金融時(shí)報(bào):安全還是自由？

安全還是自由？

要保障國(guó)土安全，政府可以做什么、不能做什么？個(gè)人隱私與自由該如何定義？群己權(quán)界的確切邊界在哪里？英國(guó)士兵里格比在光天化日下遇到恐怖襲擊身亡的事件，再次激發(fā)了人們對(duì)這個(gè)古老話題的討論。最近，英國(guó)內(nèi)閣在一項(xiàng)反恐法案上分歧不小，F(xiàn)T專欄作家Janan Ganesh認(rèn)為，爭(zhēng)論的其中一方拋出“滑坡理論”，是有些敏感過(guò)度了。

測(cè)試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：

knee-jerk 膝跳反應(yīng)，下意識(shí)的

IRA 愛(ài)爾蘭共和軍，希望用制造暴力事件把英國(guó)從北愛(ài)驅(qū)逐出去的恐怖組織。

Lee Rigby 英國(guó)士兵里格比5月22日在倫敦被兩名伊斯蘭極端分子當(dāng)街砍死

neologism[n?'?l?d??z(?)m] n.新詞；新義

quandary['kw?nd(?)r?] n.困惑；窘境

Lord 英國(guó)上議院議員

snooper ['snu:p?] n.刺探者，愛(ài)管閑事者

habeas corpus [?he?bi??s ?k?rp?s] 人身保護(hù)法。是在英美法系下由法官簽發(fā)的手令，命令將被拘押者交送至法庭接受審判，讓他能挑戰(zhàn)拘押的正當(dāng)性。也就是說(shuō)政府不得未經(jīng)審判長(zhǎng)期拘押公民。美國(guó)憲法明文規(guī)定，除非戰(zhàn)亂，人身保護(hù)法不得被暫停執(zhí)行。

slippery slope 滑坡理論/謬誤，是個(gè)經(jīng)典的邏輯錯(cuò)誤，即把一連串“坡度不一”的事件都當(dāng)成必然。魯迅有個(gè)文學(xué)化的描述：“一見(jiàn)到短袖…就想到私生子”。

Diplock courts 1973年，英國(guó)在北愛(ài)騷亂(the Troubles)時(shí)設(shè)立的特別法庭，它可以維護(hù)國(guó)家安全為由拘押騷亂分子但不及時(shí)給他們正常的受審機(jī)會(huì)

Magna Carta 大憲章

unconscionable[?n'k?n?(?)n?b(?)l] adj.不合理的，沒(méi)良心的

Liberals provide the knee-jerks in today’s terror debate (858 words)

By Janan Ganesh

The novelist Martin Amis wrote that modern terrorism, with its uninhibited bloodlust, is better characterised as “horrorism”. Its object is less the paralysing fear that, say, the IRA aimed to stoke, than hideous violence itself. His neologism certainly fits the killing of Lee Rigby, a British soldier, in London last week.

The murder has not terrorised the British, who have summoned their usual restraint. When David Cameron counselled against “knee-jerk responses”, the prime minister was heeded. Although “questions will be asked” about the need for new security measures, he said, the mightiest response to these attacks is to “go about our normal lives”. Britons are doing that.

But the oldest quandary in politics – between liberty and security – cannot be finessed away like this, as he is finding out. His Conservative home secretary, Theresa May, long ago drafted a bill to give the security services more power to monitor emails, telephone calls and internet use. It failed to withstand opposition from Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister who derides the “snooper’s charter”, but it is stirring again. It has advocates in the Labour opposition, including the former home secretary Alan Johnson, who says Ms May should make it a resignation issue. The Liberal Democrat Lord Carlile, who served as the independent reviewer of anti-terror laws under three prime ministers, is another supporter.

Reviving the legislation because of last week’s attack alone would be rash. It remains unclear if the powers under discussion would have averted it. And whether we give it the name terror or horror, the dark truth is that no law can ever equip the state to eradicate such violence.

But it is not necessary to approve of the bill to sense that some of the opposition to it is overdone. And it does not take a hawk to worry that, over the past decade, the civil liberties lobby has become dogmatic and sensationalist. Liberals who show more fervour than rigour can be found in parliament, the judiciary and pressure groups such as Liberty, an outfit that proves you can get away with any claim, however silly, if you belong to the “third sector” of campaign organisations and charities. Civil libertarians grew in voice during Tony Blair’s premiership – sometimes thwarting anti-terror laws that commanded public support, such as 90-day detention without charge – and can now claim to represent the received opinion of the British elites. It therefore matters that many of their certainties are wrong.

One example is the idea that anti-terror laws betray exactly the freedoms we are trying to defend from terrorists. This assumes that what al-Qaeda hates about Britain are the habeas corpus and online privacy. What actually defines western democracy, and riles its enemies, are its basic rights – to vote, to live freely, to worship as one chooses or not at all. Protecting these by compromising other liberties does not make the UK a despotism or reward murderers. The notion that all freedom is indivisible is a lovely thought but there are fundamental freedoms and slightly less fundamental freedoms. Pragmatic societies weaken the latter to secure the former when under threat, as they did during the second world war. If anything, the UK does it less than comparable nations such as France, a country that nobody confuses for Iran or North Korea.

Libertarians who concede this point then bring up the “slippery slope”. Some liberties may be secondary, they say, but losing them is the first insidious step to outright authoritarianism. Erosions of freedom are never reversed, and only ever expand with time. This is ahistorical. Britain has tightened security laws at many moments without becoming an unfree country. And policy does not move in one direction: wartime restrictions were lifted when peace arrived and the Diplock courts of Northern Ireland, which comprised a single judge and no jury, were abandoned when the Troubles eased.

There are other libertarian inanities, such as the habit of invoking the ancientness of certain freedoms as though menaces to public safety have not changed in character or scope since the Magna Carta was signed. But the worst argument of all is the pretence that restrictions on freedom do not even enhance security. This is merely a way of not having to do any hard thinking. Mr Blair’s plan to introduce identity cards was, on balance, a costly and bureaucratic scheme that deservedly came to nothing. But only a churl or ideologue could suggest that it would not have improved security at all. And yet many did.

Intellectually honest liberals should argue that counterterror laws can work, but at an unconscionable cost to personal freedom. They should also acknowledge that, if western security services have made it much harder in recent years for terrorists to launch large attacks, they did not achieve this by asking nicely. Their work has been helped by new powers, many of which were controversial at the time.

Mr Cameron was impressively restrained in his response to the killing of Mr Rigby. But the real knee-jerks in the immemorial struggle between liberty and security now come from the liberal side.

請(qǐng)根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測(cè)題目：

1.What is "the mightiest response to these attacks", according to PM David Cameron?

A. To "go about our normal lives".

B. Launch immediately a purge and hunt down the murderer.

C. That “questions will be asked” about the incident.

D. That “questions will be asked” about the need for new security measures.

答案(1)

2.What do we know about "Civil libertarians"?

A. Deputy PM Nick Clegg is one of them.

B. They sometimes thwart anti-terror laws.

C. They are becoming more practical and less dogmatic.

D. They prefer the France way that has less security regulations.

答案(2)

3.What do we know about PM Blair’s plan to introduce identity cards?

A. It failed to be passed into law.

B. It was a costly and bureaucratic plan.

C. It could've been useful to improve security.

D. All of above.

答案(3)

4."But the real knee-jerks in the immemorial struggle between liberty and security now come from the liberal side."

Meaning?

A. The debate between liberty and security will last forever.

B. The conservatives used to overreact on such issues.

C. It is not always easy to compromise betwenn the two.

D. Deputy PM Nick Clegg should not obstruct the security measures.

答案(4)

* * *

(1) 答案：A.To "go about our normal lives".

解釋：是文中的原話。

(2) 答案：B.They sometimes thwart anti-terror laws.

解釋：無(wú)

(3) 答案：D.All of above.

解釋：ABC都是正確的。

作者評(píng)價(jià)是：a costly and bureaucratic scheme that deservedly came to nothing.

C正確的關(guān)鍵在看懂這句話：only a churl or ideologue could suggest that it would not have improved security at all. 你們說(shuō)它昂貴和官僚主義沒(méi)錯(cuò)，但是說(shuō)它對(duì)國(guó)家安全沒(méi)有好處就沒(méi)道理了。

(4) 答案：D.Deputy PM Nick Clegg should not obstruct the security measures.

解釋：內(nèi)政部長(zhǎng)、保守黨人Theresa May提議法案讓政府部門有更多的權(quán)力來(lái)監(jiān)控電郵、電話和網(wǎng)絡(luò)，以便制止恐怖襲擊。 克萊格不屑地稱之為“snooper’s charter”。作者全文的意思就是，沒(méi)必要這么敏感，克萊格先生。