In the aftermath of riots in the U.K., fueled by misinformation about migrants and Muslims, the debate about racism and integration has once again taken centre stage.

關於移民和穆斯林的錯誤信息助長了英國的騷亂，在此之後，關於種族主義和融合的辯論再次成為焦點。

My guest tonight suggests the riots were the result of legitimate anger over too many migrants.

今晚的嘉賓認為，騷亂是對移民過多的合理憤怒所致。

His critics say that the author and academic who built his career on explaining the rise of the radical right has now been radicalized by it himself.

責備他的人說，這位以解釋激進右翼崛起為職業的作家和學者，現在自己也被激進右翼激進化了。

I'm Mehdi Hassan, and I'll be going head-to-head with the provocative British political commentator

我是邁赫迪-哈桑（Mehdi Hassan），我將與挑釁性的英國政治評論員進行正面交鋒

Matthew Goodwin.

馬修-古德溫

I'll challenge him on his views on immigration and why he thinks that a new woke elite is silencing free speech.

我將質疑他對移民問題的看法，以及為什麼他認為新覺醒的精英正在壓制言論自由。

I'll also be joined by a panel of experts.

我還將與專家小組一起討論。

Zoe Gardner, immigration policy expert and campaigner for migrant rights.

佐伊-加德納（Zoe Gardner），移民政策專家和移民權利運動人士。

Taj Ali, journalist and historian of British South Asian political activism.

Taj Ali，英國南亞政治活動記者和歷史學家。

And David Goodhart, immigration expert and author.

還有移民專家和作家大衛-古德哈特。

Matthew Goodwin, thank you for joining me on Head to Head tonight.

馬修-古德溫，感謝您參加今晚的 "面對面 "節目。

You and I have known each other indirectly, online, through conversations, about over a decade now.

你我在網上通過哈拉間接相識，至今已有十多年。

But your views are very different, I would argue, to what they were when I knew you back in the U.K. here in 2011, 2012, 2013, when many would say you were a champion of diversity, multiculturalism, immigrants, Muslims.

但我認為，你的觀點與2011、2012、2013年我在英國認識你時大相徑庭，當時很多人都說你是多樣性、多元文化、移民和穆斯林的擁護者。

You were calling out the far right.

你在罵極右派。

Your critics now say, Matt, that you have become, quote, a part of the right populist movement you once sought to explain, that you've gone native with them, that, quote, instead of writing about the radical right, you've become part of it.

馬特，現在責備你的人說，你已經成為了你曾經試圖解釋的右翼民粹主義運動的一部分，你已經和他們走在了一起，引述如下：你不再寫關於激進右翼的文章，而是成為了它的一部分。

So let me start tonight by asking, what happened to you?

那麼，讓我從今晚開始問，你發生了什麼事？

Well, as somebody once said, when the facts change, I change my opinion.

正如有人說過的，當事實發生變化時，我就會改變我的觀點。

And over the last 15 years, I've become convinced that mass immigration is a failure, one of the biggest disasters in recent public policy.

在過去的 15 年裡，我深信大規模移民是一個失敗，是近代公共政策中最大的災難之一。

I think the elites in Western countries have fundamentally lost touch with the voters in those countries.

我認為，西方國家的精英們已經從根本上與這些國家的選民失去了聯繫。

And I think that unless we change course quickly, we're going to have some really big problems.

我認為，除非我們迅速改變方向，否則我們將面臨一些真正的大問題。

A lot of people sympathize with that view, of course, although over the summer, we saw a very extreme violent opposition to immigrants, immigration.

當然，很多人對這種觀點表示同情，儘管在今年夏天，我們看到了一種非常極端的暴力反對移民和移民的行為。

The U.K. saw horrific race riots sparked by the murder of three young girls in the town of Southport.

英國南港鎮三名少女被殺，引發了駭人聽聞的種族騷亂。

We saw mosques and asylum hotels attacked, police officers attacked, over a thousand people arrested.

我們看到清真寺和避難酒店遭到襲擊，警察遭到襲擊，一千多人被捕。

In a post for your Substack, you called the people at those riots, quote, ordinary people who feel like they're losing their country and trying to, quote, exercise their voice.

在你為 Substack 發表的一篇文章中，你稱那些騷亂中的人們為 "普通人"，他們覺得自己正在失去自己的國家，並試圖發出自己的聲音。

It sounded to a lot of your critics that you were justifying those riots, these horrific racist riots.

在很多責備你的人看來，你是在為那些騷亂，這些可怕的種族主義騷亂辯護。

We just had an election in this country in July.

我們國家七月份剛剛舉行了選舉。

That's how you exercise your voice in a democracy, not via rioting when you don't get your way at the ballot box.

這才是在民主社會中行使話語權的方式，而不是在投票箱中不順心時發動暴亂。

Well, protest has always been part of our political DNA.

抗議一直是我們政治基因的一部分。

And obviously, everybody would disassociate themselves from the criminality and the violence in the summer.

顯然，每個人都會與夏季的犯罪和暴力活動劃清界限。

I certainly wrote about it.

我當然寫過。

I condemned it.

我譴責了它。

But as Mark Easton and other liberal commentators at the time noted, there were also ordinary people protesting about what has been happening to their country.

但正如馬克-伊斯頓和當時其他自由派評論員所指出的那樣，也有普通人在抗議他們的國家所發生的一切。

And that isn't just about mass migration.

這不僅僅是大規模移民的問題。

It's also about the breakdown of borders.

這也與邊界的崩潰有關。

It's about feeling unsafe in their own community, in their own country.

這是因為他們在自己的社區、自己的國家感到不安全。

And for people who engage in violence, they should have been rounded up and sent to prison, as many of them were.

至於那些參與暴力的人，他們本應被集中起來送進監獄，他們中的許多人就是這樣被送進監獄的。

But there were lots of peaceful protesters at those events as well.

但這些活動中也有很多和平抗議者。

And the polling afterwards, Mehdi, you know, was quite revealing.

之後的民意調查，邁赫迪，你知道的，很有啟發性。

Over 60 percent of Brits said, yes, I blame the people who engage in violence.

超過 60% 的英國人說："是的，我指責那些參與暴力的人。

But actually, 63 percent said, I blame recent government immigration policy for these protests.

但實際上，有 63% 的人說，我把這些抗議活動歸咎於政府最近的移民政策。

And what I was trying to do in that piece is to say, look, there is clearly a lot more going on here than these idiots and morons who are trying to set fire to a hotel or attack a mosque.

我在那篇文章中想說的是，聽著，這裡發生的事情顯然遠不止這些試圖放火燒酒店或襲擊清真寺的白痴和蠢貨。

What we have in this country is a social fabric that is breaking down, and we need to talk about it.

我們國家的社會結構正在瓦解，我們需要對此進行討論。

It was mixed polling.

投票結果喜憂參半。

I mean, YouGov also found that the protests, even the protests were only supported by one in three Britons, 34 percent.

我的意思是，YouGov還發現，即使是抗議活動，也只有三分之一的英國人支持，佔34%。

In fact, only one in six said that people causing unrest had legitimate concerns.

事實上，只有六分之一的人表示，製造動亂的人有合理的擔憂。

It's interesting that you say you condemn the violence, but in your big substat post on the riots, you only condemned the violence against the police.

有趣的是，你說你譴責暴力，但在你關於騷亂的大分站帖子中，你只譴責了針對警察的暴力。

You did not condemn the violence against Muslims, Asians, the attack on a mosque in Southport.

你沒有譴責針對穆斯林和亞洲人的暴力行為，也沒有譴責對南港清真寺的襲擊。

There was not one word from you about that, and you wrote a 2,000-word piece.

你對此隻字未提，卻寫了一篇 2000 字的文章。

Well, I'm sure I did at the time, and I condemn it now.

當時我肯定是這麼想的，現在我也譴責它。

I think nobody in their right mind would say that was somehow excusable.

我想正常人都不會說這是情有可原的。

But clearly, what was going on there was a bit like during the BLM protests in 2020.

但很明顯，那裡發生的事情有點像 2020 年 BLM 抗議活動期間發生的事情。

We had a national conversation about the legitimate injustices that underpinned those protests.

我們就這些抗議活動背後的合理不公正現象進行了全國性的對話。

It did result in the injury of 30 police officers and lots of unrest in America, as you know better than me.

你比我更清楚，這確實導致了 30 名警察受傷，並在美國引發了許多騷亂。

Cities like Portland were largely devastated by protests and anarchism.

波特蘭等城市在很大程度上遭到抗議和無政府主義的破壞。

But yet we still had this mature conversation about what is going on here.

但我們還是就這裡發生的事情進行了成熟的對話。

Just to be clear, the Black Lives Matter protests were not like this.

需要說明的是，"黑人生命至上 "的抗議活動並非如此。

Ninety percent of the protests in the U.S., according to one academic study, showed they were peaceful.

根據一項學術研究，美國 90% 的抗議活動都是和平的。

There was no comparison.

沒有可比性。

Preeti Patel, not known as a kind of liberal, muesli-eating, sandal-wearing leftist, hardcore right-wing Home Secretary under the Conservatives, said there's a clear difference between that and then.

普雷蒂-帕特爾（Preeti Patel）在保守黨執政時期並不是以那種自由主義者、吃麥片、穿涼鞋的左派、鐵桿右翼內政大臣而聞名，她說，這與當時有明顯的不同。

She says what we saw during the pandemic protests, the BLM protests, was protest.

她說，我們在大流行病抗議活動、BLM 抗議活動中看到的是抗議。

This is a complete distinction.

這是完全不同的。

This is burning down of places of worship, thuggery, violence, racism.

這是焚燒禮拜場所、暴行、暴力和種族主義。

OK, but the issue is, for lots of people, what these events became was a proxy for this underlying issue that we've never in this country been able to get on top of, which is we promise the British people one thing, which is control and lower migration, and then we do another.

好吧，但問題是，對很多人來說，這些事件是我們這個國家一直無法解決的根本問題的代表，即我們向英國人民承諾了一件事，那就是控制和減少移民，然後我們又做了另一件事。

Preeti Patel is an interesting example.

Preeti Patel 就是一個有趣的例子。

You say she's hard right.

你說她是硬右派。

I'd say she's the most pro-immigration Home Secretary we've ever had in this country.

我得說她是我們國家有史以來最支持移民的內政大臣。

Now, if you're a Conservative voter in Northern England, you were promised in 2019 lower migration, lower oval numbers and a high-skill policy.

現在，如果你是英格蘭北部的保守黨選民，你將在 2019 年得到降低移民人數、減少橢圓形人數和高技能政策的承諾。

And then the government that you elected gives you the absolute opposite of that, puts everything on steroids and says to hell with you, you're going to be frustrated and you're going to be angry.

然後，你們選出的政府給了你們絕對相反的東西，把一切都打上類固醇，說讓你們見鬼去吧，你們會沮喪，你們會憤怒。

I just want to deal with these riots issues because you say you condemn it now, you didn't condemn it in your post.

我只想處理這些騷亂問題，因為你說你現在譴責它，但你在帖子中並沒有譴責它。

You even wrote sympathetically, Matt, about a woman who went to prison in the UK because according to you, quote, she wrote something very offensive on Facebook and you objected to that.

馬特，你甚至同情地寫道，一個女人在英國進了監獄，因為據你說，她在臉書上寫了一些非常冒犯人的話，你對此表示反對。

Can you tell us what she said?

你能告訴我們她說了什麼嗎？

Yeah, she was a full-time carer for her husband and she wrote something along the lines of they should blow up this mosque.

是的，她是丈夫的全職照顧者，她寫的東西大意是他們應該炸掉這座清真寺。

And I think she said something hideous.

我覺得她說了些難聽的話。

Blow the mosque up with the adults in it?

把清真寺連同裡面的成年人一起炸掉？

You don't think that merits a prison sentence?

你認為這不值得判刑嗎？

If somebody writes something on social media in their own home, however offensive I might find it, I don't think they should go to prison.

如果有人在自己家裡的社交媒體上寫了一些東西，無論我覺得有多麼冒犯，我都不認為他們應該坐牢。

That's my personal opinion.

這是我的個人觀點。

You don't think people can incite violence on social media?

你不認為人們可以在社交媒體上煽動暴力嗎？

It doesn't matter whether she's in her home.

她是否在家裡並不重要。

If it's clear incitement, they should be in prison.

如果是明顯的煽動，他們就應該被關進監獄。

Blow the mosque up with adults in it?

炸掉清真寺裡的成年人？

She also very quickly deleted it.

她也很快刪除了它。

She expressed sorrow.

她表示很難過。

I believe in Christian notions of forgiveness.

我相信基督教的寬恕觀念。

If somebody says I'm sorry, I say give you a second chance.

如果有人說對不起，我會說再給你一次機會。

How many Muslims have gone to prison over the last 20 years for saying much less than that on social media?

在過去 20 年裡，有多少穆斯林因為在社交媒體上說了比這少得多的話而鋃鐺入獄？

Well, I can disagree with that.

我不同意這種說法。

It's the same principle as non-crime hate incidents.

這與非犯罪仇恨事件的原理是一樣的。

I think what we're living through is an Orwellian imposition from above that I think lots of people in this country, the home of individual liberty, common law, Magna Carta, repel against.

我認為，我們現在所經歷的是一種來自上層的奧威爾式的強加，我認為這個國家，這個個人自由、普通法、大憲章的故鄉，很多人都反對這種強加。

I'm one of them.

我就是其中之一。

I don't think we should be doing that.

我認為我們不應該這樣做。

Here's what really bothered a lot of people about your post and actually really undermines,

你的帖子讓很多人感到困擾的地方就在這裡，它實際上是對你的貶低、

I would argue, one of the key arguments you make in your book.

我想說的是，你在書中提出的關鍵論點之一。

You say we should treat people as individuals.

你說我們應該把人當作個人來對待。

Don't become obsessed with group identities, ethnic identities, racial identities.

不要沉迷於群體身份、民族身份和種族身份。

And yet you wrote about the guy accused of murdering these three little girls, that he was the son of immigrants from Rwanda.

但你卻寫到那個被指控殺害這三個小女孩的人，說他是盧旺達移民的兒子。

Why is it relevant that the suspect is the British son of Rwandan immigrants?

嫌疑人是盧旺達移民的英國兒子，這有什麼關係呢？

He ultimately was a product of migration.

他最終是移民的產物。

He was a second generation migrant.

他是第二代移民。

We know from a lot of research that cultural practices, traditions, values, different ways of life tend to pass down from first to second, third generation.

我們從大量研究中瞭解到，文化習俗、傳統、價值觀和不同的生活方式往往會從第一代傳到第二代、第三代。

We know he came from a very conflict-ridden society, Rwanda.

我們知道他來自一個衝突不斷的社會--盧旺達。

We have no idea what his motivation is.

我們不知道他的動機是什麼。

The police don't know.

警察也不知道。

What do you know that they know?

你知道他們知道什麼？

Well, one of those potential motivations, let's see what happens.

好吧，其中一個潛在動機，讓我們拭目以待。

But why didn't you wait to see what happens before you made a kind of slur against Rwandan immigrants?

但是，在你對盧旺達移民進行汙衊之前，你為什麼不等著看看會發生什麼呢？

Because the fact is, this ultimately was a symbol, I think.

因為事實上，我認為這最終是一個象徵。

How is it a symbol?

它如何成為一種象徵？

It's got nothing to do with his parents.

這與他的父母無關。

Unless you have some evidence that the police don't have.

除非你有警方沒有的證據。

As I said in the original piece, for many Brits, what happened in the 12 days of that hot summer, we saw young British Muslim lads assaulting police officers in Manchester airport.

正如我在原文中所說，對許多英國人來說，在那個炎熱的夏天的 12 天裡，我們看到英國穆斯林小夥子在曼徹斯特機場襲警。

We saw a young second generation lad stabbing a British army officer almost to death.

我們看到一個年輕的二代小夥子刺死了一名英國軍官。

What's that got to do with your description of the attack?

這和你對襲擊的描述有什麼關係？

Just hear me out.

聽我說完。

In the course of a week, we saw the South End machete gangs, mass violence.

一週之內，我們看到了南區的砍刀幫和大規模暴力事件。

We had the riots in Leeds.

我們在利茲發生了騷亂。

We had evidence of communalism in other parts of the country.

我們在國內其他地方也有社區主義的證據。

We had sectarianism at the general election just a month before.

就在一個月前的大選中，我們遇到了教派紛爭。

In your opinion?

您認為呢？

Is it not a fact?

這難道不是事實嗎？

This is your opinion?

這就是你的觀點？

I think for lots of Brits, when you put that together and you look at the course of those things, I think what 2024 will come back to be seen as was really a watershed moment in our debate over...

我認為，對於很多英國人來說，當你把這些放在一起，看看這些事情的發展過程，我認為2024年將會被視為我們關於......的辯論的一個真正的分水嶺。

I understand, but you're avoiding the question, Matt.

我明白，但你在迴避問題，馬特。

You are!

你是

I'm coming to the central point, which is...

我要說的中心點是......

Please, deal with the child of Rwandan immigrants.

請處理好盧旺達移民的孩子的問題。

I want to nail this down.

我想把這件事確定下來。

Is Britain an integrated society, and do the people who are coming into Britain...

英國是否是一個融合的社會，進入英國的人們是否...

What evidence do you have?

你有什麼證據？

You seem to be implying all sorts of things.

你似乎在暗示各種事情。

We know nothing about...

我們對...

Well, I think going out and doing a mass stabbing and going on a murder rampage...

嗯，我認為出去做一個大規模的刺傷和去殺人的狂暴......

A mass stabbing is very British.

大規模刺殺是非常英國化的。

Sorry to break it to you.

很抱歉打斷你。

A lot of British people do stabbings and killings.

很多英國人都幹過捅人和殺人的勾當。

This kid was a Brit.

這孩子是個英國人。

Is a Brit.

是英國人

Or is he not a Brit to you?

還是對你來說他不是英國人？

It depends how you define national identity.

這取決於你如何定義國家認同。

Wow.

哇

So am I not a Brit?

我不是英國人嗎？

No, I think it's do you respect the country that you live in, and do you follow the rule of law?

不，我認為關鍵在於你是否尊重你所生活的國家，你是否遵守法治？

So it's a conditional citizenship?

所以這是有條件的公民身份？

It's not conditional.

這不是有條件的。

You just said it depends on whether you respect the country you live in.

你剛才說這取決於你是否尊重你所生活的國家。

For somebody who doesn't want to judge people on group identities, why are you bringing up the parents of this kid?

作為一個不想以群體身份來評判他人的人，你為什麼要提起這個孩子的父母？

Do you have any evidence?

你有證據嗎？

We have lots of evidence.

我們有很多證據。

You do?

是嗎？

Well, science has lots of evidence that the second, third generation migrants bring over certain cultural habits, traits, practices.

科學有大量證據表明，第二代、第三代移民會帶來某些文化習慣、特徵和習俗。

Murder?

謀殺？

No, but for example, second generation British Muslims, for example, will express higher levels of religiosity.

不會，但舉例來說，第二代英國穆斯林會表達出更高的宗教信仰。

He was a Muslim.

他是一名穆斯林。

That's part of the problem.

這也是問題的一部分。

No, but the underlying point...

沒有，但根本的一點......

No, because you're dodging the point here.

不，因為你在迴避問題。

This guy was the son of Rwandan immigrants, and you cannot explain to this audience why you thought it was relevant to bring that up.

這個人是盧旺達移民的兒子，你無法向觀眾解釋為什麼你認為提起這件事是有意義的。

I've just explained.

我剛才已經解釋過了。

Because Muslims bring communal practices.

因為穆斯林帶來了社區習俗。

No, I've said I think it's obviously about immigration.

不，我已經說過，我認為這顯然與移民有關。

He is a product of immigration.

他是移民的產物。

That had nothing to do with us.

這與我們無關。

How do we know?

我們怎麼知道？

We don't, but you're the one making the claim, not me.

我們不知道，但這是你說的，不是我。

I'm saying, in the context of that week, there are lots of questions to ask about to what extent was this guy integrated into wider society.

我是說，在那一週的背景下，有很多問題要問，這個人在多大程度上融入了更廣泛的社會。

So don't ask the questions.

那就別問了。

Don't make sweeping statements.

不要一概而論。

Here's the problem, Matt.

問題就在這裡，馬特。

Your critics would say that you used to be an academic.

責備你的人會說，你以前是個學者。

You sat on the Conservative coalition government's anti-Muslim hatred working group.

您是保守黨聯合政府反穆斯林仇恨工作組的成員。

You used to gather data.

你習慣於收集數據。

You used to analyse it in a sober way.

你曾經冷靜地分析過。

Now they say you just go on the right wing TV channel, GB News.

現在他們說，你只要去看右翼電視頻道 GB News 就可以了。

You write columns on the Daily Mail.

你在《每日郵報》上撰寫專欄。

There's lots of left people on GB News.

GB 新聞上有很多左派人士。

You spout off, though.

你倒是說得頭頭是道。

You cut corners.

你偷工減料。

This is what they say.

他們是這麼說的。

You push unfounded claims.

你提出毫無根據的主張。

You said on GB News, for example, falsely, and I quote, more than 50% of social housing in London is now occupied by people who are not British.

例如，你在 GB 新聞中虛假地說，我引用一下，倫敦 50%以上的社會住房現在都被非英國人佔據。

This is not acceptable.

這是不能接受的。

Well, forget not being acceptable.

算了，不接受也罷。

It's not true.

這不是真的。

I think it's about that.

我覺得就是這樣。

It's not.

不是這樣的。