Case Explained: When humanitarian action is treated as a crime – Legal Perspective

Migrants walk in the water to board a small boat and to reach Britain on November 6, 2025 in Gravelines, Northern France. ‘The real emergency is in the UK, in the [English] Channel,’ Gerald Knaus tells Kathimerini. [JEAN-FRANCOIS BADIAS/AP]

How many people know that a bill is currently being discussed in Greece that does not only concern immigration, but also the way in which societies can speak, organize and criticize?

The bill has already been submitted for consultation by the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum, without being widely understood what exactly it includes and who it ultimately concerns. And yet, its consequences are not limited to organizations and groups active in the field of humanitarian aid, but touch the very space of public expression and collective action and have implications for all of civic life.

Democracy is not abolished with a decree. It is slowly undermined, through legislative interventions, rhetoric and “technical” regulations that are presented as necessary for security or public order. One of the most worrying signs of this erosion is the systematic targeting of civil society organizations and, above all, those who speak out publicly, criticize and defend human rights.

Publicly defending principles, values and rights is not a luxury. It is a fundamental element of societies that respect human rights. Documented criticism and testimony against violations do not constitute a threat to the rule of law. It is the way in which societies check power and improve. However, when organizations and citizens who speak out publicly are presented as “dangerous,” “suspicious” or “hostile to the state,” public expression ceases to be considered a right and becomes a reason for persecution.

This is clearly reflected in the new bill. With the proposed provisions of articles 15 and 16, a defendant’s membership in a non-governmental organization is added to the aggravating circumstances of the offenses of facilitating the illegal entry, exit, residence or transit of third-country nationals, especially when the NGO is registered in the ministry’s own registry.

The official response that participation in NGOs is not criminalized, but only human trafficking, and that the strictest penalty concerns exclusively those who are proven to operate as traffickers is not enough. The crucial issue here is not the declared intention of the bill, but the legal construction of the provision itself. For the application of the aggravating circumstance, no other substantive condition is required: neither financial benefit, nor intention to exploit, nor a specific manner of commission. Membership alone is sufficient.

Thus, participation in a legally registered and audited organization ceases to function as an element of transparency and becomes a factor of increased criminal suspicion. In practice, the bill does not only target a potential illegal act, but the entire role of those who are publicly active, criticize, record violations, accompany people without political power and demand accountability, in clear deviation from European law, which allows exceptions for acts linked to humanitarian aid.

The UN special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khan, and the special rapporteur on human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, have stressed that targeting and silencing human rights defenders creates a climate of fear and constitutes a serious threat to democratic societies.

At the same time, institutional targeting is accompanied by a broader public effort to discredit them. A climate of distrust is cultivated toward NGOs and those who speak out about international law or human rights. These voices are presented as naive or disconnected from “reality,” as if it is silly or dangerous to demand respect for human rights.

This phenomenon is not a Greek exception. In many countries, strict registers, administrative obstacles and the criminalization of solidarity target organizations that keep power in check. From action at sea to environmental programs, investigative journalism or the recording of police violence, collective action is increasingly treated as a matter of “security.”

So we return to the original question. The issue is not just whether humanitarian action is targeted. It concerns a broader model of governance, in which public participation, collective organization and criticism are treated as risk factors. Democratic societies are not defined by elections alone. They are defined by the ability of people to speak openly, to organize and to defend rights without fear. The question, ultimately, is not about a specific regulation, but about who has the right to speak and under what conditions – and this concerns all of us.

Christianna Mourouzi is a humanitarian affairs officer with Doctors Without Borders in Greece.