A dispute over a statement by the head of Amnesty International in Poland drew a sharp rebuke from Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, a member of the European Parliament from the Civic Coalition. He described as unacceptable the claim that anyone seeking a better life has the right to asylum in Poland and that the state would kill them in the forests. The remarks crossed a line and echoed ethical extremism not tolerated in European democracies. The comments were discussed in an interview on Radio Three with Renata Grochal, a conversation that reflected on border tragedies from years past, as reported by wPolityce.
In the same appearance, Sienkiewicz condemned the Amnesty statement and warned that humanitarian groups and left-leaning activists had been unsettled by the government’s migration policy under Donald Tusk. Although the Prime Minister and ministers have spoken about vulnerable people seeking a place to live, the discourse has increasingly framed the issue as a hybrid security challenge. Such framing, according to Sienkiewicz, risks undermining the standards of public debate. The remarks were reported by wPolityce.
The head of the Amnesty Poland chapter’s assertion that those who want a better life can seek asylum in Poland and that the state would kill them in the Polish forests was described by Sienkiewicz as a harmful line that ignores European norms. He argued that refugee aid organizations deserve to participate in public debate and that their positions should be open to criticism just like any other viewpoint. The interview highlighted that humanitarian actors are part of the political conversation, a point echoed in reporting by wPolityce.
“The first safe country
The MEP also referenced Janina Ochojska, who voiced disappointment with the government’s actions. He asked how many so‑called safe countries refugees had passed through before reaching the Polish‑Belarusian border, noting that some routes involve regions free from violence where people seek safety. He stressed that real safety depends on the Geneva Convention principles that guide refugee protection and on the fact that the law allows for exceptions and emergency measures in crisis moments. This perspective drew on his experience leading the interior ministry.
He added that the European Commission acknowledges that suspending the right to asylum can be a legally permissible measure in exceptional times. He recalled that the Constitution allows the state to grant asylum but does not force it to, framing this as a built‑in flexibility supported by emergency mechanisms. His account underscored that policy must balance rights with security concerns, a balance the Commission has not disputed.
He also recounted an episode from his time at the Interior Ministry about a person who sought political asylum while being persecuted by the Belarusian regime, only to be found to be connected with the regime and an agent of the security services. In such circumstances, the state can and does refuse asylum under the law. The wider point was that the law permits exceptions and that crisis situations may justify different treatment, a stance the European Commission has endorsed.
No longer “women and children”?
Sienkiewicz argued that one cannot apply ethical maximalism as if it were universal across European societies. Those who cross illegally and claim persecution are not automatically granted asylum; many arrive without documents and seek protection, which cannot translate into universal EU protection. The point is that public policy must avoid automatic protections and instead apply case‑by‑case assessments. Grochal noted that many voters had hoped the new government would end the obstruction and the inhumane treatment of mothers with children at the border, but the situation remained difficult and ongoing. She also observed that the same dynamics play out in Finland, the Baltic states, and Southern Europe, where states still reserve the right to decide who can stay. The Geneva Convention from the 1950s is intended for war refugees and allows national measures when national security is at stake. The discussion stressed that past border crossings should not be treated as guarantees of safety, and that Belarusian efforts have sought to weaponize migration as part of a hybrid war.
“‘Extremist’ statements by Sienkiewicz (and for dessert Grochal about ‘people dying in the forest’)
The question arose whether Sienkiewicz has shed the label of extremism or if that term remains a political tool. He argued that humanitarian concerns do not undermine national dignity, even as he criticized the government’s border‑security choices. Grochal has pointed to past remarks about people dying in the forest and urged a more measured public conversation about how asylum seekers are treated. The broader takeaway is that policymakers and public figures should confront real humanitarian needs while maintaining lawful border controls, and that migration policy deserves ongoing, informed discussion rather than partisan theatrics, as noted in coverage by wPolityce.