On 16th of February 2012, Lithuanian State Reestablishment Day, member of the European Parliament Vytautas Landsbergis delivered a speech in a biased way, choosing the unfavourable aspects of certain events in the Lithuanian history. He presented them in a way that was deformed, tendentious and subjective. Additionally, the presented „incontestable truth” was meant to incite a quarrel.
The public delivery of the disdainful statement about alleged closing of the last Lintuanian school in Poland was aimed to cause a negative attitude in Lithuanian people (their number is undetermined) about Polish schools located in Lithuania. Vytautas Landsbergis is perfectly aware that the fate of schools in Puńsk Commune lies in the hands of the village mayor Vytautas Liškauskas (who is a Lithuanian) and Puńsk Parish Council where 13 out of 15 members are also Lithuanian. Central authorities of Poland have nothing to say in the matter.
The pupil’s basket in the schools of national minorities in Poland is 150 % higher. While in Lituania it’s higher only about 120%. The fate of three primary schools (Widugiery, Przystawaniec, Nowinniki) is now being decided. They are attended by 38 pupils, which gives on average 13 pupils per school. During his speech, V. Landsbergis knew that in Lithuania such primary schools are not numerous, however he presented the alleged closing of Lituanian schools in Poland negatively simply to turn the public against the Polish people.
His speech has a psychological character. Its goal is to make people upset about the situation of Lituanians in Poland. That’s why it’s considered as an incitement to nationalistic discord between Lituanians and Polish minority in Lithuania.
He presented biased data about the alleged closing of Lithuanian school in Poland, about the activity of racist and Nazi organisations, and about the outbreak of the uprising in Klaipeda. It all forms a nationalistically motivated and negative stereotype and also cause a hostile attitude towards Polish minority.
The above-mentioned presentation of thoughs can be seen as an attempt to provoke a conflict between nations. This information can be considered as an incitement to a nationalistic quarrel – they create a base for a negative attitude towards Polish minority. Because of them, Polish minority is being indentified with ‘Nazi’ of Klaipeda.
All this information – both factually and form-wise (presenting an interpretation of a history) – not only will make Lituanian people feel at least antipathy towards Poles but also incite to hatred.
It is worth underlining that the speech of V. Landsbergis was full of information purposefully chosen to bind the negative feelings and impressions to Polish people. This may as well lead to revenge, mass riots (events that will disrupt the harmonious social system and peaceful coexistence of its members).
I apply for initiation of preliminary proceedings on the ground of the above-mentioned arguments and the recording of V. Landsbergis’s speech (attached) as the basis of a commission of a criminal act by V. Landsbergis. The criminal act can only be described as nationalistic and discriminatory, aimed to provoke a disdain towards Poles and incite a national discord.
Regards, member of the Parliament of Lithuania, Wanda Krawczonok
Tłumaczenie Justyna Kaczmarek w ramach praktyk w Europejskiej Fundacji Praw Człowieka, www.efhr.eu. Translated by Justyna Kaczmarek the framework of a traineeship programme of the European Foundation of Human Rights, www.efhr.eu.