評論
打印
The attack on Charlie Hebdo
查理周刊襲擊案
Terror in Paris
恐怖下的巴黎
Islamists are assailing freedom of speech; but vilifying all Islam is the wrong way to counter bloody medievalism
伊斯蘭教極端者正在攻擊言論自由；但是丑化全體伊斯蘭教不是一個反抗血腥中世紀主義的好辦法
THE latest issue of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French magazine, spotlights Michel Houellebecq, author of a new novel that imagines the Islamisation of France and then the European Union. Critics had denounced Mr Houellebecq's book, which depicts a near future in which Islamists win France's presidency and compromise its freedoms, as Islamophobic scaremongering. Then, on the day of its publication, masked gunmen attacked Charlie Hebdo's offices in Paris. They yelled “Allahu Akbar” as they murdered 12 people and wounded others, in France's worst terrorist attack for half a century. The gunmen fled; police have named two brothers as suspects. As anti-immigrant sentiment—especially the anti-Muslim kind—seeps across Europe, from street protests in Dresden to English ballot boxes, the atrocity in Paris seemed ghoulishly to realise the continent's darkest nightmare; almost, in fact, to caricature it.
最新一期的法國諷刺雜志查理周刊聚焦在了Michel Houellebecq身上—一位創作了一本關于法國乃至整個歐盟都被伊斯蘭化的新小說的作者。書中伊斯蘭教徒贏得了法國總統選舉并削弱了國家自由，批評者們譴責他的書是在危言聳聽、散布伊斯蘭恐慌。 然后，就在這本書出版的那天，蒙面的持槍者襲擊了查理周刊的巴黎總部。他們一邊叫喊著“真主至上”一邊殺害了12人，打傷多人，這是法國半個世紀以來最為嚴重的恐怖主義襲擊。持槍者逃走了，警察將兩兄弟列為嫌犯。隨著反對移民—尤其是反對穆斯林族群的浪潮橫掃歐洲大陸，從德累斯頓的街頭抗議到英國的投票結果，再到如今的巴黎暴行，都似乎殘忍地證實了這片土地最為黑暗的噩夢；事實上，這幾乎是諷刺漫畫的現實翻版。
For all the grim, incessant warnings of terrorist threats, naturally the first reaction to this massacre, in France and elsewhere, was outrage. Yet the murders also demand a fuller response. The magazine was targeted because it cherished and promoted its right to offend: specifically to offend Muslims. That motive invokes two big themes. One is free speech, and whether it should have limits, self-imposed or otherwise. The answer to that is an emphatic no. The second is Muslim Europe—and whether episodes such as this are part of a civilisational struggle between Western democracies and extreme Islam, on a battlefield stretching continuously from Peshawar to Raqqa to the centre of Paris. Again, the answer is no.
對于所有冷酷的、接連不斷的關于恐怖主義威脅的警告，不管是法國還是世界其他地方，面對這場屠殺的第一反應都會是自然而然地怒火中燒。兇手也期待能產生更大的反響。這本雜志之所以被列為攻擊目標是因為它珍視并提倡“冒犯別人”的權利：尤其是冒犯穆斯林。這樣的動機讓人想起兩個話題。其一是言論自由是否應該有邊界限制，不管這是自我約束還是來自外部的要求。答案是毋庸置疑的“不”。其二是歐洲的穆斯林—不管像本次事件這樣的插曲是否是西方民主與伊斯蘭極端主義兩大文明之間的掙扎，其戰場都綿延不斷地從巴基斯坦的白沙瓦延伸到了敘利亞的拉卡再到巴黎市區。而這個答案，也同樣是“不”。
Cartoons versus Kalashnikovs
卡通漫畫對戰卡拉什尼科夫沖鋒槍
Charlie Hebdo has been hit before. In 2006 its decision to reprint inflammatory cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, first published in Denmark, was described by Jacques Chirac, then France's president, as a “manifest provocation”. In 2011 the magazine's offices were firebombed after it published an issue purporting to be guest-edited by the Prophet. That did not deter it: despite pleas from some French politicians, it insisted on its right to free speech. This week, when the gunmen came, they reportedly called for the offending cartoonists by name.
查理周刊以前就曾遭到襲擊。2006年，雜志決定重印曾在丹麥發表過的一篇關于先知穆罕穆德的煽動性漫畫，這個決定被法國前總統希拉克描述為“明目張膽的挑釁”。2011年，該雜志發表了一期自稱由先知作為客座編輯的刊物，其后就遭到火焰彈的攻擊。這些都沒能嚇倒查理周刊：盡管一些法國政客多次請求，它仍堅持其言論自由的權利。本周，持槍者在闖入時點名要找那些漫畫家。
The magazine had the right to publish everything it did, and French law is right to allow it to. There can be no “but” in that sentence. Even when a picture or opinion is imprudent or tasteless, unless it directly incites violence it should not be banned. Charlie Hebdo lampoons all religions, not just Islam—but it would have the right to single out that faith if it wanted to, just as Islamists in Europe are entitled to denounce Western decadence if they so choose. In any case, there is a world of difference, and several centuries of liberal political thought, between giving and taking offence and killing people over it. Nothing can be done with a pencil or a keyboard that warrants a reprisal with a Kalashnikov.
雜志有權發表任何東西，法國法律也理所當然地允許這樣做，沒有例外。即使所發表的圖片或者觀點是輕率的、沒有品位的，只要它沒有直接煽動暴力就不應該被禁止。查理周刊譏諷所有的宗教，不只是伊斯蘭——如果它想的話，它也有權利只針對某一個宗教，同樣的，歐洲的伊斯蘭教徒也可以譴責西方的墮落。無論如何，這是一個存異的世界，有著幾個世紀的政治自由思想，在激怒與被激怒之間無數人失去了生命。一支筆或者一個鍵盤無論寫了什么都不能成為讓伊斯蘭極端主義者持槍襲擊的合理借口。
This attack was more insidious than a random fusillade on a street or train. Part of the aim, probably, was to cow the Western media in their treatment of Islam. It must not. If the proper first response to the slaughter was outrage, after considering the argument that Charlie Hebdo made about free speech, the second response should be outrage, too.
這次襲擊比在大街上或者火車里隨意開槍掃射更加陰險。他們的目的之一大概就是恐嚇并抗議西方媒體對待伊斯蘭的方式。這絕對行不通。如果對于這場屠殺的第一個合理的反應是憤慨，那么在考慮到查理周刊所做的關于言論自由的表述之后，第二反應應該還是憤慨。
Many observers will connect this fresh footage of gun-wielding men not to cartoons but to another kind of image: chaos in northern Nigeria, the snuff videos of Islamic State (IS) and Taliban-inflicted carnage in Afghanistan and Pakistan. All can seem part of a long, ongoing conflict between the values of the Enlightenment and obscurantist barbarism. For those who see things that way, the only solution is to fight back, by cracking down at home and engaging the enemy abroad.
很多局外人看到這種持槍攻擊的場面，會想起北尼日利亞的動亂、以及伊斯蘭國（IS）和塔利班在阿富汗和巴基斯坦肆意屠殺的炮火連天的影像，而不僅僅是單純的諷刺漫畫。所有的這一切，都可以被看作是一場長期持續的、啟蒙價值觀與反啟蒙野蠻行徑之間的矛盾。如果這樣來看這個問題，那么唯一的解決辦法就是通過國內鎮壓和海外干預的方式對敵人進行反擊。
Criminals, not clashing civilisations
犯罪不會沖擊文明
They have a point: there may well be a connection between Paris and foreign jihad. Part of it is ideological: in their minds, at least, terrorists in the West are often waging a worldwide battle for their faith, powered by ideas they pick up on the internet. There is a practical link, too. Some of those involved in recent European plots—and one of the suspects in the Charlie Hebdo attack—have been radicalised and trained in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nearby and accessible, Syria is the main destination. This reflux is a worry for security services in France (home of the European Union's largest Muslim population) and across the continent, precisely because, newly expert and inflamed, the returnees can perpetrate commando-style attacks like that on Charlie Hebdo. Involving small numbers of assailants and “soft” targets, these are much harder to detect and prevent than elaborate plans to blow up airliners.
他們有個觀點：巴黎可能與伊斯蘭圣戰有聯系，其中一部分是意識形態的原因。至少西方的恐怖主義者經常為了他們在網絡上接受的信仰而在世界各地開辟恐怖活動戰場，這相互之間也是有聯系的。這些人中有一部分近期就在歐洲策劃活動—查理周刊襲擊案的嫌犯之一在中東、阿富汗和巴基斯坦接受訓練并被極端思想影響。敘利亞由于地理位置臨近、出入便捷，也是主要的目的地。恐怖組織者回國已經成為法國（歐盟中穆斯林人口最多的國家）和歐洲大陸其他國家的安全部門最為擔心的問題， 因為這些人受過最新的專業訓練，他們可能會帶著滿腔怒火發動像這次查理周刊襲擊一樣的突襲。由于只涉及少數行動者，且目標容易得手，這種突襲比計劃周密的炸飛機更難以發現和預防。
But preventing them is not impossible—indeed European security services frequently do. Slow though some were to spot the danger, the French and other governments have introduced measures to stop their citizens travelling abroad to fight, and to intercept them if they come back. Still, more pressure could be applied to Turkey, notionally an ally, to help stop the flow into Syria. “Deradicalisation” programmes for returnees, which might turn some of them into reverse missionaries for the awful truth about IS, are still in their infancy.
但是預防也不是沒有可能的——這也正是歐洲安全機構一直在做的。盡管進展緩慢，也發現了一些潛在危險。法國和其他政府已經采取措施阻止國民出國加入戰斗，如果出去的人想回來也會被阻攔。我們會對土耳其這個理論上的盟友施壓，讓其協助阻止人們進入敘利亞。對于那些從中東回來的人要實施“去極端化”計劃，盡管此項計劃仍在醞釀中，仍然有可能令回國者成為宣傳IS恐怖行徑的親歷見證人。
For all that, thinking of Islamist terrorism as a single, coherent adversary is misleading and dangerous. The various groups have different backgrounds and goals, just as Muslim diasporas in the West originate in different countries and cultures. Many French Muslims, for example, have roots in north Africa; some are angered by the ban on wearing burqas in public places. Neither factor applies in, say, Britain. Thinking of Muslims overall as a homogenous group is still more foolhardy—however much some of the West's demagogues encourage voters to. Most are not extremists; fewer still support violence, as mainstream French imams swiftly pointed out.
盡管如此，把伊斯蘭恐怖主義當作一個單一的、一目了然的對手是危險的誤解。就如同西方散居的穆斯林源自不同的國家和文化，不同的恐怖組織也有著各自的背景和目的。比如，很多法國穆斯林來自北非；很多人都因為在公共場所被禁止戴面紗而感到憤怒。英國受到同樣的影響。把全體穆斯林看作一個毫無差別的同質群體是莽撞的——然而很多西方的政治家正煽動選民們這么做。正如法國的主流派穆斯林阿訇很快指出的那樣，大部分人都不是極端主義者，只有少數人支持暴力。
The terrorists themselves, of course, are often keen to prove that the West does indeed anathematise all Muslims. To see such killers as representatives of a religion, and to reduce a complex picture to their preferred caricature, would be to reward their crimes—just as circumscribing the principle of free speech would be to bow to their medieval fantasies.
當然，恐怖主義者通常都會急切地證明西方社會確實打算排擠所有穆斯林。將這種兇手視為宗教的代表，將如此復雜的形勢簡化為符合其要求的諷刺漫畫，將會是對他們所做暴行的獎勵—正如同為言論自由劃出界限是對他們幻想將世界帶回到黑暗的中世紀所做出的妥協一樣。譯者：鄧小雪
譯文屬譯生譯世
