Starmer
and hardline governments risk creating ‘hierarchy of people’ by constraining
human rights
Human
rights official says politicians are playing into the hands of the populist
right as they seek to tackle migration
Ashifa
Kassam Rajeev Syal and Pippa Crerar
Wed 10
Dec 2025 22.04 CET
Keir
Starmer and Europe’s hardline governments risk creating a “hierarchy of people”
as they seek to address migration by curbing fundamental rights, Europe’s most
senior human rights official has said.
Michael
O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, said that
“middle-of the road politicians” are playing into the hands of the populist
right.
Speaking
exclusively to the Guardian, he pointed to the “lazy correlation” of migration
and crime as an example. “This doesn’t correspond with reality,” he said.
“For
every inch yielded, there’s going to be another inch demanded,” he said. “Where
does it stop? For example, the focus right now is on migrants, in large part.
But who is it going to be about next time around? ”
O’Flaherty
said it is “very important” that politicians point out the significance of the
ECHR’s core principles, such as that people are equal in terms of the
universality of human rights.
“The idea
that we would create or foster the impression of a hierarchy of people, some
more deserving than others, is a very, very worrying one indeed,” he said.
His
comments come after some of Europe’s hardline governments including the UK
moved a step closer to “constraining” human rights laws to allow Rwanda-style
migration deals with third countries and more foreign criminals to be deported.
Twenty-seven
of the 46 Council of Europe members including the UK, Hungary and Italy signed
an unofficial statement that also urges a new framework for the European
convention of human rights, which will narrow the definition of “inhuman and
degrading treatment”.
The
statement follows a meeting of the council in Strasbourg on Wednesday as part
of a push to change the way the laws apply in migration cases.
Signed by
27 countries, the statement said that article 3 of the convention, which bans
“inhuman or degrading treatment” should be “constrained to the most serious
issues in a manner which does not prevent states parties from taking
proportionate decisions on the expulsion of foreign criminals … including in
cases raising issues concerning healthcare and prison conditions”.
It also
argues that article 8 should be “adjusted” in relation to criminals so that
more weight is put on the nature and seriousness of the offence committed and
less on a criminal’s ties with the host country.
The
council has resolved to reconvene in May to make a declaration – a political
statement reaffirming commitments or guiding principles, carrying significant
political weight but not legally binding in itself.
Declarations
from the council are intended to have an effect on case law and on European
court rulings.
However,
it may be possible for a two-thirds majority, or 31 members, to force through a
decision that would give their views of interpretations of articles 3 and 8,
sources have said.
Senior
Labour figures have expressed concern at the plans. Lord Alf Dubs, the Labour
peer who came to the UK on the Kindertransport in 1939, said: “I’m worried it
will be the thin edge of the wedge and just about taking human rights away from
people. Obviously a lot of this will be in the detail and how it’s interpreted,
but I’m alarmed and concerned that 27 countries are ganging up to do this in
Europe to their citizens.”
Baroness
Shami Chakrabarti, a human rights barrister, said: “To ‘reinterpret’ or justify
inhuman and degrading treatment is to strike at the very heart of postwar
rights and freedoms.”
Veronika
Fikfak, a professor of international law at University College London, said the
proposed changes to article 3 will be of concern for people who are arrested
for protesting or held in detention in dire conditions.
“To be
allowed to expel a handful of criminals, states are today embarking on a path
that will reduce human rights protections for all of Europe. This
reinterpretation will not primarily affect migrants, but those who need medical
attention and those who find themselves in harsh prison conditions. The move
seems to be disproportionate and set us on a dangerous path,” she said.
Akiko
Hart, director of human rights organisation Liberty warned the government
“risks taking us down a road of no return by jeopardising the legal framework
that protects us all”.
“These
discussions must be rooted in facts and evidence, not exaggerated narratives
and the demonisation of our communities,” she said.
Others
have offered their support for the proposals. Former Labour cabinet minister
Lord Hain said: “I’d be opposed to pulling out of the ECHR, that would leave
Britain deeply isolated and discredited, but finding a way of curbing the
excesses of the Strasbourg Court in a sensible fashion – which is quite
feasible within the treaty and the act – is a much more creative way to do
that.”
It also
emerged on Wednesday that a senior government minister has declined to rule out
“pushing back” small boats in the Channel.
In an
interview with Politico, Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, was asked if the
government would consider taking up an offer by Jordan Bardella, the leader of
France’s far-right National Rally, to conduct “pushbacks” of migrant boats in
the Channel if his party wins power.
When
asked if pushback was not “totally off the table,” Cooper – who was until
recently home secretary – replied: “We will look at any mechanism that can work
effectively and also can work safely.”
Labour,
unlike the Tories and Reform UK, is committed to remaining within the ECHR,
which was drawn up in the aftermath of the second world war.
Labour’s
poll ratings have plummeted since the general election, with the rise of Nigel
Farage’s Reform UK partly caused by concerns about the impact of immigration –
both authorised and through small boat crossings of the Channel.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário