logo
Refugee who feared execution in communist Poland says 'suffering is optional'

Refugee who feared execution in communist Poland says 'suffering is optional'

It's midnight on a cold evening in communist Poland in 1981.
Elizabeth Szczepanska, then 30, is at her home in Sosnowiec when government authorities burst in.
She has been part of the anti-government movement, and police arrest her and take her to an oval.
"It was one of the scariest moments in my life and I believed that I was going to die," Ms Szczepanska said.
"It was freezing cold … we had Polish soldiers with German shepherds and machine guns targeted at us.
"I was thinking, 'They are just digging up a mass grave. We all will be executed.'
"I was thinking … if this is my last moment of my life but, if I survive this, I'm going to change my life."
She lived to see the morning and followed through on her promise.
Poland was under communist rule from the end of World War II until 1989.
Throughout that period there was open social unrest and the regime introduced martial law.
When Ms Szczepanska was 13, she was told to stand along a wall in the school gym.
It was part of a test to see who would make the best athletes for a sports program.
She passed, and it started a sporting passion that would last more than six decades.
Shot-put, discus and javelin became Ms Szczepanska's speciality. As she trained, being part of the sports program brought in extra food, clothing and money.
"I had an academic scholarship and sports scholarship, and I earned more money than my mum working 56 hours a week," she said.
"I felt like a billionaire. I had money, I supported my family. It was very important."
Ms Szczepanska continued competing as she went to university and became a clinical psychologist.
But her discontent with the government was growing.
"It was really challenging to live in a country that you don't have a freedom of movement, choice and thinking," she said.
She joined the anti-government movement and became a "rebel".
"We met each other in these gatherings and started plotting and scheming how to overturn this government," she said.
Her actions did not go unnoticed. Ms Szczepanska was charged with organising anti-Soviet demonstrations and arrested more than a dozen times, including that terrifying night at the oval.
Even when she was not detained, she was still followed.
"For five years I had two secret police officers standing in front of my door and I had to report myself at the local police station at 7am, 1pm and 7pm," she said.
"Even [when] I'd be standing in a long queue to buy toilet paper … they would be standing behind my back.
"They make this visible. They didn't even pretend that they were not following."
Eventually, the government came to her with a proposition.
"The secret police said, 'We have enough on you to keep you in prison for another 10 years, or you can choose leaving [the] country,'" Ms Szczepanska said.
"I'm thinking I'm leaving everything behind, my whole life, and I'm going to a country that I cannot speak the language, I don't have any experiences here.
"I've been so hurt by what happened in my political and personal life that I want to run, I want to simply escape this.
"It wasn't easy."
When she was 36, Ms Szczepanska chose to come to Australia — a country she had never been to and had no connections with.
When she and her three-year-old daughter arrived in Melbourne in December 1987, she hid her tears so her daughter couldn't see her crying.
Four years later, she was handed a flyer for the Masters Games — an international sporting event for people aged 30 and over.
That same day, Ms Szczepanska bought two discuses and started throwing again for the first time since she had left Poland.
She has not stopped throwing since.
"If I'm going on an athletics track or oval and doing my throwing, my brain is 18.
"You have this feeling, 'I belong here, this is part of me.'"
Ms Szczepanska, now 74, recently retired after working as a psychologist for 50 years.
She won many medals throughout her sporting career — 191, to be exact. She still has most of them, but not all.
"I've been giving my medals to my clients, the people I've been working with, as a sign of achievement when they change behaviour and habits."
She has another two medals that she will not be giving away.
In 2010, Ms Szczepanska was awarded the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland, given to those who have contributed greatly to Poland, and the Cross of Freedom and Solidarity, which honours those who were punished by the communist government and fought against it.
Ms Szczepanskahas only returned to Poland once, when her mother passed away, but she will not go there again.
"I put Poland and my past behind me … and I'm done," she said.
"I still cannot be fully accepted, and I cannot be honest with them, so this is the reason I am deciding not to go."
However, she is thankful for that day in the school gym.
"I think that someone looked after me and sent me there, gave me this opportunity to equip me with skills so I can cope better with challenges in life," she said.
Ms Szczepanska now lives in Geraldton, a sunny town on the Midwest coast of Western Australia.
Even with everything that has happened to her, she said she had no regrets.
"I don't have any. Not at all," she said.
"I think that I did everything that I could according to the resources that I had to create a good life for myself and for my daughter.
"I am still the same open-minded, compassionate and kind human."
Her experiences have also given her a truly unique perspective on life.
"I'm not giving up. I can be defeated, but I won't surrender. I will do everything I could 100 per cent so I won't have regrets," she said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Game on for state election 'referendum' on AFL stadium
Game on for state election 'referendum' on AFL stadium

Perth Now

time19 minutes ago

  • Perth Now

Game on for state election 'referendum' on AFL stadium

Opponents of a billion-dollar waterfront stadium proposal that would play home to a Tasmanian AFL team vow to step up campaigning if a snap election is called. They will be met with the voices of Tasmanian AFL legends - such as the Riewoldts, Matthew Richardson and Brendon Gale - in an election one analyst describes as a "referendum" on the project. Tasmanian politics was up-ended this week by the successful vote of no confidence in Premier Jeremy Rockliff. Unless the Liberal party opts to remove Mr Rockliff and negotiate a new deal with crossbenchers, an election is set to be called no earlier than Tuesday. It will be the first winter campaign on the island state for more than two decades and the fourth in seven years. Senior Liberal figures including senator Jonno Duniam are calling the prospect of a snap election "nuts". "I would have thought every effort should be put into not going to an election ... the people that lose out most in all this - forget the parliamentarians - it's the people of Tassie," he told ABC Radio. Analysts tip an unpredictable campaign given the nature of the political turmoil, with fresh candidates from the federal election in May adding another dimension. Ex-federal Liberal MP Bridget Archer is viewed as a likely candidate in Bass should Mr Rockliff hang on. Anti-salmon independent Peter George, who ran Julie Collins close in the safe federal seat of Franklin, told AAP he was considering his options. Opposition leader Dean Winter moved the no-confidence motion due to the state budget, which included ballooning deficits and debt forecasts, as well as proposals to privatise state assets. However, it's the stadium that looms as the biggest issue. Veteran political campaigner Brad Stansfield, who has worked on the Liberals' last four election wins, said it would be issue No.1. "At the last election ... we mostly kept it hidden from the campaign," he said on his FontCast podcast. "This campaign is going to be the referendum on the AFL stadium that we haven't yet had. It is coming like a steam train." The roofed Macquarie Point stadium is a condition of the AFL licence, with the state government responsible for delivery and cost overruns. But recent polls suggest Tasmanians are not sold on the need for a new stadium. Labor and the Liberals support the stadium, but Mr Stansfield said Mr Rockliff would be the one who paid the electoral price. "If you don't like the stadium, you will vote against the Liberals," he said. Roland Browne, spokesperson for the anti-stadium Our Place group, told AAP they would campaign if there is an election. Firebrand senator Jacqui Lambie, independent federal MP Andrew Wilkie and acclaimed author Richard Flanagan are among well-known Tasmanians to front their cause. Mr Browne said he foresaw a scenario where one or both of the major parties would join the Greens in opposing the project. "Everybody wants the AFL teams. But the stadium is a millstone," he told AAP. Stadium supporters hope the Devils, who have employed favourite son Brendon Gale as its chief executive, can win over stadium opponents. Senator Duniam said while the state government was copping flack for its struggles to complete the project, the AFL should look to amend the deal or its timelines. "There's one party to this debacle which seems to keeping pretty quiet for the most part and that's the AFL," he said. "How about the AFL actually look at what's going on here because of what they've asked us to do?"

The government's super changes for high earners, explained
The government's super changes for high earners, explained

SBS Australia

time6 hours ago

  • SBS Australia

The government's super changes for high earners, explained

The government's super changes for high earners, explained Published 6 June 2025, 8:24 am New research into the government's plans to increase the tax on high-income earners' superannuation has revealed it could eventually apply to half a million Australians. Labor is moving to pass its contentious plan for 30% taxes on earnings for multi-million dollar balances when parliament returns. SBS Chief political correspondent Anna Henderson explains.

Judge blocks Trump's Harvard international students ban
Judge blocks Trump's Harvard international students ban

The Advertiser

time8 hours ago

  • The Advertiser

Judge blocks Trump's Harvard international students ban

A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from barring US entry of foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs at Harvard University. Under a two-page temporary restraining order granted to Harvard, US District Judge Allison Burroughs on Thirsday enjoined Trump's proclamation from taking effect pending further litigation of the matter amid an escalating dispute between the Ivy League school and Republican president. The judge ruled Trump's directive prohibiting foreign nationals from entering the United States to study at Harvard for the next six months would cause "immediate and irreparable injury" before the courts have a chance to review the case. Burroughs in May had blocked Trump from implementing a separate order prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students, who make up more than a quarter of its student body. Harvard on Thursday amended its lawsuit to challenge the new directive, claiming Trump is violating Burroughs' decision. "The Proclamation denies thousands of Harvard's students the right to come to this country to pursue their education and follow their dreams, and it denies Harvard the right to teach them. Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard," the school said in the filing. Burroughs' order on Thursday also continued a separate temporary restraining order she issued on May 23 against the administration's restriction on international student enrolment at Harvard. Earlier on Thursday, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called Harvard "a hotbed of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators," claims that the school has previously denied. "Harvard's behaviour has jeopardised the integrity of the entire US student and exchange visitor visa system and risks compromising national security. Now it must face the consequences of its actions," Jackson said in a statement. Trump cited national security concerns as justification for barring international students from entering the US to pursue studies at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university. Under Trump's proclamation, the suspension would initially be for six months but could be extended. Trump's order also directed the US State Department to consider revoking academic or exchange visas of any current Harvard students who meet his proclamation's criteria. In Thursday's court filing, Harvard said Trump had violated federal law by failing to back up his claims about national security. "The Proclamation does not deem the entry of an alien or class of aliens to be detrimental to the interests of the United States, because non-citizens who are impacted by the Proclamation can enter the United States — just so long as they go somewhere other than Harvard," the school said. The Trump administration has launched a multi-front attack on the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, freezing billions of dollars in grants and other funding and proposing to end its tax-exempt status, prompting a series of legal challenges. Harvard argues the administration is retaliating against it for refusing to accede to demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students. A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from barring US entry of foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs at Harvard University. Under a two-page temporary restraining order granted to Harvard, US District Judge Allison Burroughs on Thirsday enjoined Trump's proclamation from taking effect pending further litigation of the matter amid an escalating dispute between the Ivy League school and Republican president. The judge ruled Trump's directive prohibiting foreign nationals from entering the United States to study at Harvard for the next six months would cause "immediate and irreparable injury" before the courts have a chance to review the case. Burroughs in May had blocked Trump from implementing a separate order prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students, who make up more than a quarter of its student body. Harvard on Thursday amended its lawsuit to challenge the new directive, claiming Trump is violating Burroughs' decision. "The Proclamation denies thousands of Harvard's students the right to come to this country to pursue their education and follow their dreams, and it denies Harvard the right to teach them. Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard," the school said in the filing. Burroughs' order on Thursday also continued a separate temporary restraining order she issued on May 23 against the administration's restriction on international student enrolment at Harvard. Earlier on Thursday, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called Harvard "a hotbed of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators," claims that the school has previously denied. "Harvard's behaviour has jeopardised the integrity of the entire US student and exchange visitor visa system and risks compromising national security. Now it must face the consequences of its actions," Jackson said in a statement. Trump cited national security concerns as justification for barring international students from entering the US to pursue studies at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university. Under Trump's proclamation, the suspension would initially be for six months but could be extended. Trump's order also directed the US State Department to consider revoking academic or exchange visas of any current Harvard students who meet his proclamation's criteria. In Thursday's court filing, Harvard said Trump had violated federal law by failing to back up his claims about national security. "The Proclamation does not deem the entry of an alien or class of aliens to be detrimental to the interests of the United States, because non-citizens who are impacted by the Proclamation can enter the United States — just so long as they go somewhere other than Harvard," the school said. The Trump administration has launched a multi-front attack on the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, freezing billions of dollars in grants and other funding and proposing to end its tax-exempt status, prompting a series of legal challenges. Harvard argues the administration is retaliating against it for refusing to accede to demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students. A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from barring US entry of foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs at Harvard University. Under a two-page temporary restraining order granted to Harvard, US District Judge Allison Burroughs on Thirsday enjoined Trump's proclamation from taking effect pending further litigation of the matter amid an escalating dispute between the Ivy League school and Republican president. The judge ruled Trump's directive prohibiting foreign nationals from entering the United States to study at Harvard for the next six months would cause "immediate and irreparable injury" before the courts have a chance to review the case. Burroughs in May had blocked Trump from implementing a separate order prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students, who make up more than a quarter of its student body. Harvard on Thursday amended its lawsuit to challenge the new directive, claiming Trump is violating Burroughs' decision. "The Proclamation denies thousands of Harvard's students the right to come to this country to pursue their education and follow their dreams, and it denies Harvard the right to teach them. Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard," the school said in the filing. Burroughs' order on Thursday also continued a separate temporary restraining order she issued on May 23 against the administration's restriction on international student enrolment at Harvard. Earlier on Thursday, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called Harvard "a hotbed of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators," claims that the school has previously denied. "Harvard's behaviour has jeopardised the integrity of the entire US student and exchange visitor visa system and risks compromising national security. Now it must face the consequences of its actions," Jackson said in a statement. Trump cited national security concerns as justification for barring international students from entering the US to pursue studies at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university. Under Trump's proclamation, the suspension would initially be for six months but could be extended. Trump's order also directed the US State Department to consider revoking academic or exchange visas of any current Harvard students who meet his proclamation's criteria. In Thursday's court filing, Harvard said Trump had violated federal law by failing to back up his claims about national security. "The Proclamation does not deem the entry of an alien or class of aliens to be detrimental to the interests of the United States, because non-citizens who are impacted by the Proclamation can enter the United States — just so long as they go somewhere other than Harvard," the school said. The Trump administration has launched a multi-front attack on the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, freezing billions of dollars in grants and other funding and proposing to end its tax-exempt status, prompting a series of legal challenges. Harvard argues the administration is retaliating against it for refusing to accede to demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students. A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from barring US entry of foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs at Harvard University. Under a two-page temporary restraining order granted to Harvard, US District Judge Allison Burroughs on Thirsday enjoined Trump's proclamation from taking effect pending further litigation of the matter amid an escalating dispute between the Ivy League school and Republican president. The judge ruled Trump's directive prohibiting foreign nationals from entering the United States to study at Harvard for the next six months would cause "immediate and irreparable injury" before the courts have a chance to review the case. Burroughs in May had blocked Trump from implementing a separate order prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students, who make up more than a quarter of its student body. Harvard on Thursday amended its lawsuit to challenge the new directive, claiming Trump is violating Burroughs' decision. "The Proclamation denies thousands of Harvard's students the right to come to this country to pursue their education and follow their dreams, and it denies Harvard the right to teach them. Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard," the school said in the filing. Burroughs' order on Thursday also continued a separate temporary restraining order she issued on May 23 against the administration's restriction on international student enrolment at Harvard. Earlier on Thursday, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called Harvard "a hotbed of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators," claims that the school has previously denied. "Harvard's behaviour has jeopardised the integrity of the entire US student and exchange visitor visa system and risks compromising national security. Now it must face the consequences of its actions," Jackson said in a statement. Trump cited national security concerns as justification for barring international students from entering the US to pursue studies at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university. Under Trump's proclamation, the suspension would initially be for six months but could be extended. Trump's order also directed the US State Department to consider revoking academic or exchange visas of any current Harvard students who meet his proclamation's criteria. In Thursday's court filing, Harvard said Trump had violated federal law by failing to back up his claims about national security. "The Proclamation does not deem the entry of an alien or class of aliens to be detrimental to the interests of the United States, because non-citizens who are impacted by the Proclamation can enter the United States — just so long as they go somewhere other than Harvard," the school said. The Trump administration has launched a multi-front attack on the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, freezing billions of dollars in grants and other funding and proposing to end its tax-exempt status, prompting a series of legal challenges. Harvard argues the administration is retaliating against it for refusing to accede to demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store