By Sharon
Coen, Associate Professor of Media Psychology at the University of Salford and Thalia Magioglou, Assistant
Professor of Psychology at the University of Westminster
On May
22nd 2025 nine representatives of European countries have co-signed an open
letter in which they are arguing that the current interpretation of the
European Convention of Human Rights is preventing nation states from being able
to autonomously decide how to deal with immigrants who have committed crime.
The letter has already attracted criticism
for politicizing the work of the European Court of Human Rights and therefore dragging
the application of the rule of law (i.e. the judicial power) in the political
arena. In his reaction
post in this blog, Antoine Buyse appeals to communication scholars to
examine how the letter conveys its message by appealing to particular
discursive strategies. We therefore decided to respond to the appeal and offer
an analysis of the communication strategies adopted by the authors to convey
their message.
Reading
this letter from a cultural/political/discourse perspective there is a
combination of a binary discourse opposing “right” on the side of the
signatories to “wrong”, with no mention of specific facts or legal documents to
justify these positionings. “We are
leaders of societies that safeguard human rights”. Opposed to “They have
learned our languages… Others have come and chosen not to integrate, isolating
themselves in parallel societies and distancing themselves from our fundamental
values of equality, democracy and freedom. In particular, some have not
contributed positively to the societies welcoming them and have chosen to
commit crimes”.
The form
of discourse adopted aims, as it is stated in the last phrases, to enforce a
new interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights. This implies
that the European Convention of Human Rights is not
interpreted in a “right” way by the European Court of Human Rights that represents
the judicial power. This is an interesting statement since the signatories of
the letter represent the executive power in their respective countries. In
democratic states the judiciary sector is to be independent from the executive power.
The
construction of democracy and human rights that is adopted is presented to be
embodied de facto by the signatories of the letter and the silent majority of
European citizens they claim to represent, whereas immigrants are presented to
occupy the opposite position as contestants of these foundational values.
Although there are three different categories of immigrants mentioned in the
letter, criminality seems to exist only in immigrant communities and to be
unknown to European societies.
What is
worrying is a binary form of logic throughout the document where generalised
entities that are presented as homogeneous, are opposed as versions of
“defenders of democracy” on the one side, to the “opponents of democracy” on
the other. In this binary logic there are no questions or a need to investigate
– there are certainties. However, these certainties are not, at least in this
text, associated with specific studies or facts.
Several
rhetorical and logical strategies are adopted in the letter to persuade readers
of the validity of its claims. We present them in the context of Aristotle’s triad
in persuasive communication: Ethos (appeal to credibility and authority);
Pathos (appeal to emotions); Logos (appeal to logic) and highlight how all
three components are leveraged to frame immigration as an existential threat to
sovereign Nation states, and by implication the Human Rights Commissioners’
interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights as dangerous to national
safety and sovereignty and then provide an in depth analysis of a crucial
passage illustrating the logical faux pas underpinning the whole communication.
Ethos
(Appeal to Credibility and Authority)
Claims to expertise are
essential ingredients of persuasive communication. In the letter, authority is
established by repeatedly stressing that the signatories are heads of state and
government, and leaders of member states (“As leaders”, “We want to
use our democratic mandate…”). Credibility is established by emphasising commitment
to human rights, democracy, and multilateral institutions (without offering any
– even anecdotal – evidence). Authority is also implied by presenting [false]
consensus in the appeal to bipartisan unity (we belong to different
political families, yet we agree on this) and the claim that their views are
representative of the majority (“we believe that we are strongly aligned
with the majority of the citizens of Europe in our approach.”).
Pathos
(Appeal to Emotion)
The letter
appeals primarily to moral outrage (by artificially creating a dichotomy
between law abiding citizens and foreign criminals who have “taken advantage
of our hospitality” to “commit crimes”) and fear (by suggesting that
immigrants pose an existential threat “it risks undermining the very
foundation of our societies. It harms the trust between our citizens and it
harms the trust in our institutions.”). Finally, it expresses moral
indignation: “it is beyond our comprehension”. Such appeals are often used as strategies to disengage
morally in the immigration debate.
Logos
(Appeal to Logic and Reason)
The logical
progression of the argument is as follows: when migration is characterised by
lack of integration (which is presented as a choice operated by migrants,
rather than a responsibility of the host country), it leads to crime and wider
societal harm, hence the need for reform. The ‘right’ way to be an immigrant is
actually presented not as integration, but as assimilation (see Berry’s work on
acculturation
strategies for the distinction): “They have learned our languages,
believe in democracy, contribute to our societies and have decided to integrate
themselves into our culture.” Consequently, the European Court of
Human Rights has overreached its remit by preventing Nation states to freely
decide on deportations.
In the
letter, freedom and opportunities are presented as rights host nations share
with immigrants – by implication, freedom and opportunities are not seen as universal
human rights – they belong to states and their citizens who can deny them at
their will. However individual nation states are prevented from doing so, as
illustrated by examples listed without citing data (Cherry-picking).
Framing
– the
letter frames the immigration and human rights debate as an issue
of crime without presenting sufficient data or evidence. Immigrants are
presented as a threat and something extraneous to the sovereign citizenry. This
is achieved using the following strategies:
– False balance: the
letter presents illegal immigration as a substantial proportion (“irregular
migration has contributed significantly to the immigration”), when we know
it is a small minority.
– False balance: Immigrants
who integrate vs. those who isolate. This is presented as a choice made by
immigrants in equal proportions, and no consideration of context.
– Us-vs-them
framing is used for Othering
the immigrants.
Anticipation
of Criticism
The
signatories knew the letter would be widely criticised, hence they employed
rhetorical strategies to offset this.
– Pre-emptive
rebuttal: we will likely be accused of the opposite. This strategy disarms
critics and presents the original authors as thoughtful and misunderstood.
– Appeal
to an inclusive Social
Identity (we, our societies, our citizens) to mask exclusionary
implications of proposed policies.
– Primus
inter pares: establish authority by highlighting their leadership roles ‘As
leaders…’
“we
believe that we are strongly aligned with the majority of the citizens of
Europe in our approach. We want to use our democratic mandate…”
To illustrate,
a particularly rich sentence is the following:
“It is beyond our comprehension how some people can
come to our countries and get a share in our freedom and our vast range of
opportunities, and, indeed, decide to commit crimes. Although this concerns
only a minority of immigrants, it risks undermining the very foundation of our
societies. It harms the trust between our citizens and it harms the trust in
our institutions.”
– “It
is beyond our comprehension”: Moral outrage
– “come
to our countries and get a share in our freedom and our
vast range of opportunities”: Social identity appeal, Zero-sum
fallacy: implies that immigrants ‘take a share’ of a delimited resource
(freedom, opportunities)
– “and,
indeed, decide to commit crimes”: Attribution
bias: attributes criminal behaviour to an active decision made
by individual immigrants – ignoring all the situational factors.
– “Although
this concerns only a minority of immigrants, it risks undermining the
very foundation of our societies.” Hyperbole: this is an exaggeration
at best – misrepresentation at worst: how can a minority, who is responsible
for a minority of crimes, be responsible for the
very foundation of our society?
– “it
risks undermining the very foundation of our societies. It harms the trust
between our citizens and it harms the trust in our institutions.” Fear
appeal: immigrants pose an existential threat.
Overall, our analysis
convenes with Antoine Buyse’s own: “the letter clearly makes a divide
between useful and unwanted migrants and between domestic democracy and an
international court that apparently, in these states’ views, binds their hands
too much.”. In this piece, we
demonstrated how the message construction was achieved from a media
psychological viewpoint. The adoption of such language – especially in the
context of a polarising issue such as immigration – is problematic. Academic work
in the area shows how this type of framing, as well as the rhetorical
strategies adopted can lead to major misunderstandings and misinterpretations
of the social issue the signatories are trying to address.