【英倫前沿】摩根：英國正面對一鍋“易燃混合物”，這種局面很危險

【文/觀察者網專欄作者 摩根】

當今英國正變得日益分裂——不止體現在政治上，更體現在認知層面。

那些原本屬於外交政策範疇的爭論——以色列與反猶問題、俄羅斯與中國，以及在虛假信息時代“何為真相”——如今都已成為撕裂社會的內部裂痕。源自特朗普時代的民粹主義借網絡發酵，與英國本土的極端主義焦慮交織，最終引爆了一幕幕文化戰爭與地緣政治猜忌的危機。

地緣政治與英國反移民事件交織

當地時間10月2日，英國曼徹斯特猶太教堂外發生汽車衝撞和持刀傷人事件，已造成2名平民死亡、3人重傷。據警方描述，嫌疑人是一名35歲的敍利亞裔英國公民，當日穿着看似帶有爆炸裝置的背心，被警察當場開槍擊斃。由於這起事件發生在猶太教的“贖罪日”當天，因此很難讓人不聯想到英國境內當前的反猶主義。

自加沙衝突升級以來，英國境內反猶主義與伊斯蘭恐懼症事件同步上升，此案再次點燃民眾對宗教暴力的擔憂。許多人認為，這又是英國“向內撕裂”的一個徵兆：海外戰爭與網絡謠言不斷為本土仇恨行為添柴加薪。

幾天之後，東薩塞克斯郡皮斯黑文一座清真寺遭縱火，警方按仇恨犯罪立案調查。

大火於拂曉前燃起，雖未造成人員傷亡，卻造成嚴重損毀。調查人員不排除該案是對曼徹斯特刺傷事件的“報復”，可能是舊恨誘發新恨的寫照。社區領袖警告稱，那些散佈反穆斯林與反猶言論的網絡羣體，正在助長憤怒與恐懼的惡性循環。這兩起事件共同揭示：英國的極端主義已難再以單一意識形態或信仰來界定，而反映出一種更普遍的社會心態——由猜忌與怨憤交織而成的文化症候。

曼徹斯特事件迅速成為英國網絡極右翼的集結點。與美國MAGA陣營一致的網紅與邊緣評論者放大並渲染了嫌疑人動機的虛假或誇張説法，將襲擊納入更廣泛的反移民敍事。分析人士指出，這類言論從美國社媒空間流入英國輿論的速度，凸顯美國政治極化如何直接為英國文化戰爭“供氧”——恰逢英國極端主義走高與中美地緣緊張加劇之時，社會分裂進一步加深。

曼切斯特教堂恐襲案發生地點圖片來源：曼切斯特警方

自2024年以來，受後疫情時期移民壓力、經濟停滯與社交媒體極化推動，歐洲極右翼政黨持續走強。德國選擇黨（AfD）得票翻番；意大利與匈牙利的右翼政府定下政治基調；而法國“民調地震”及德國地方選舉的異動，正將主流政黨整體推向右翼。分析人士警告，若趨勢延續至2027年法國總統選舉，歐盟政治或將迎來關鍵拐點。

這一趨勢與“特朗普主義”愈發緊密相連。MAGA陣營與歐洲盟友頻繁在波蘭、匈牙利的CPAC大會上聚首，交流在移民與輿論議題上的策略；前英國首相特拉斯亦登台呼籲，在英國掀起“類MAGA運動”。

上月倫敦爆發自脱歐以來規模最大的反移民集會，現場多次出現對特朗普與萬斯的公開讚揚，顯示美國民粹話術已深度滲入英國街頭政治。在戰爭、壓迫與後疫情經濟衝擊驅動的新一輪移民潮之下，加之網絡虛假信息的迅速擴散，英國正面對一鍋“易燃混合物”：美國的民粹話語、歐洲極右翼的上揚勢頭及本土政治極化，三者交織併發。

英國工人黨政客機場被帶走——一場政治打壓

就在英國仍在消化緊張氛圍之際，蓋特威克機場又引發一場爭議。英國工人黨領袖、長期直言批評西方外交路線的喬治·加洛韋從莫斯科返英時，被反恐警察攔截。他與妻子依據《2019年反恐與邊境安全法》附表三被扣留——這部法律允許在英國口岸攔截並訊問人員，以“判斷其是否從事危害國家安全的敵對活動”。

加洛韋和他的妻子被訊問了數小時，並被沒收了電子設備。當他們被釋放時，倫敦的活動已經結束，這讓許多人懷疑，這次攔截的時機究竟是巧合，還是有意阻止他發聲。

在加洛韋的案例中，僅僅是從莫斯科返回就被視為足夠的理由，使他遭受數小時的拘留，被問及他對俄羅斯和中國的看法，並被沒收個人設備，而這一切都沒有伴隨逮捕、指控或證明其涉嫌犯罪。這種權力的廣泛性與監督的有限性結合在一起，使得《反恐與邊境安全法》附表三成為英國反恐框架中爭議最大的一項內容。

喬治·加洛韋

要理解這一事件的重要性，必須先了解其中的核心人物。加洛韋是英國政壇的老將，早在20世紀80年代末，他便以工黨議員的身份進入議會，但因反對伊拉克戰爭而被開除出黨。此後，他創立了“尊重黨”，最近又建立了“英國工人黨”，並以此為政治平台至今。在整個政治生涯中，他始終把自己定位為一名異見者，願意挑戰主流的外交政策立場，即便因此遭受政治孤立。

這些挑戰越來越集中在他與英美政府視為“不友好國家”的關係和立場上。加洛韋長期在莫斯科建立關係，頻繁出現在RT和“衞星通訊社”等媒體平台上，這使他成為英國最突出的北約批評者之一。這些節目在國外吸引了觀眾，但在國內卻引發了強烈批評，反對者指責他是克里姆林宮的傳聲筒。

他對中國的立場更為引人注目。加洛韋稱中華人民共和國的成立是“人類歷史上最重大的成就”。他讚揚中國在減貧、全球基礎設施建設和外交拓展方面取得的成就，堅持認為“中國是所有民族都應效仿的榜樣”，“中國就是未來”。用他的話説，中國人民“把自己從束縛和落後中解放出來，成為黑暗時代裏世界的光明”。在去年召開的工人黨特別代表大會上，加洛韋還承諾，英國工人黨將努力“建設具有英國特色的社會主義”，明確表示要從中國的發展道路中汲取靈感。

這些言論使他成為大多數英國政客中的“異類”，那些政客通常通過冷冰冰的成本—風險分析來對待中國。然而，這些言論出現在英中關係在英國遭受前所未有的審查的時刻。

就在幾周前，檢察官撤銷了對兩名男子的間諜指控，其中包括前議會研究員克里斯托弗·卡什，此前，他們被指控根據《官方保密法》為中國從事間諜活動。案件因證據不足而崩潰，但政府部長們仍然表示“嚴重關切”，並稱此事“極其令人失望”。卡什表示，自他被捕以來的兩年是“一場噩夢”，而整個過程本身就成了一種懲罰。中國稱這些指控是“惡意的污衊”，而批評人士則警告，英國有可能把政治聯繫或文化交流當作監視的理由。

在這種背景下，加洛韋對中國的公開讚賞不僅僅是非同尋常的言辭，而是使他直接處於一個越來越以懷疑為特徵的政治氛圍之下。當大多數西方政府在與中國的交往中保持謹慎時，他卻公開表示要與之並肩前行。

這種分歧使得他在蓋特威克機場的拘留看起來不僅是個人遭遇，更反映出當今英國社會對誰能就中國問題自由發聲更廣泛的不安。這些立場與大多數西方政府（包括英國工黨政府）採取的冷靜成本—風險分析形成鮮明對比，後者在貿易機會與安全和影響的擔憂之間尋找平衡。

至於俄羅斯，他的分歧更為尖鋭：當西方領導人將莫斯科視為唯一的對手時，加洛韋卻將其描繪為多極秩序中的合法夥伴。這種親華熱情與親俄挑戰相結合，使他成為一個獨特而具爭議的人物，也解釋了為什麼他在蓋特威克被帶走會引發更深遠的共鳴。

同樣具有爭議的是加洛韋對中東問題的看法。他長期將以色列稱為“種族隔離國家”，並多次發表支持哈馬斯的言論。本月早些時候，他前往德黑蘭，據英國和伊朗媒體報道，他在那裏接受了以被以色列暗殺的哈馬斯領導人伊斯梅爾·哈尼亞命名的獎項，並稱哈尼亞獎是他最“珍貴的財產”。這些立場使他成為英國最具爭議的聲音之一，但同時也強化了其支持者的看法——他所受到的對待反映的不是正常的安全執法，而是政治壓制。

背後的特朗普主義

這一事件之所以引發廣泛共鳴，還因為更宏大的政治背景。唐納德·特朗普在英國政治上變得越來越活躍，而像埃隆·馬斯克和史蒂夫·福布斯這樣的商界領袖也尖鋭批評英國在言論問題上的走向。無論人們如何看待這種言辭，它都顯示了像加洛韋這樣的事件如何影響國際社會對英國民主文化的看法。

在國內，他被拘留的時間點正值英國對言論自由的態度日益收緊。去年南港（Southport）持刀襲擊案成為一個轉折點。三名年輕女孩在一堂以泰勒·斯威夫特為主題的舞蹈課上被殺，虛假信息迅速在網絡上擴散。極右翼人物如奈傑爾·法拉奇和湯米·羅賓遜放大錯誤言論，聲稱兇手是一名穆斯林尋求庇護者。事實上，襲擊者是一名17歲的盧旺達裔基督教移民二代，但謠言已經在數個城鎮引發暴力抗議。清真寺、難民中心和少數族裔社區在官方闢謠前就頻繁遭到襲擊。

2024年7月29日上午，英國默西賽德郡紹斯波特一所舞蹈學校內發生一宗大規模持刀襲擊事件，造成3名兒童死亡，另外10人受傷，其中包括8名兒童。

這些虛假信息的迅速傳播，以及隨之而來的極右翼暴力動員，加深了民眾對英國國家穩定的擔憂。作為回應，政府出台了擴大打擊虛假信息權力的全面立法。部長們聲稱這些法律對公共安全至關重要，但批評者警告，這賦予國家過大的權力去決定什麼能説、什麼不可以被説。當針對像加洛韋這樣的政治人物也動用反恐權力時，人們得到的印象是：在這個社會里，充滿爭議的聲音正日益受到壓制，而非被付諸公開辯論。

英國政府在處理猶太教堂襲擊事件中，湯米·羅賓遜及其他極右翼網紅一直是最強烈的批評者。他宣佈，應支持其立場的團體邀請，他計劃前往以色列。期間，他和同伴預計將訪問以色列議會（克奈塞特）並前往約旦河西岸，以示對以色列的聲援。這一行動突顯了極右翼對英國政府日益對抗的立場，特別是在以色列與加沙問題上，他們認為政府的態度過於軟弱。此次訪問預計將引發支持者和反對者的關注，前者視其為擴大影響的機會，後者則認為他試圖將英國國內的不安局勢與西方民粹主義和中東之間的意識形態對立相聯繫。

對許多人而言，政治格局的日益分裂已經昭然顯現：極右翼活動者在海外建立聯繫的同時，國內的異見聲音卻受到反恐框架的審查。

這場辯論並不僅限於英國。在美國，支持巴勒斯坦的抗議學生遭遇了警方拘留和學校處分，引發了人們對異議空間被不斷壓縮的擔憂。在英國，湯米·羅賓遜在南港騷亂中的被捕被其支持者視為選擇性執法的證據，並被拿來與美國的類似事件進行比較。

這些相似之處凸顯了整個西方民主國家面臨的更廣泛矛盾：在兩極分化和虛假信息盛行的時代，如何在維持公共秩序的同時保護言論自由。

一個日益清晰的圖景是：國際衝突不再止於國際舞台。英國的街頭、校園與社交媒體，正映照全球同款的分裂——親以與親巴、親中與親美、親西方與親俄的對立。彼此互指“極端”或“受外部操控”，而國家在“遏制真實暴力不夠”與“壓制政治異議過度”之間搖擺。其結果是，這個國家的意識形態邊界日益模糊，而“敵對行為”的定義也變得無所不包——從恐怖主義行徑到離經叛道的觀點，皆可被歸入其中。

這也引出一個棘手的“一致性”問題：若加洛韋可因與俄中關係被扣留，羅賓遜可因煽動騷亂被捕，學生可因批評以色列受罰，那麼與被廣泛指控犯下暴行（包括被指在加沙實施種族滅絕）的政府保持密切關係的主流政治人物，又為何鮮見同等審視？言論自由標準的不均衡適用，正在侵蝕公眾信任。（翻頁請看英文版）

Britain today feels increasingly divided, not just by politics, but by perception.

Arguments once confined to foreign policy have become domestic fault lines: over Israel and antisemitism, over Russia and China, over what counts as “truth” in an era of misinformation. Trump-era populism, imported through online echo chambers, has fused with Britain’s own anxieties about extremism, creating a volatile mix of culture war and geopolitical paranoia.

In late September, on the eve of China’s National Day, Manchester was shaken by the stabbing of three worshippers outside a synagogue, an attack police described as a hate-motivated assault. The suspect, a 28-year-old local man, was detained at the scene and later arrested under the Terrorism Act. The victims, including a father and son, were hospitalised with serious injuries. The incident reignited fears of religiously driven violence, coming amid a sharp rise in both antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents across Britain since the escalation of the Gaza conflict. For many, it was another sign of a nation turning in on itself — where foreign wars and online misinformation fuel local acts of hate.

Just days later, a mosque in Peacehaven, East Sussex, was set ablaze in what police are treating as a hate-motivated attack. The fire, which broke out before dawn, caused extensive damage but no casualties. Investigators believe the arson may have been retaliation for the Manchester stabbings, highlighting how one act of hate now triggers another.

Community leaders warned that the same online networks spreading anti-Muslim and antisemitic rhetoric were feeding an endless cycle of anger and fear. Together, the two incidents underscored how extremism in Britain no longer fits into neat categories of ideology or faith, but reflects a broader culture of suspicion and grievance.

The Manchester incident quickly became a rallying point for Britain’s online far right.

U.S.-aligned MAGA influencers and fringe commentators amplified false or exaggerated claims about the suspect’s motives, linking the attack to broader anti-immigrant narratives.

The speed with which such rhetoric travelled from American social media into British discourse highlights how U.S. political polarisation now feeds directly into Britain’s own culture wars, deepening divisions just as the country grapples with rising extremism at home and escalating geopolitical tension between China and the United States abroad.

Across Europe, far-right parties have gained strength since 2024, fuelled by post-COVID migration pressures, stagnant growth, and online polarisation. In Germany, the AfD has doubled its vote share; in Italy and Hungary, right-wing governments set the tone; and polling shocks in France and state races in Germany show mainstream parties shifting rightward. Analysts warn that if this trajectory continues into France’s 2027 presidential race, EU politics could face a decisive tipping point.

MAGA figures and European allies now gather at CPAC events in Poland and Hungary, sharing strategies on migration and media. Former UK prime minister Liz Truss has courted the same stage, calling for a “MAGA-style” movement at home.

In London last month, a massive anti-immigration rally, one of the largest since Brexit, featured open praise for Donald Trump and JD Vance, reflecting how U.S. populist rhetoric is now woven into Britain’s street politics. With migration driven by war, repression, and post-COVID economic shocks, and misinformation spreading rapidly online, Britain faces a combustible mix: U.S.-aligned populism, European far-right momentum, and domestic polarisation converging at once.

Just as the country was reeling from these tensions, another controversy erupted, this time at Gatwick Airport. George Galloway, leader of the Workers Party of Britain and one of the country’s most outspoken critics of Western foreign policy, was stopped by counter-terror police while returning from Moscow. He and his wife were detained under Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, the same law that allows officers to stop and question anyone at UK ports “to determine whether they appear to be engaged in hostile activity.” In practice, it empowers officials to detain individuals for up to six hours, demand answers, and seize phones or laptops, all without needing reasonable suspicion of a crime. Refusal to cooperate is itself a criminal offence.

Galloway and his wife were questioned for several hours and had their devices seized. By the time they were released, the event in London had finished, leading many to wonder whether the timing of the stop was coincidental or whether it was intended to prevent him from speaking.

In Galloway’s case, returning from Moscow was treated as sufficient grounds for hours of detention, questioning about his views on Russia and China, and the confiscation of personal devices, all without arrest, charge, or the need to show that any offence had been committed. It is this combination of sweeping authority and limited oversight that has made Schedule 3 one of the most debated elements of Britain’s counter-terror framework.

To understand the significance of this episode, it is necessary to understand the man at its centre. Galloway is a veteran of British politics, having first entered Parliament in the late 1980s as a Labour MP before being expelled from the party over his opposition to the Iraq War. He later founded the Respect Party and, more recently, the Workers Party of Britain, from which he still operates today. Throughout his career he has positioned himself as a voice of dissent, willing to challenge mainstream foreign-policy positions even at the cost of political isolation.

Those challenges have increasingly centred on his alignment with powers regarded with suspicion in London and Washington. He has long cultivated ties in Moscow, where his regular appearances on media platforms such as RT and Sputnik established him as one of the most prominent British critics of NATO. These broadcasts drew an audience abroad but also sharp criticism at home, where detractors accused him of amplifying Kremlin narratives.

His stance on China has been even more striking. Galloway has described the founding of the People’s Republic of China as “the most momentous achievement in the history of the world.” He has praised China’s success in poverty reduction, global infrastructure and diplomatic outreach, insisting that “China is the model that all people should follow” and “China is the future.” In his words, the Chinese people “dragged themselves out of bondage and backwardness to become the light of the world in these dark times.” At his party’s special congress last year, he pledged that the Workers Party of Britain would seek to “build socialism with British characteristics,” explicitly drawing inspiration from Beijing’s path.

Such words set him apart from most British politicians, who treat Beijing through a cold cost–risk analysis of trade and security. But they also come at a time when ties to China are under unprecedented scrutiny in the UK. Only weeks ago, prosecutors dropped espionage charges against two men, including Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, who had been accused of spying for Beijing under the Official Secrets Act. The case collapsed for lack of evidence, but government ministers still voiced “grave concern” and called it “extremely disappointing.” For Cash, who said the two years since his arrest had been a “nightmare,” the ordeal itself became a punishment. Beijing called the accusations “malicious slander,” while critics warned that Britain risks turning political connections or cultural exchange into grounds for surveillance.

Against this backdrop, Galloway’s open admiration for China is more than unusual rhetoric. It places him directly in the crosshairs of a political climate increasingly defined by suspicion. Where most Western governments hedge their engagement with Beijing, he speaks of marching alongside it. That divergence makes his silencing at Gatwick appear not only personal but symptomatic of a broader unease about who can speak freely on China in Britain today. These positions stand in marked contrast to the cost–risk analysis applied to China by most Western governments, including Britain’s Labour administration, which balances trade opportunities with concerns about security and influence. On Russia his divergence is sharper still. Where Western leaders cast Moscow only as an adversary, Galloway portrays it as a legitimate partner in a multipolar order. This combination of pro-China enthusiasm and pro-Russia defiance makes him a uniquely controversial figure and helps explain why his silencing at Gatwick resonated far beyond the airport.

Equally contentious are Galloway’s views on the Middle East. He has long described Israel as an apartheid state and spoken favourably of Hamas. Earlier this month he travelled to Tehran, where, according to British and Iranian reports, he accepted an award named after Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, assassinated by Israel earlier this year, remarking that Haniyeh’s passport was his most “treasured possession.” Such positions have made him one of the most polarising voices in Britain, but also reinforce the sense among his supporters that his treatment reflects political suppression rather than routine security enforcement.

The incident also struck a chord because of the wider political backdrop. Donald Trump has become increasingly vocal on British politics, while business leaders such as Elon Musk and Steve Forbes have sharply criticised the UK’s direction on speech. Whatever one makes of such rhetoric, it demonstrates how cases like Galloway’s shape international perceptions of Britain’s democratic culture.

At home, the timing of his detention coincides with a tightening of Britain’s approach to free expression. The Southport stabbings last year proved to be a turning point. When three young girls were killed during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class, misinformation spread rapidly online. False claims that the perpetrator was a Muslim asylum seeker went viral, amplified by far-right figures such as Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. In reality, the attacker was a 17-year-old second-generation immigrant of Rwandan Christian background, but the rumours had already fuelled violent protests across several towns. Mosques, refugee centres and minority communities were attacked before official corrections could gain traction.

The rapid spread of such falsehoods, and the violent far-right mobilisation that followed — deepened official fears about the country’s stability. In response, the government introduced sweeping legislation expanding powers to combat misinformation. Ministers argued the laws were essential for public safety, but critics warned they gave the state wide latitude to decide what could and could not be said. When coupled with the use of counter-terror powers against a political figure like Galloway, the impression is of a society where controversial voices are increasingly restricted rather than debated.

Tommy Robinson, along with other far-right influencers, has been among the loudest critics of the British government’s handling of the synagogue attacks. He has announced plans to travel to Israel at the invitation of groups sympathetic to his cause. During the trip, he and his associates are expected to visit the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, and tour the West Bank to demonstrate solidarity with the Israeli cause. The move underscores their increasingly confrontational stance toward the UK government, particularly over what they see as its weak position on Israel and Gaza.  His visit is expected to draw attention from both supporters and opponents who see it as an attempt to internationalise his message, linking Britain’s domestic unrest to the wider ideological battle lines between Western populists and the Middle East. For many, it underscores how fragmented the political landscape has become: a space where far-right activists forge ties abroad even as dissenting voices at home face counter-terror scrutiny.

This debate is not confined to Britain. In the United States, students at pro-Palestine protests have faced police detention and disciplinary action, sparking concerns about creeping limits on dissent. In Britain, the arrest of Tommy Robinson during the Southport unrest has been cited by his supporters as evidence of selective enforcement, drawing comparisons with similar episodes in the United States. These parallels highlight a broader tension across Western democracies: how to preserve free expression while managing public order in an era of polarisation and misinformation.

The pattern is becoming clear: international conflicts no longer stay international. Britain’s streets, universities, and social media feeds have become mirrors of the same global divides pro-Israel versus pro-Palestine, pro-China versus pro-US, pro-West versus pro-Russia. Each side accuses the other of extremism or foreign influence, while the state oscillates between doing too little to contain real violence and too much to silence political dissent. The result is a country where ideological boundaries blur, and “hostile activity” can mean anything from an act of terrorism to an unpopular opinion.

They also raise a difficult question about consistency. If Galloway can be detained for his associations with Russia and China, Robinson arrested for inflaming unrest, and students disciplined for criticising Israel, then where is the same scrutiny for mainstream politicians who maintain close ties with governments accused by many of committing atrocities, including allegations of genocide in Gaza? The uneven application of free-speech principles risks eroding public trust.

本文系觀察者網獨家稿件，文章內容純屬作者個人觀點，不代表平台觀點，未經授權，不得轉載，否則將追究法律責任。關注觀察者網微信guanchacn，每日閲讀趣味文章。