main points
1
The first hearing in the case of Oliwia Olejniczak was held at the District Court in Zamość. She is charged with incitement to hatred in connection with a speech delivered during a lawful demonstration against mass immigration.
2
The key prosecution witness gave extensive testimony concerning the general social situation and media commentary, which—according to the defense—largely did not directly relate to the alleged offense.
3
Atty. Magdalena Majkowska of the Ordo Iuris Institute, who represents Oliwia Olejniczak, points out the absence of the elements of a crime and the vague nature of the indictment.
4
After the hearing in late February, a press conference was held, during which the importance of the case for free speech standards and citizens’ right to participate in public debate was emphasized.
In late February, the District Court in Zamość held the first hearing in the trial of Oliwia Olejniczak—a young mother and social activist accused of publicly inciting hatred on national and racial grounds (an offense under Article 256 § 1 of the Criminal Code). The case concerns a speech delivered during a lawful demonstration opposing mass immigration, which took place on July 19, 2025, at the Great Market Square in Zamość, in southeastern Poland, on a day when many such demonstrations were held throughout Poland. The defendant faces up to 3 years’ imprisonment. She is represented in court by defense attorney Magdalena Majkowska, a member of the board of the Ordo Iuris Institute.
Charges related to participation in a lawful assembly
Criminal proceedings were initiated following a report filed immediately after the demonstration by a Poland 2050 party activist. Poland 2050 is a centrist party, which is part of PM Donald Tusk’s EU-backed left-liberal governing coalition. The event in Zamość was one of numerous demonstrations organized in various cities across Poland as part of the public debate concerning the country’s migration policy.
The demonstration was a lawful assembly and was secured by numerous police forces. As the defense points out, during the event, the officers neither decided to disband it nor took action against the participants, which—in the view of the defense—has significant bearing on the assessment of whether a crime could have been committed.
Testimony of the prosecution witness
After the indictment was read, the court heard testimony from the key prosecution witness, a local media journalist who recorded the defendant’s speech and then published it online.
The witness’s testimony took up a substantial portion of the hearing. However, during them, much of the discussion concerned issues that went beyond the subject matter of the proceedings, relating to the city’s overall social situation and the events preceding the demonstration.
The witness reported, among other things, accounts of alleged social tensions related to foreigners, the reactions of some residents during cultural events, and information circulating on social media regarding the possible presence of migrants in Zamość. Anonymous online comments were also cited, which—as the defense pointed out—were neither supported by evidence nor directly linked to the defendant.
During questioning, the witness also described a situation involving a group of foreign nationals sightseeing in the city, who were said to have expressed negative sentiments toward the demonstration. However, no testimony from those individuals or other evidence that would allow this incident to be verified was presented.
The witness also stated that she had contacted City Hall with a question regarding the number of illegal immigrants residing in Zamość and received a response indicating that no such data is available.
According to the defense, a substantial portion of the testimony consisted of general assessments and accounts from public debate, rather than an analysis of the specific statement forming the basis of the indictment.
Defense motions and court decisions
During the hearing, the defense filed motions to dismiss the case and to return the indictment for supplementation, citing, among other things, the vague nature of the charges. The court did not grant these motions at this stage of the proceedings.
Oliwia Olejniczak’s defense also drew attention to the expert opinion prepared in the case, which, in the defense’s view, contained assessments that went beyond the scope of specialized expert analysis.
Press conference after the hearing
After the hearing concluded, a press conference was held outside the courthouse, attended by defense attorneys and representatives of social groups supporting the defendant, including activists from All-Polish Youth and the National Movement.
Atty. Magdalena Majkowska emphasized that the analysis of the evidence does not indicate that the statement by Oliwia Olejniczak satisfies the statutory elements of the crime of incitement to hatred.
“In my view, it is clear that Oliwia’s statement does not constitute the criminal offense of incitement to hatred. The allegations are formulated in very general terms; this has not been specified. The defense continues to maintain that Oliwia’s conduct did not satisfy the elements of a criminal offense,” said the lawyer from the Ordo Iuris Institute.
During the conference, attention was also drawn to the importance of the case for free speech standards and for citizens’ right to participate in public debate on the country’s policy directions.
The next hearing is to take place on March 17.
Freedom of speech
From the point of view of the Ordo Iuris Institute, this case exemplifies proceedings in which criminal-law provisions on so-called hate speech are applied to statements addressing important social and political issues.
Ordo Iuris emphasizes that criminal liability for public statements should be exceptional and apply only to situations of explicit incitement to violence or discrimination, not to positions expressed as part of lawful public debate.
Read also:
Source of cover photo: x.com/MagdaMajkowska
