A torture survivor who fled his homeland to seek sanctuary in the UK has pleaded with Keir Starmer to change his "deeply flawed" approach to the small boats crisis.
Kolbassia Haoussou, who now campaigns for refugees fleeing persecution, said thousands like him are making dangerous journeys because there are no other options. He criticised the PM's announcement that a counter-terrorism style approach should be used to deal with trafficking - arguing safe and legal routes should be expanded instead.
Mr Haoussou, who has been awarded an MBE for his advocacy work, told The Mirror: "The smuggling of refugees from regions of conflict and persecution, through Europe and across the Channel, is not a question of national security, it is a humanitarian crisis and a failure of international diplomacy.
"Time and time again, people like me are putting their life into the hands of smugglers because there is simply no other way. The reality is that the safe routes to protection in the UK that do exist are simply not sufficient or accessible enough to enable us to do our bit for the world ’s refugees."
Scroll down to read Mr Haoussou's words in full
Mr Haoussou fled persecution in Chad, central Africa, where he suffered torture and violence. He arrived in the UK in 2005, and co-founded Survivors Speak Out, a network of torture survivors.
He was awarded an MBE in the 2020 New Year's Honours List. He said he is worried by the PM's crackdown, which saw Mr Starmer tell global law enforcement chiefs that people smuggling "should be viewed as a global security threat similar to terrorism".
Mr Haoussou said: "More enforcement will not stop people moving to find sanctuary, it simply pushes them into more dangerous routes involving a greater risk of harm and exploitation.
"If the Government is serious about saving lives in the Channel, then it must work with international partners to prevent the persecution and torture that pushes people to flee in the first place, it must increase alternative routes to safety, expand search and rescue operations at the border, and ensure access to asylum for all those who need it."
And he warned that applying counter-terror laws "wouldn't discriminate between the smugglers and the refugees who must use their services to reach safety". The campaigner said that comparing people smuggling to terrorism "will provoke fear and suspicion in an already vulnerable community".
It comes amid growing calls for the Government to open up new safe and legal routes to asylum seekers. But on Wednesday Dame Angela Eagle, Minister for Border Security and Asylum, claimed this wouldn't stop small boats.
She told MPs: "I don't believe that safe routes would stop people attempting to come over the channel in small boats. So I have some sympathy with the idea of the safe routes, but I don't think it would stop this trade.
"For example, 1,500 Indians came across and we have a visa arrangement with the Indians. The highest nationality for small boat arrivals was Vietnamese. Again, this is not about people who are always asylum seekers coming over."
'Refugees are not a threat to our national security'
By Kolbassia Haoussou, Director of Survivor Leadership and Influencing at Freedom from Torture
I came to the UK in a small boat in 2005 after being tortured in my home country. I know that no one gets into an overcrowded and unstable dinghy to cross one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes without a desperate need to find safety.
People will take a chance or die trying rather than staying home to be tortured to a slow death. Previous governments have traded in dangerous misconceptions about what leads survivors to seek sanctuary in the UK, and what routes are actually available to them to do so.
And it’s disappointing to see a Government that claims to be committed to upholding our international obligations, echoing the inflammatory rhetoric and security-focused agenda of the Conservatives. The Prime Minister’s comments - comparing irregular migration to terrorism - will provoke fear and suspicion in an already vulnerable community to which those in charge owe a duty to protect.
As we have already seen this summer, the demonising and scapegoating of refugees puts people seeking safety at very real risk. The Prime Minister’s plans to use counter-terror-style powers to disrupt the smuggling of refugees are deeply flawed.
These types of powers are an interference with the right to respect private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They involve the seizure of mobile phones, the diversion of money transfers, shutting down bank accounts, cutting off internet access, and arrest before any illegal act has taken place. Before we hand over yet more power to trample on rights that we all hold dear, we should be demanding some answers.
The first question to ask is: in a compassionate and democratic society, do we really need and want to systematically violate the rights of people who are coming here only seeking sanctuary and who, through no fault of their own, have had to rely on smuggling gangs to do so. The application of these powers, whether in the UK or across Europe, will not discriminate between the smugglers and the refugees who must use their services to reach safety. It’s vital that we stop any expansion of the violation of refugees’ human rights in the name of national security.
Refugees are not a threat to our national security. The people trying to reach the UK in small boats are men, women and children who’ve fled torture and war and are looking to us for protection. They are fleeing places like Afghanistan and Iran precisely because they value their human rights and believe that we do too. They are democracy fighters and women’s rights activists escaping authoritarian and oppressive regimes, whose lives have been endangered fighting for the rights we take for granted every single day.
The reasons why refugees end up in the UK are diverse, but they are all driven by one thing – the need to find safety. And the ugly truth is that for the majority of those fleeing danger, there is no other option but to use smuggling routes, relying on friends, family and community members to move from one location to the next.
The smuggling of refugees from regions of conflict and persecution, through Europe and across the Channel, is not a question of national security, it is a humanitarian crisis and a failure of international diplomacy. Time and time again, people like me are putting their life into the hands of smugglers because there is simply no other way.
The reality is that the safe routes to protection in the UK that do exist are simply not sufficient or accessible enough to enable us to do our bit for the world’s refugees. The UK has a proud history of championing human rights, but in recent decades we’ve seen a continued backsliding when it comes to adherence to international obligations.
As a survivor, I’ve been heartened by the Prime Minister’s unwavering commitment to the rule of law. I thought now would be the time for the UK to become, once again, a global leader in the anti-torture movement and in upholding the international refugee protection system. But I’m deeply concerned by the direction this Government is taking.
More enforcement will not stop people moving to find sanctuary, it simply pushes them into more dangerous routes involving a greater risk of harm and exploitation. If the Government is serious about saving lives in the Channel, then it must work with international partners to prevent the persecution and torture that pushes people to flee in the first place, it must increase alternative routes to safety, expand search and rescue operations at the border, and ensure access to asylum for all those who need it.
Now is not the time for fearmongering. It’s time for the Government to work closely with civil society and lived experience leaders to bring communities together, recognising our shared pursuit of a world free of torture and the needless loss of life in search of safety. Now is the time for compassion and unity.