Tightening the Refugee Convention further would be thoroughly inhumane

Freedom from Torture's response to Sir Mathew Parris's comment piece in the Times which argues that the Refugee Convention needs to be tightened.

Sir, Matthew Parris (24 Sep) argues that the Refugee Convention is a "folly" because it does not distinguish between economic migrants and those fleeing persecution. This is wrong in both law and practice. 

As a matter of law, the treaty applies exclusively to those who can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution including torture on a limited set of grounds. In practice, the Home Office and Tribunal refuse asylum to everyone else, including those seeking prosperity, except where there are other serious humanitarian considerations outside the ambit of the Refugee Convention.

The narrow definition of persecution in the treaty is one reason why the UK, one of the richest countries on earth, hosts less than 1% of those who are forcibly displaced worldwide. To tighten it even further would be thoroughly inhumane. For a start, limiting it to fear of "death alone", as Parris suggests, would exclude those fleeing torture. This flies in the face of a proud British tradition of offering safety and a place to heal for survivors of this most brutal form of persecution.