, I still can't see that I went wrong anywhere there.

You already have commented about Polish gun laws.

And what I said pretty much outlined my knowledge of the topic.

He's got form for this kind of thing. Remember his comments about Jews and shoes & trousers & coats?

No, actually. But, definitely doesn't look good for him there...

As far as we know they have no relationship at all.

You could say they are colleagues.

As far as we know there is no reason to believe that the target would consider being told, in front of thousands of people, that his skin colour showed he needs to wash better a joke.

We have some:
-The person making the statement is a fellow clergyman.
-The person towards whom the statement was directed was well aware that his skin color was an oddity.
-The person making the statement is known for his poor speaking skills, which could easily explain the situation as a horribly failed attempt at breaking the ice about the state of affairs.
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #113
You know, that's actually quite true. As such, I still can't see that I went wrong anywhere there.

In short words: it does not legally matter whether he knew the words would not be taken as a joke. It matters whether a reasonable person would know or should have known that the words may not be taken as a joke.

Harry:
He's got form for this kind of thing. Remember his comments about Jews and shoes & trousers & coats?
No, actually. But, definitely doesn't look good for him there...

His exact words were "You know what this is about: Poland giving [the Jews] $65bn. They will come to you and say, 'Give me your coat! Take off your trousers! Give me your shoes!' "

Harry:
As far as we know they have no relationship at all.

You could say they are colleagues.

No you couldn't. They are from different orders.

Harry:
As far as we know there is no reason to believe that the target would consider being told, in front of thousands of people, that his skin colour showed he needs to wash better a joke.
We have some:
-The person making the statement is a fellow clergyman.

And clergymen are well known for thinking that racist comments are jokes? Well, perhaps in Poland, but this guy wasn't Polish.

-The person towards whom the statement was directed was well aware that his skin color was an oddity.

Black skin is not an oddity. It is in fact more common than white skin.

-The person making the statement is known for his poor speaking skills, which could easily explain the situation as a horribly failed attempt at breaking the ice about the state of affairs.

There was no ice which needed breaking.
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
10 Aug 2009 /  #114
And clergymen are well known for thinking that racist comments are jokes? Well, perhaps in Poland, but this guy wasn't Polish.

Rather, they know each other to have common ground, and a common goal, and no particular reason for animosity between them.

Black skin is not an oddity. It is in fact more common than white skin.

Not in Poland, it isn't.

There was no ice which needed breaking.

I cannot be sure of that.
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #115
Rather, they know each other to have common ground, and a common goal, and no particular reason for animosity between them.

If that is true, there'd be no ice which needed breaking.

And one could equally validly say that a rabbi and Rydzek have common ground (both are men of God), and a common goal (salvation of souls), and no particular reason for animosity between them. But Rydzek sure doesn't see it like that!
RevokeNice 15 | 1,859  
10 Aug 2009 /  #116
What an ass, and they call themselves "men of god" servants of the devil they are, catholic hipocrites.

Are you catholic? If not, it is none of your concern, heretic.
mvefa 5 | 591  
10 Aug 2009 /  #117
I was, but renounced to it. you are catholic right? You adore the pope right? you pray to statues right? you pray with your rosary right? you celebrate eastern right?

Well all those, paganic rituals absorbed by the catholic church centuries ago..so who is the herectic now?
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #118
Are you catholic?

If you are, how about you learn the word properly?
OP Harry  
10 Aug 2009 /  #120
The word you are looking for is 'Catholic'. A word which very obviously does not describe you is 'catholic'.

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / Rydzyk gets away with racism yet againArchived