比利時的法外之地

Europe』s Bloodless Universalism

作者：Theodore Dalrymple @ 2015-11-19譯者：Veidt（@Veidt)校對：Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny)來源：Library of Law and Liberty，http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/11/19/europes-bloodless-universalism/

By now the story of Omar Ismail Mostefai, the first of the perpetrators of the Paris attacks to be named, is depressingly familiar. One could almost have written his biography before knowing anything about him. A petty criminal of Algerian parentage from what all the world now calls the banlieue, he was sustained largely by the social security system, an erstwhile fan of rap music, and a votary of what might be called the continuation of criminality by other means, which is to say Islamism and the grandiose purpose in life that it gives to its adherents. For feeble minds, the extremity of the consequences for self and others serves as some kind of guarantee that their cause is just.

到今天，巴黎襲擊事件中第一個確定姓名的案犯Omar Ismail Mostefai的故事已經家喻戶曉了。即使對他完全不了解，人們也能憑猜測為他寫出一本傳記。一個小混混，有著阿爾及利亞血統，成長於今天被世人稱為「暴力街區」的市郊，主要依靠社保體系生活，曾經是饒舌音樂的愛好者，熱誠地致力於伊斯蘭教和它給予信徒們的宏偉人生目標——或者，從另一種意義上也可以說，是持續犯罪。對那些意志薄弱的人來說，最終將自己和他人帶向死亡，也有著某種正當理由。

Nor was the connection to Molenbeek, a neighborhood in Brussels where at least three of the terrorists lived, much of a surprise to anyone. Brussels—the 「capital of Europe,」 be it remembered—is slightly more than a quarter Muslim, and nearly 100 percent of Molenbeek』s residents are Muslims of North African background. When a few years ago I was shown around the place, my acquaintances told me it was virtually extraterritorial as far as the Belgian state was concerned—apart from the collection of social security, of course.

而他與莫倫貝克區（至少三名參與巴黎恐襲的恐怖分子都來自這裡）之間的聯繫也絲毫不會讓人感到驚奇。布魯塞爾——人們記憶中的「歐洲之都」——的穆斯林人口佔比略高於四分之一，而幾乎所有的莫倫貝克區居民都是北非裔穆斯林。幾年前一些熟人帶著我在那裡參觀的時候，他們告訴我，對比利時政府來說，這個區域幾乎就是「免受司法管轄的治外之地」——當然，除了它還享受著這個國家的社保體系之外。

All the women wore headscarves, and the young men dressed like American rap music fans. The police rarely entered and were far more concerned not to offend Muslim sensibilities—for example, by not being seen to eat during Ramadan—than to find or capture the miscreants who made the area so dangerously crime-ridden. Businesses there (so my guides told me) paid no taxes but were not investigated for evasion by the tax authorities: it was the tax authorities who did the evading.

那裡所有的女人都戴著頭巾，而年輕男人都穿得像是美國饒舌音樂的狂熱粉絲。警察很少進入這個區域，相比追蹤和抓捕那些將這裡變成一個犯罪猖獗之地的惡棍，他們更關心的是千萬不要觸碰到穆斯林的敏感之處——例如，不要在齋月期間被穆斯林看到在白天吃東西。在那裡做各種生意（我的導遊告訴我）都不交稅，而且也不會受到稅務局的調查：相反，稅務局只要一聽這個地方就會躲得遠遠的。

Everyone knew Islamist preaching and plotting were rife in Molenbeek, but nothing was done to stop it, in order to keep the tense and fragile peace going as long as possible. Sympathy for terrorism was the norm—or, it would be more correct to say, that no one dared publicly voice opposition to it.

所有人都知道，莫倫貝克區伊斯蘭極端分子的宣傳策劃工作十分猖獗，卻沒有任何加以阻止的努力，而這只是為了將現有的脆弱和平狀態維持得盡量久一些。對恐怖主義的同情成為常態——或者更準確的說，沒有誰敢於公開反對。

If my informants were right, this was the perfect place for psychopaths with an illusion of purpose to flourish and make plans undisturbed by the authorities, while being supported by the welfare state. Events since have demonstrated that they did not exaggerate (as, to my regret, I rather suspected at the time that they did, for alarm is so often disproportionate to the reality that gives rise to it).

如果告訴我這些的人是對的，那麼對於那些抱有瘋狂幻想並且希望在不受當局干擾的狀態下籌劃自己行動的瘋子們而言，這裡就是人間天堂，與此同時，他們還能夠享受福利國家的支持。之後發生的事件已經證明了他們並沒有誇大其詞（而令我後悔的是，當時他們提醒我時，我也對他們的看法表示懷疑，相比警告成真後人們所面對的殘酷現實，之前的警告聲總是顯得微不足道）。

Recall that the terrorists who were disarmed on the train from Amsterdam to Paris in August came from Molenbeek, as did the man who killed four people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels in 2014. More volunteers to fight for ISIS have come from Molenbeek than anywhere else in Europe.

回想一下，今年8月那幫在阿姆斯特丹開往巴黎的火車上被人們提前發現並解除了武裝的恐怖分子就來自於莫倫貝克區，而那個2014年在布魯塞爾的猶太人博物館裡殺害了4個人的兇手也同樣來自那裡。莫倫貝克區為ISIS提供了比全歐洲任何其它地方都要多的志願戰士。

The Belgian Prime Minister, Charles Michel, has now virtually admitted that the area was extraterritorial to Belgium, and out of all control. The time had come 「to focus more on repression,」 he said. But whether the determination or sufficient political unity necessary to carry it out will last is doubtful. Repression requires discrimination; we live in a regime in which murderers may come and go, but social security goes on forever.

現在，比利時首相米歇爾實際上已經承認該區域已成比利時的「治外之地」，並且已經完全失去了控制。他說，現在應該「把更多的注意力集中在壓制上」。但這種決心是否能得以堅持，或者，為實現這一目標所必須的足夠的政治團結能夠得以堅持，是值得懷疑的。壓制就意味著區別對待，但在我們如今生活的這個社會制度下，殺人犯來來去去，而社會保障則永不中斷。

Do we have the stomach to tar many people with the same brush? That we now know that terrorists among the Syrian refugees have entered Europe, which was precisely the objection of those opposed to accepting them (who were vilified by immigration-liberals for their moral obtuseness or nastiness, and have been proven right, which is even more unforgivable), now raises the disturbing question: How many innocent people should Europe accept for one suicide bomber?

但我們要不要一竿子打倒一船人呢？現在我們已經知道，有些恐怖分子藏在敘利亞難民隊伍里混入了歐洲，這正是之前那些反對接納敘利亞難民入歐的人們所提出的拒絕理由（為了詆毀他們，那些移民自由派們給他們扣上了「道德遲鈍」或「道德敗壞」之類的帽子，但最終事實證明他們的擔憂是對的，這就讓我們所犯下的錯誤變得更加不可原諒），而現狀又給我們提出了一個令人困擾的問題：為了一個自殺式炸彈襲擊者歐洲要接納多少無辜的難民？

A striking thing about the immigration debate before the massacres of November 13 was the almost complete absence of references, at least by the 「respectable」 politicians, to the national interest of the various countries. The debate was couched in Kantian moral terms. Sweden, for example, which has no imperative to take refugees other than moral grandiosity and its desire to feel itself virtuous, has had a hard enough time integrating the immigrants it has already taken; their entry has made that country one with nearly the highest crime rate in Western Europe. Current family re-unification laws in Europe mean that the numbers any country agrees to take will soon be expanded.

11月13日的巴黎大屠殺發生之前，在有關移民政策的辯論中令人吃驚的一點是，幾乎完全沒有人——至少那些「令人尊敬的」政客們中沒有人——提及各國的國家利益。這場辯論是以一種康德式道德辯論的方式進行的。舉例來說，除了道德上華而不實的崇高感以及讓自己覺得高尚之外，瑞典並沒有任何必要去接收難民，整合已接收的難民也讓其已經歷了一段非常困難的時期；這些難民進入之後，幾乎把瑞典變成了整個西歐犯罪率最高的國家。而當前歐洲有關家庭重聚的法律則意味著，很快每個國家都將同意接收數量更多的難民。

There is a real moral dilemma, of course. Recently in Bodrum, on the Aegean coast of Turkey, I was approached by a family of four Syrian refugees begging for alms. The father of the family showed me his Syrian passport (precisely of the kind so easily forged by the terrorists), but all I could see was his wife and two small children who were obviously bereft of support and who would obviously suffer without charity. That day, 22 refugees were reported drowned as they tried to reach Turkey by boat, an occurrence so regular that it was not reported in the Western press. No one undertakes such a journey lightly: only safety or an egocentric thirst for 「martyrdom」 could impel him.

顯然，這裡有個道德困境。最近在土耳其愛琴海沿岸城市博德魯姆，一個敘利亞難民的四口之家走近我，希望我能施捨給他們些什麼。這家的父親給我看了他的敘利亞護照（正是那種恐怖分子非常容易偽造的護照），但我所看到的只是他妻子和兩個年幼的孩子所表現出的無助，如果得不到施捨，他們顯然會吃很多苦。在同一天，當地新聞報道了22名難民在乘船試圖前往土耳其的途中溺水身亡的消息，而由於這類事情發生得如此頻繁，西方媒體甚至都沒有報道這條消息。沒有人會輕易選擇踏上這樣一段旅途：只有對安全的強烈渴求或是個人主義的「殉道」熱望才能讓人踏上這條路。

Europe has nothing equivalent to national interest, and if it did, it would have no way of acting on it. A kind of bloodless universalism has rushed in to fill the vacuum, whose consequences are now visible to all. The first thing President Hollande tried to do after the attacks was close the borders; he now talks (understandably, of course) of national security. He talks also of defeating ISIS militarily, but France, along with all of the other European countries, has run down its armed forces in the name of the social security that paid for at least some of the terrorists.

歐洲沒有國家利益之類的東西，即使有，也不存在以之為名做些什麼的政治途徑。於是一種蒼白無力的普世主義便趁虛而入填補了這一空白，其後果已經呈現在了每個人面前。巴黎恐怖襲擊發生後，奧朗德總統試圖做的第一件事就是關閉邊境；他現在開始談論國家安全了（當然，這可以理解）。他同樣開始談論軍事打擊ISIS，然而法國和其它的歐洲國家一樣，已經以社保資金不足為由削減了自己武裝力量，而這些錢中至少有一部分落入了恐怖分子的口袋。

Just because Europe』s weakness is clear doesn』t mean that our heads are clear. Three days after the attacks, the most influential newspaper in Britain (and in certain ways the best), the liberal-Left Guardian, ran 40 small photos of some the victims, with the headline, 「Killed in the Pitiless Name of Terrorism.」

雖然歐洲的弱點已展露無遺，但這並不意味著我們的腦子就清醒了。在巴黎恐怖襲擊發生僅僅三天之後，英國最具影響力的報紙（從某些角度說也是最好的）——左翼自由派的《衛報》，刊登了40張遇害者的小幅照片，而使用的標題則是「以冷酷的恐怖主義之名而遭殺害」。

They were not killed in the pitiless name of terrorism, of course. They were killed in the pitiless name of Islam—not the only possible interpretation if Islam, no doubt, but still in its name. In the cowardice of this headline was the encapsulated all the weakness of Europe, a real encouragement to the terrorists.

當然,他們並非以冷酷的恐怖主義之名而被殺死。他們是以冷酷無情的伊斯蘭之名而被殺死——是的，這不是解讀伊斯蘭的唯一方式，但這些殺戮仍是以伊斯蘭之名而行。《衛報》標題中所表現出的懦弱是今天歐洲所有弱點的集中體現，而這對恐怖分子們來說則是一種實實在在的激勵。

（編輯：輝格@whigzhou）

*註：本譯文未經原作者授權，本站對原文不持有也不主張任何權利，如果你恰好對原文擁有權益並希望我們移除相關內容，請私信聯繫，我們會立即作出響應。

——海德沙龍·翻譯組，致力於將英文世界的好文章搬進中文世界——