The Prime Minister’s statement came after Malta committed to putting reform of the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) on the agenda of its upcoming Council of Europe Presidency.

This caused some confusion and calls for clarification.

Abela responded by saying that there are loopholes within these conventions that allow people who don’t necessarily deserve asylum status to achieve it. He exemplified this by noting that Italy – with Malta’s support – is challenging the interpretation of a safe country of return. Both countries are arguing that a state that is considered unsafe in just 5% of its territory should not be considered wholly unsafe.

“There are several circumstances in the EU where migrants who have no right to asylum, or are involved in crime, cannot be returned to their home country because of legal loopholes,” he said. Here, he added that Malta will continue to fight for human rights, granted they are “merited”.

Abela’s overall argument was that the convention should be reformed to reflect modern challenges, namely the increase of irregular migration in Europe in recent decades which, according to him, could not have been predicted 80 years ago when the ECHR was drafted.

These comments sparked concerns of democratic backsliding and even alliance with the far-right

“Human rights are not gifts to be granted. They are not rewards for obedience. And they are certainly not subject to the judgement of one person, no matter how powerful they believe themselves to be,” Engerer wrote.

“We are no longer subjects of a king. We do not live in a time when one man decides who is worthy and who is not. Today, we are protected by human rights that are universal, indivisible and unconditional. That is what separates democracy from tyranny.”

Engerer continued by saying that this comment warrants a loud response, adding that humanity has already learned ” through history and struggle, that when rights are reserved for the few, injustice soon follows.”

He warned that a statement like this may be the start of a slippery slope to selectively restricting freedoms and rights.

“This is how injustice begins, not in loud declarations of cruelty but in quiet distortions of principle.”

“If we do not defend the universality of rights now, we may wake up in a country where some of us no longer have them,” Engerer concluded.

“We reject this extremism”: Repubblika

Activist group Repubblika wrote that Abela’s comment abandoned “decades of consensus in Malta’s domestic and foreign policy” and signaled an alignment with “the extreme right to undermine fundamental human rights”.

The organisation clarified that Abela’s commitment to reform the 80-year-old convention is an attempt to legitimise state actions that are currently considered illegal.

Repubblika reiterated that human rights are “fundamental, inalienable and universal” emphasising that they are to be applied to everyone without discrimination. It further pointed out that Abela’s historical argument that the authors couldn’t foresee today’s migration issue is “grossly ignorant”.

“The authors of the conventions in the 1940s wrote them in the shadow and living memory of the Second World War and the Nazi Holocaust. These authors were witnesses to the consequences of what happens when governments deny the rights of refugees fleeing persecution and misery in their home countries.”

Better still, the rights to “life, free speech, fair trial, freedom from torture, to be saved from drowning, and to be granted asylum when fleeing persecution” have been recognised, but not always respected, for centuries.

“The duty of those who are able to save those drowning at sea has been a part of Mediterranean civilisation for thousands of years.”

The difference is that the convention established subsequent international laws to protect these rights and shield everyone from the abuse that can be committed by those in power, Repubblika said.

“Robert Abela wants these international laws to be changed so he can do what he currently cannot: commit cruelties against the victims he is choosing.”

This has proven that Abela is one of many European leaders who “in the blink of an eye, is abandoning democratic norms that former democracies have agreed upon for eighty years”.

“In fact, Robert Abela himself expresses alignment with other governments of the right, often the extreme right, when justifying this attack on fundamental human rights.”

Repubblika concluded with a call to action urging all people who “cherish democracy, and to moderate and progressive-minded individuals, to renew the national consensus that no one should be allowed to trample on fundamental human rights.”

Are you concerned by Abela’s commitment to reforming this convention?