Search

The attack by Israeli settlers on diplomats in Tayibe, which resulted in the injury of the mayor of France, has been condemned by both the Israeli army and the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; however, Prime Minister Netanyahu's office downplayed the scale of the violence. #ZachodniBrzeg #Izrael #przemoc (translated)

DWUKADENCYJNOŚĆ WŁODARZY - TAK, PARLAMENTARZYSTÓW - NIE Ograniczenie liczby kadencji to legislacyjna ingerencja w demokrację. Sens wprowadzenia tych ograniczeń wynika z przekonania, że zwykłe mechanizmy wyborcze nie działają dostateczne skutecznie. W odniesieniu do funkcji wójtów, burmistrzów i prezydentów miast mamy do czynienia z bezprecedensową kumulacją władzy. Każdy kto zdążył się zorientować jak działają polskie gminy i miasta, bez trudu zauważył, że społeczna kontrola nad działaniami lokalnego organu wykonawczego jest iluzoryczna. Że rady, które teoretycznie miały być nadrzędnym organem, w praktyce są reaktywne i bardzo często ubezwłasnowolnione. Taka nierównowaga władzy powoduje, że wójt, burmistrz, czy prezydent ma wszelkie możliwości manipulowania opinią publiczną. Ma uprzywilejowaną pozycję w przekazywaniu informacji. Może uzależniać od siebie znaczące grupy wyborców. Krótko mówiąc, proces wyborczy nie jest w pełni demokratyczny. Wymaga to więc legislacyjnej ingerencji, by zwiększyć szanse wpływu wyborców na zarządzanie wspólnymi sprawami. Takiego zakresu kumulacji władzy nie obserwujemy w żadnej ze struktur polskiego państwa. Mamy oczywiście do czynienia z wieloletnim okupowaniem tych samych pozycji przez różne osoby, co budzi irytację wielu obywateli. Nie ma jednak przesłanek do twierdzenia, że przepisy i procedury zaburzają tu wolność procesu wyborczego. Możliwości radnych, czy parlamentarzystów do manipulowania opinią publiczną są bardzo ograniczone, a w żaden sposób nie porównywalne do uprawnień „włodarzy” polskich miast i gmin. Wyborcy nie mogą się skarżyć, że winę, za nieakceptowany przez nich stan rzeczy ponosi ktoś inny, niż oni sami. Legislatorzy powinni zaś skupić się nad większą demokratyzacją procesu wyborczego, nad rzetelnością informacji, nad większą reprezentatywnością ordynacji wyborczej itp.

On October 25, the inhabitants of Częstochowa will decide the fate of President Krzysztof Matyjaszczyk, who is facing corruption allegations, and on November 15, the residents of Sanok will vote on the dismissal of Mayor Tomasz Matuszewski due to an ongoing conflict with the city council. #Częstochowa #referendum #polityka (translated)

Karol Rajewski, former mayor of Błaszek, in an emotional open letter appeals to Michał Kołodziejczak to resign from his parliamentary mandate due to serious accusations of aggression and violence that have shaken the Polish political scene. #Kołodziejczak #Rajewski #polityka (translated)

Katarzyna Pełczyńska wrote that the statement, which was supposed to sound like a threat, she took as encouragement. She pointed out that if the party leaders from both sides of the dispute, as well as Mr. Patelnia, Mr. Mejza, and Matecki, were to leave the Parliament, the situation would be interesting. Pełczyńska added that the limitation to two terms in democracies usually pertains to directly elected offices, such as the country's president, village head, mayor, or city president. In her opinion, pathological systems form more quickly around such concentrated power. She believed that an executive power chosen collegially and collegiate bodies, such as the Parliament and councils, are more resistant to this because decisions are made by many people, and their composition changes from term to term. She emphasized that the system of Polish local government requires reflection and perhaps changes, such as strengthening the position of councilors. However, she opposed the removal of the term limit for presidents and mayors on the principle of "everyone or no one." As she wrote, according to such logic, one would also have to abolish the term limit for the President of Poland, which—she noted—nobody wants in Poland. She added that the effects of such a solution can be observed with Poland's eastern neighbors. #demokracja #polityka #władza (translated)

Karol Michalak wrote that for the past three years he has been fighting against the discrimination of Wisła Kraków fans. He claimed that he sent hundreds of letters to police departments, mayors, and presidents, corresponded with the Commissioner for Human Rights, UOKiK, and international organizations, and also prepared a 40-page study on the impact of boycotts on competition. He described that clubs from all over Poland treated him as a person of lower status, and he himself was insulted and humiliated. He wrote that despite this, he did not give up on his efforts to be able to watch matches. However, he added that the post and the approach of its author discouraged him from football. He described this person as, in a sense, the face of Canal+ and pointed out that the station has long been associated with the Ekstraklasa. After years of discrimination, he felt "spat upon." Michalak also wrote that Legia should not give up and should seek documents that would prevent people from watching football. He concluded his statement by saying that he no longer wants to be part of this environment, which — in his opinion — has nothing to do with the beauty of football. #piłkanożna #dyskryminacja #kibice (translated)

Karol Michalak wrote that in his opinion Legia did not appreciate the struggle of the Wisła community against systemic discrimination, which it had been conducting for the past few years. He claimed that the actions of the clubs were being verified, mainly by Lysypokrakowska, and false information was being corrected. He added that Legia was not much different in this respect from clubs in lower leagues. He reminded that recently it was close to relegation and assessed that organizationally it presented first-league aspirations. As examples, Michalak mentioned situations concerning Wisła fans. He wrote that Motor Lublin justified its decision with safety concerns, although in the justification it described the behaviors of Górnik Łęczna. In the case of Górnik Łęczna, the club referred, according to him, to a decision by the mayor, who allegedly denied having made it and stated that he did not see a problem. Michalak also stated that GKS Tychy explained its decision by renovation and mourning for the death of the pope, but after a delegate's visit, they were ordered to play the match. Chrobry was said to have referred to a police opinion, which — as the author reported — declared to ensure safety. Kotwica Kołobrzeg also indicated a police opinion, but it supposedly communicated that the club did not ask for it and issued none. Miedź did not consult the police for an opinion, and the police were said to have concluded that Wisła fans should be let in. Regarding Stal Stalowa Wola, Michalak wrote that the club referred to the position of the police, which denied having issued a recommendation. Stal Rzeszów allegedly spoke of a police opinion, although it did not evaluate the ban. Wisła Płock justified its decision with safety concerns, but the police reportedly conveyed that the club did not ask for their opinion. Śląsk referred to talks with the police, which publicly denied the information provided. The author also reminded that GKS Tychy justified another decision with a breakdown after a downpour, even though in the meantime they played a home match. Pogoń Siedlce pointed to a turnstile malfunction, and Wisła was said to have proposed a self-repair; later the reason was changed to safety concerns. The police were said to have assured that they would guarantee safety. Arka referred to renovations coinciding with the match against Wisła, despite a 75-day break between competitions. Stal Mielec justified its decision with renovation, and the city reportedly assured it would be completed before the match, after which the decision was changed. Michalak summarized that Wisła fans were collectively denied entry to matches 31 times and wrote that Legia found itself in this group. #Wisła #Legia #dyskryminacja (translated)