Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram (Free Courts Initiative), Prof. Ryszard Piotrowski (Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw), Danuta Przywara (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights) and General Adam Rapacki (Association of Polish Police Generals) participated in the meeting as speakers. The debate was moderated by Dr. Maciej Pisz (Vice President of MISO).

In opening the debate, the moderator noted that the freedom of assembly is one of the most important rights and freedoms an individual is entitled to in a modern democratic state of law. Maciej Pisz also stressed that - despite the formation of a broad and consistent standard of protection of the freedom of assembly in the national and European system of human rights protection - this standard constantly generates certain legal problems related to it (which is confirmed, among others, by the recent experience of the COVID-19 pandemic).

In the first part, we listened to Professor Ryszard Piotrowski's introductory speech to the debate. He began by presenting the constitutional features of the freedom of assembly, which is one of the most important human freedoms in a democratic country. Prof. Piotrowski stressed that everyone is guaranteed the right to organize and participate in peaceful assemblies. Limitations of this freedom may be set by law. In the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, the freedom of assembly is seen as a necessary element of democracy, conditioning the exercise of other rights, that is, in principle, seen as the cornerstone of the entire system of rights and freedoms - said professor.

The Constitution - as Prof. Piotrowski further noted - is also in force in a state of epidemy. The freedom of organizing assemblies and participating in it may be limited under the conditions specified in article 31, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, according to which: Limitations on the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights may be established only by statute and only when they are necessary in a democratic state for its security or public order, or for the protection of the environment, health and public morals, or the freedoms and rights of others. Such limitations may not impair the essence of the freedoms and rights.

Moreover, Prof. Piotrowski mentioned that restrictions on the freedom of assembly may be imposed during martial law and state of emergency, disregarding the conditions set out in Article 31 Section 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, including the provision that prohibits violating the essence of this freedom. However, none of these states was introduced in Poland in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. As far as the state of natural disaster is concerned, in the speaker's opinion, the rules set out in Article 31(3) should be retained.

Prof. Piotrowski also noted that in the Act on prevention and control of infections and infectious diseases, there is a provision formulating the authorization to issue an executive regulation limiting the freedom of assembly. In this provision there is a formula that one can establish a ban on holding spectacles and other gatherings of the public, taking into account the routes of spreading infections and the state of the epidemic in the area. The speaker stressed that the cited authorization is flawed and unconstitutional. Moreover, it does not apply to spontaneous assemblies. This authorization - as stated by Prof. Piotrowski - is also unconstitutional because it contains interference in the essence of the freedom of assembly. 

As far as the issue of declaring the regulations unconstitutional is concerned, as the speaker noted, the Constitutional Tribunal is responsible for that. Therefore, if the judge would like to state that he will not apply these rigors provided by the ordinance, then, in his opinion, he should refer the legal question to the Constitutional Court. 

"One cannot accept that the freedom of assembly dies because of COVID-19". - Professor Piotrowski concluded his speech. 

In the following part of the debate, the other speakers took the floor. The President of the Board of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights Danuta Przywara was asked how she, as a sociologist, sees the challenges of making freedom of assembly a reality in the context of civil society. According to the speaker, in Poland we are currently witnessing the opposite challenge from the authorities - how to deprive people of the rights to exercise their freedom of peaceful assembly. This has been going on for a long time, because the authorities, in a way, prepared for themselves the conditions to be able to do such a thing. In addition, it is necessary to mention the role of law enforcement in this. "There has been a clear redefinition of the status of the participant of such assemblies by the police. From being citizens who rightfully exercise their rights and who are entitled to protection, participants have suddenly begun to be defined as persons who violate public order - in a manner that requires a decisive police response, such as breaking up the gathering or punishing the organizers." - said Danuta Przywara. It is becoming increasingly clear that the police are acting more on orders from the centers of power than in accordance with the law and statutes.

As the speaker noted, civil society organizations and informal post-detention support groups are working to counteract this. They organize actions to counteract the chilling effect caused by law enforcement - motions for punishment, attempts to fine, and the widespread checking of IDs. Citizens organize psychological, factual, and solidarity support, and publicize cases of abuse.

After Danuta Przywara's speech, attorney Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram from the "Free Courts" initiative, who herself provides assistance to detained assembly participants, took the floor. "Such organizations as Szpila or Lotne Brygady organize ad hoc support and legal assistance to demonstrators. What is noteworthy, the Polish state consistently loses to lawyers defending participants of demonstrations". - indicated the speaker. As Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram pointed out, the challenges that we face include building a greater awareness of the rights of citizens. In the speaker's speech it was also noted that during the assemblies the Police recently very often says: "This is an illegal assembly", consequently it proves to be a big challenge to explain to people that this is not true. "In conditions where we are fighting for life and health because we have an epidemic, unclear messages and uncertainty of the law should not take place," the speaker said.

The next challenge noted by the speaker is ensuring citizens have access to an attorney. "The most important thing is that the citizen on their first contact with the police is not left without legal assistance. Hundreds of people work on this, which relieves the burden on the state, because the state systemically does not work in providing access to a lawyer," said Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram.

Gen. Adam Rapacki, who took the floor next, presented his perspective on the issue (acting as a representative of the Polish Police Generals Association).

According to Gen. Rapacki, the Police, instead of focusing on ensuring the safety of life and health of the participants, are trying to treat these assemblies as illegal, and are definitely abusing the institution of ID checks. Article 15 of the Police Act gives the possibility to ask citizens for identification, but there must also be a substantive justification - that is, there must be a premise that this is justified by preventing, fighting crime, or possibly searching for people hiding from justice or people who have disappeared. As Gen. Rapacki pointed out, in a situation in which we are dealing with a legal, peaceful assembly, ID checking is excessive and completely unnecessary.

According to General Rapacki, in the first phase of the Women's Strike the police behaved properly, that is, they focused on ensuring the safety of the participants of the assembly. At a certain point, however, there was an obvious change of front, when police officers cordoned off the participants of the assembly, checked their identity, and in the case of a large number of people they filed for penalties, or asked the sanitary inspectorate for an administrative fine. "Fortunately, we have a majority of judges who do not succumb to political pressure, and decide cases in accordance with the law and their own sense of that law. The vast majority of participants are acquitted. And here I bow down to all those who help the repressed" - said Gen. Rapacki.

The speaker also stressed that a few months ago the Generals of the Police, the former superiors, issued an appeal to the leadership of the Police and the police officers themselves to behave decently in their actions in connection with the assemblies. We cannot - as he said - call on police officers not to follow the orders of their superiors, but it is possible to carry out activities related to securing gatherings without causing excessive emotions, aggression and repressive measures. It is also important that the participants themselves choose such means of protest so as not to provoke police officers. General Rapacki noted that when meeting with the leaders of the Women's Strike, he underlined what not to do in order not to provoke unnecessary aggression on one side or the other. "As the community of the Generals of the Republic of Poland, we issued an appeal to all participants for restraint, because at some point this scale of confrontation in the streets could end with tragic consequences for each side. Over 240 generals from all services signed this appeal. We appealed to the authorities to listen to the voice of the citizens, to the police to behave decently, not to escalate emotions and to respect the Constitution, and to the participants of the gatherings to restrain their emotions and not to attack police officers, because the police are not the enemy" - said General Rapacki.

According to the speaker, such appeals, and on the other hand the dialogue at all levels give a chance to mitigate the dispute and to return to the standards of a democratic state of law.

In the last part of the debate Danuta Przywara spoke about the good experiences in terms of meaningful contact with law enforcement and the police. "Throughout the entire period of building a democratic state, during the time of our accession to the EU, we trained the Police, monitored the course of demonstrations, contacted the Police and received the necessary information from them to objectively assess certain behaviors of forces securing assemblies. The relationship between police and civil society institutions was given by our colleagues from NGOs in Western countries as an example of how to act in order to protect the interests of residents of cities where demonstrations were held, while guaranteeing the right to express their opinions in the form of demonstrations to the participants of assemblies. Reconcile these not always compatible interests. This changed when it was decided to use the pandemic to settle inconvenient and unpopular issues, and on the other hand to try to deprive citizens of their right to peaceful assembly in an illegal manner". - said the President of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights.

According to Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram, who also took the floor in this part of the debate, the means and legal solutions currently available to citizens for participating in assemblies are sufficient, they just need to be used. We have citizens who know where to find information and who to call in case of a problem. For the most part, however, citizens' awareness of their rights is low. "Usually a summons from the Police is a really serious matter for the citizen. The mechanisms and tools are there, but the citizen must know where to look for them and where to ask for help" - indicated the speaker.

Gen. Rapacki - referring at the end of the debate to his earlier statement - once again warned his fellow law enforcement officers against overreaction. "The police too often act inadequately to the threat. ID checks are intended to intimidate participants of gatherings. Too often they are detained for 48 hours in police stations, when the actions could be carried out immediately after the arrest, there is no need to keep a person for so many hours. Unfortunately, politics affect the actions of the police. I say to police officers: if you don't know how to behave, behave decently" - said the speaker.

After the speakers, the floor was taken by the moderator, who briefly summarized the debate and thanked the speakers for their participation.