“充满敌意、专制”——英国公民自由指数下降
正文翻译
(The UK’s proposed laws to restrict civic freedoms such as the right to peaceful assembly and protest means it is now classified as “obstructed” – putting it alongside countries such as Poland, South Africa and Hungary.)
（英国拟议的法律限制公民自由，比如和平集会和抗议的权利，这意味着英国现在被列为“受阻”类别——与波兰、南非和匈牙利等国并列。）
新闻：
‘Hostile, authoritarian’ UK downgraded in civic freedoms index
-Civicus Monitor cites hostility towards campaigners and charities, and clamp down on public protests
“充满敌意、专制”——英国公民自由指数下降
——“公民监测”指出了对活动人士和慈善机构的敌意，以及对公众抗议活动的镇压
-Civicus Monitor cites hostility towards campaigners and charities, and clamp down on public protests
“充满敌意、专制”——英国公民自由指数下降
——“公民监测”指出了对活动人士和慈善机构的敌意，以及对公众抗议活动的镇压
(The UK’s proposed laws to restrict civic freedoms such as the right to peaceful assembly and protest means it is now classified as “obstructed” – putting it alongside countries such as Poland, South Africa and Hungary.)
（英国拟议的法律限制公民自由，比如和平集会和抗议的权利，这意味着英国现在被列为“受阻”类别——与波兰、南非和匈牙利等国并列。）
新闻：
The UK has been downgraded in an annual global index of civic freedoms as a result of the government’s “increasingly authoritarian” drive to impose restrictive and punitive laws on public protests.
英国在一项年度全球公民自由指数中被降级，原因是政府“越来越专制”地对公众抗议活动实施限制性和惩罚性法律。
英国在一项年度全球公民自由指数中被降级，原因是政府“越来越专制”地对公众抗议活动实施限制性和惩罚性法律。
The Civicus Monitor, which tracks the democratic and civic health of 197 countries across the world, said the UK government was creating a “hostile environment” towards campaigners, charities and other civil society bodies.
追踪全球197个国家民主和公民健康状况的“公民监测”表示，英国政府正在对活动人士、慈善机构和其他公民社会团体营造一种“敌视环境”。
追踪全球197个国家民主和公民健康状况的“公民监测”表示，英国政府正在对活动人士、慈善机构和其他公民社会团体营造一种“敌视环境”。
The UK’s willingness to clamp down on civic freedoms such as the right to peaceful assembly means it is now classified as “obstructed” – putting it alongside countries such as Poland, South Africa and Hungary.
英国愿意压制和平集会权等公民自由，这意味着它现在被列为“受阻”类别——与波兰、南非和匈牙利等国并列。
英国愿意压制和平集会权等公民自由，这意味着它现在被列为“受阻”类别——与波兰、南非和匈牙利等国并列。
“The downgrade reflects the worrying trends we are seeing in restrictions across civil society that are threatening our democracy. The government should be setting a positive example to countries that have clamped down on civic space,” said Stephanie Draper, the chief executive of the Bond charity, a partner in the Civicus collaboration.
“评级下调反映了我们在公民社会看到的威胁我们民主的种种限制的令人担忧的趋势。政府应该为那些限制公民空间的国家树立一个积极的榜样，”邦德慈善机构的首席执行官斯蒂芬妮·德雷珀说，她是“公民监测”合伙人之一。
“评级下调反映了我们在公民社会看到的威胁我们民主的种种限制的令人担忧的趋势。政府应该为那些限制公民空间的国家树立一个积极的榜样，”邦德慈善机构的首席执行官斯蒂芬妮·德雷珀说，她是“公民监测”合伙人之一。
She added: “The UK is becoming increasingly authoritarian and is among concerning company in the Civicus Monitor ratings as restrictive laws and dangerous rhetoric are creating a hostile environment towards civil society in the UK.”
她补充说：“英国正变得越来越专制，在‘公民监测’的评级中，英国是令人担忧的国家之一，因为限制性法律和危险的言论正在为英国的公民社会创造一个敌视的环境。”
她补充说：“英国正变得越来越专制，在‘公民监测’的评级中，英国是令人担忧的国家之一，因为限制性法律和危险的言论正在为英国的公民社会创造一个敌视的环境。”
Civicus is a collaboration between more than 20 civil society organisations around the world, providing an annual upxe of the global relative health of civil society. Countries are classified as: open; narrowed; obstructed; repressed; or closed. The UK has been downgraded from “narrowed” to “obstructed”.
“公民监测”是全球20多个民间社会组织的合作项目，每年提供全球民间社会相对健康状况的最新信息。国家分类为：开放、狭隘、受阻、压抑的、封闭。英国已从“狭隘”降级为“受阻”。
“公民监测”是全球20多个民间社会组织的合作项目，每年提供全球民间社会相对健康状况的最新信息。国家分类为：开放、狭隘、受阻、压抑的、封闭。英国已从“狭隘”降级为“受阻”。
Its latest annual report cites a number of restrictive laws introduced or proposed. These include the Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Act, which gives the police unprecedented power to restrict protests and marches, and the Public Order Bill, now going through parliament, which is aimed at curbing so-called guerrilla-style protests
该公司最新的年度报告援引了一些已出台或已提出的限制性法律。其中包括《警察、犯罪量刑和法院法案》，该法案赋予警察前所未有的权力来限制抗议和游行，以及目前正在议会审议的旨在遏制所谓“游击队式抗议”的《公共秩序法案》
该公司最新的年度报告援引了一些已出台或已提出的限制性法律。其中包括《警察、犯罪量刑和法院法案》，该法案赋予警察前所未有的权力来限制抗议和游行，以及目前正在议会审议的旨在遏制所谓“游击队式抗议”的《公共秩序法案》
But it is also concerned by what it sees as the UK government’s attempts to undermine human rights and its hostility towards charities and campaigners who actively oppose or speak out against its policies on climate change, anti-racism and refugee and asylum seeker rights.
但它也担心，在它看来，英国政府试图破坏人权，对积极反对或公开反对其气候变化、反种族主义、难民和寻求庇护者权利政策的慈善机构和活动人士怀有敌意。
但它也担心，在它看来，英国政府试图破坏人权，对积极反对或公开反对其气候变化、反种族主义、难民和寻求庇护者权利政策的慈善机构和活动人士怀有敌意。
The UK government’s increasingly hardline approach is reflected in a separate annual survey of charities by the Sheila McKechnie Foundation (SMK), which reveals widespread alarm at the extent of ministers perceived hostility to civil society and enthusiasm for cracking down on long-held freedoms to organise and protest.
希拉·麦凯尼基金会对慈善机构进行的另一项年度调查反映了英国政府日益强硬的态度。调查显示，大臣们被认为对公民社会怀有敌意，并热衷于打压长期以来的组织和抗议自由，这引起了普遍担忧。
希拉·麦凯尼基金会对慈善机构进行的另一项年度调查反映了英国政府日益强硬的态度。调查显示，大臣们被认为对公民社会怀有敌意，并热衷于打压长期以来的组织和抗议自由，这引起了普遍担忧。
“The results of our survey, alongside the news Civicus has downgraded the UK as obstructed, should be a wake-up call. Our civic space is experiencing death by a thousand cuts and, at a time when ‘Global Britain’ is trying to carve out its new space in the world, we find ourselves in the same class as countries we have previously been a democratic example to,” said the SMK chief executive, Sue Tibballs.
“我们的调查结果，以及‘公民监测’将英国评级下调为‘受阻’的消息，应该是一个警钟。我们的公民空间正在经历千刀万剐的死亡，当‘全球化英国’试图在世界上开拓新的空间时，我们发现自己与以前把我们作为民主榜样的国家处于同一阶层，” 基金会首席执行官苏·蒂鲍尔斯说。
“我们的调查结果，以及‘公民监测’将英国评级下调为‘受阻’的消息，应该是一个警钟。我们的公民空间正在经历千刀万剐的死亡，当‘全球化英国’试图在世界上开拓新的空间时，我们发现自己与以前把我们作为民主榜样的国家处于同一阶层，” 基金会首席执行官苏·蒂鲍尔斯说。
The SMK’s annual campaigner survey found 94% of campaigners said there were threats to the freedom to organise, contribute to public debate, influence political decisions or protest. The same proportion agreed that “negative rhetoric” from politicians towards campaigners was threatening civic space.
基金会的年度活动人士调查发现，94%的活动人士表示，组织自由、参与公共辩论、影响政治决策或抗议的自由受到了威胁。同样比例的人认为，政客对活动人士的“负面言论”正在威胁公民空间。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
基金会的年度活动人士调查发现，94%的活动人士表示，组织自由、参与公共辩论、影响政治决策或抗议的自由受到了威胁。同样比例的人认为，政客对活动人士的“负面言论”正在威胁公民空间。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
One respondent said: “The government’s crackdown on campaigning is deeply alarming … and part of a wider drive to silence civil society and restore charities to this backwards idea of just being a service provider for a withdrawing state, without any actual campaigning response being allowed.”
一位受访者表示：“政府对竞选活动的镇压非常令人担忧……这是一种更广泛的行动的一部分，目的是让公民社会保持沉默，让慈善机构恢复到这种落后的理念，即只是为退出状态提供服务，不允许任何实际的竞选回应。”
一位受访者表示：“政府对竞选活动的镇压非常令人担忧……这是一种更广泛的行动的一部分，目的是让公民社会保持沉默，让慈善机构恢复到这种落后的理念，即只是为退出状态提供服务，不允许任何实际的竞选回应。”
Increasing hostility towards charities and campaigners by politicians and parts of the media had a “chilling effect” on some of their activities, they said.
他们表示，政客和部分媒体对慈善机构和活动人士的敌意日益增加，对他们的一些活动产生了“寒蝉效应”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
他们表示，政客和部分媒体对慈善机构和活动人士的敌意日益增加，对他们的一些活动产生了“寒蝉效应”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Some respondents said they had sometimes censored themselves for fear of a backlash. “We can’t always openly declare the truth of a situation due to funding constraints and for fear of damaging public and political relationships,” one said.
一些受访者表示，他们有时会对自己进行审查，因为担心遭到反对。“由于资金限制，以及担心损害公众和政治关系，我们不能总是公开宣布情况的真相，”其中一人表示。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
一些受访者表示，他们有时会对自己进行审查，因为担心遭到反对。“由于资金限制，以及担心损害公众和政治关系，我们不能总是公开宣布情况的真相，”其中一人表示。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Despite this, the majority (62%) of charities said high-profile media attacks on organisations like the National Trust and RSPB made them more likely to speak out. Just 11% said they were cowed by the threat of being picked on by the media or politicians.
尽管如此，大多数慈善机构（62%）表示，媒体对国家信托基金和皇家鸟类保护协会等组织的高调攻击，使他们更有可能说出自己的想法。只有11%的人说他们害怕被媒体或政客挑刺。
尽管如此，大多数慈善机构（62%）表示，媒体对国家信托基金和皇家鸟类保护协会等组织的高调攻击，使他们更有可能说出自己的想法。只有11%的人说他们害怕被媒体或政客挑刺。
There was also a perception among some charities that the public were increasingly open to their campaigning message. As one respondent put it: “The public seem slightly more ready to listen and engage in campaigns due to a general sense of things being unjust.”
一些慈善机构还认为，公众对他们的宣传信息越来越开放。正如一位受访者所说：“公众似乎更愿意倾听和参与竞选，因为他们普遍觉得事情是不公平的。”
一些慈善机构还认为，公众对他们的宣传信息越来越开放。正如一位受访者所说：“公众似乎更愿意倾听和参与竞选，因为他们普遍觉得事情是不公平的。”
A government spokesperson said: “This government is committed to protecting freedom of expression and protest, which is a fundamental principle of our democracy.
一名政府发言人表示：“本届政府致力于保护言论和抗议自由，这是我们民主的基本原则。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
一名政府发言人表示：“本届政府致力于保护言论和抗议自由，这是我们民主的基本原则。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
“However, the right to protest must be balanced with preserving the ability of the law-abiding majority to go about their daily business. We must ensure there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security, essential services and effective government.”
“然而，抗议的权利必须与维护遵纪守法的大多数人开展日常事务的能力相平衡。我们必须确保在个人权利、重要的国家安全、基本服务和有效的政府之间取得适当的平衡。”
“然而，抗议的权利必须与维护遵纪守法的大多数人开展日常事务的能力相平衡。我们必须确保在个人权利、重要的国家安全、基本服务和有效的政府之间取得适当的平衡。”
评论翻译
fricassee456 Taiwan
Even if there are some questionable bills being passed in Westminster, placing the UK in the same group as countries like Indonesia and Morocco in civic freedoms is still ludicrous. It's attention-seeking nonsense.
即使英国议会正在通过一些有问题的法案，但在公民自由方面，将英国与印度尼西亚和摩洛哥等国归为一类仍然是荒谬的。这是为了吸引眼球的无稽之谈。
Even if there are some questionable bills being passed in Westminster, placing the UK in the same group as countries like Indonesia and Morocco in civic freedoms is still ludicrous. It's attention-seeking nonsense.
即使英国议会正在通过一些有问题的法案，但在公民自由方面，将英国与印度尼西亚和摩洛哥等国归为一类仍然是荒谬的。这是为了吸引眼球的无稽之谈。
Lost-Committee1071 England
As an Englishmen, I was shocked that The UK fell to a level of "obstructed" civic freedoms. So I decided to investigate.
This Guardian report is based on the work of Civicus, a nonprofit organisation whose goal is to "protect and grow civic space" with a focus on "regions where participatory democracy and freedom of association are at risk". Their current leader is Lysa John, a career social justice activist.
A bit worried a major news outlet is writing a serious article based on the report of one minor activist organisation.
What's more concerning is that the ranking system Civicus uses. A country is given a rating from 0-100, with 0 being a 1984 style dystopia. The problem, they don't use any quantitative measurement to reach their verdict, nor any standardised method (that I can find).
It is a completely unscientific methodology that's heavily vulnerable to biases.
Just to pick at a bone, I decided to look at who funds them. They generate money from membership fees and individual donors (who donates is kept hidden). The organisation has also taken money from state actors, including The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Swedish Ministry of Forign Affairs and The European Commission.
I'm not sure an organisation who's purpose is to maintain and spread civic freedoms and hold governments accountable should be taking money from government organisations.
I don't blame Civicus for this, they're an activist group and they're entitled to their opinion. Plus they do some good work from what I've seen.
I do, however, blame The Guardian for using a non scientific, untrustworthy and clearly biased "ranking" to base their article on.
Even if there are some questionable bills being passed in Westminster
That is completely true. Don't interpret my comment as an attempt to undermine that.
The Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act was very controversial when it was being debated in Parliament. It's still a very controversial bill now it has been signed into law.
作为一个英国人，我对英国沦落到公民自由“受阻”的地步感到震惊。所以我决定调查一下。
《卫报》的这篇报道基于“公民监测”的工作，这是一个非营利性组织，其目标是“保护和发展公民空间”，重点关注“参与性民主和结社自由面临风险的地区”。他们现在的领导人是莱莎·约翰，一位职业社会正义活动家。
我有点担心一家大型新闻媒体根据一个小型激进组织的报告撰写了一篇严肃的文章。
更令人担忧的是“公民监测”使用的排名系统。一个国家的评分范围是0-100分，0分代表1984式的反乌托邦。问题是，他们没有使用任何定量测量来得出他们的结论，也没有任何（我能找到的）标准化的指标。
这是一种完全不科学的方法，很容易受到偏见的影响。
为了找到线索，我决定看看是谁资助了他们。他们的收入来自会员费和个人捐赠者（捐赠者的身份被隐藏了起来）。该组织还从国家机构获得资金，包括荷兰外交部、瑞典外交部和欧盟委员会。
我不确定一个以维护和传播公民自由、让政府负责任为宗旨的组织是否应该接受政府组织的资金。
我不怪“公民监测”，他们是一个激进组织，他们有权发表自己的意见。而且据我所见，他们做了一些不错的工作。
然而，我确实指责《卫报》使用了一个不科学、不可信、明显有偏见的“排名”来作为他们文章的依据。
即使议会通过了一些有问题的法案
这完全正确。不要把我的评论理解为试图破坏这一点。
《警察、犯罪、法庭和量刑法》在议会辩论时备受争议。虽然这项法案已经签署成为法律，但它仍然是一项非常有争议的法案。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
As an Englishmen, I was shocked that The UK fell to a level of "obstructed" civic freedoms. So I decided to investigate.
This Guardian report is based on the work of Civicus, a nonprofit organisation whose goal is to "protect and grow civic space" with a focus on "regions where participatory democracy and freedom of association are at risk". Their current leader is Lysa John, a career social justice activist.
A bit worried a major news outlet is writing a serious article based on the report of one minor activist organisation.
What's more concerning is that the ranking system Civicus uses. A country is given a rating from 0-100, with 0 being a 1984 style dystopia. The problem, they don't use any quantitative measurement to reach their verdict, nor any standardised method (that I can find).
It is a completely unscientific methodology that's heavily vulnerable to biases.
Just to pick at a bone, I decided to look at who funds them. They generate money from membership fees and individual donors (who donates is kept hidden). The organisation has also taken money from state actors, including The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Swedish Ministry of Forign Affairs and The European Commission.
I'm not sure an organisation who's purpose is to maintain and spread civic freedoms and hold governments accountable should be taking money from government organisations.
I don't blame Civicus for this, they're an activist group and they're entitled to their opinion. Plus they do some good work from what I've seen.
I do, however, blame The Guardian for using a non scientific, untrustworthy and clearly biased "ranking" to base their article on.
Even if there are some questionable bills being passed in Westminster
That is completely true. Don't interpret my comment as an attempt to undermine that.
The Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act was very controversial when it was being debated in Parliament. It's still a very controversial bill now it has been signed into law.
作为一个英国人，我对英国沦落到公民自由“受阻”的地步感到震惊。所以我决定调查一下。
《卫报》的这篇报道基于“公民监测”的工作，这是一个非营利性组织，其目标是“保护和发展公民空间”，重点关注“参与性民主和结社自由面临风险的地区”。他们现在的领导人是莱莎·约翰，一位职业社会正义活动家。
我有点担心一家大型新闻媒体根据一个小型激进组织的报告撰写了一篇严肃的文章。
更令人担忧的是“公民监测”使用的排名系统。一个国家的评分范围是0-100分，0分代表1984式的反乌托邦。问题是，他们没有使用任何定量测量来得出他们的结论，也没有任何（我能找到的）标准化的指标。
这是一种完全不科学的方法，很容易受到偏见的影响。
为了找到线索，我决定看看是谁资助了他们。他们的收入来自会员费和个人捐赠者（捐赠者的身份被隐藏了起来）。该组织还从国家机构获得资金，包括荷兰外交部、瑞典外交部和欧盟委员会。
我不确定一个以维护和传播公民自由、让政府负责任为宗旨的组织是否应该接受政府组织的资金。
我不怪“公民监测”，他们是一个激进组织，他们有权发表自己的意见。而且据我所见，他们做了一些不错的工作。
然而，我确实指责《卫报》使用了一个不科学、不可信、明显有偏见的“排名”来作为他们文章的依据。
即使议会通过了一些有问题的法案
这完全正确。不要把我的评论理解为试图破坏这一点。
《警察、犯罪、法庭和量刑法》在议会辩论时备受争议。虽然这项法案已经签署成为法律，但它仍然是一项非常有争议的法案。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
dalehitchy
People in the UK will happily VOTE to lose their rights away as long as it hurts boat and trans people more.
People only moan about losing their rights when there's not someone else losing them.
只要能对偷渡者和变性人的伤害更大，英国人就会高兴地投票放弃他们的权利。
人们只有在没有别人失去权利的时候才会抱怨自己失去了权利。
People in the UK will happily VOTE to lose their rights away as long as it hurts boat and trans people more.
People only moan about losing their rights when there's not someone else losing them.
只要能对偷渡者和变性人的伤害更大，英国人就会高兴地投票放弃他们的权利。
人们只有在没有别人失去权利的时候才会抱怨自己失去了权利。
VViilliiam
When people enter the country in the wrong way, from 300 a year to 45,000 a year in the space of 4 years, all requiring housing, healthcare etc etc, when working people can barley afford it themselves, and they are being told that they are racist xenophobic uneducated blah blah blah. When unenployed people earn more a month than full time working people, people will quite rightly start lashing out at the contributing factors.
If a party is offering a soloution (IMO flawed) to these things to improve the lives of working people then people will clearly vote for them.
though my personal opinion differs somewhat, i can absoloutly understand why people do vote for them, because whats the alternative for them? More illegal crossings, more chaos in the NHS and Schools, more hours spent in work for less money.
当人们以错误的方式进入这个国家——在4年的时间里，从每年300人增加到每年45000人，所有人都需要住房、医疗等等，而劳动人民自己几乎负担不起这些——他们被告知他们是“种族主义、仇外、没受过教育”的人。当失业人员的月收入超过全职工作人员时，人们会开始猛烈抨击造成这种情况的因素。
如果一个政党为这些事情提供了一个解决方案（我认为有缺陷），以改善劳动人民的生活，那么人们显然就会投票给他们。
虽然我的个人观点有些不同，但我完全可以理解为什么人们会投票给他们，因为他们还有什么选择呢？更多的非法越境，更多的国家医疗体系和学校混乱，更多的工作时间和更少的钱。
When people enter the country in the wrong way, from 300 a year to 45,000 a year in the space of 4 years, all requiring housing, healthcare etc etc, when working people can barley afford it themselves, and they are being told that they are racist xenophobic uneducated blah blah blah. When unenployed people earn more a month than full time working people, people will quite rightly start lashing out at the contributing factors.
If a party is offering a soloution (IMO flawed) to these things to improve the lives of working people then people will clearly vote for them.
though my personal opinion differs somewhat, i can absoloutly understand why people do vote for them, because whats the alternative for them? More illegal crossings, more chaos in the NHS and Schools, more hours spent in work for less money.
当人们以错误的方式进入这个国家——在4年的时间里，从每年300人增加到每年45000人，所有人都需要住房、医疗等等，而劳动人民自己几乎负担不起这些——他们被告知他们是“种族主义、仇外、没受过教育”的人。当失业人员的月收入超过全职工作人员时，人们会开始猛烈抨击造成这种情况的因素。
如果一个政党为这些事情提供了一个解决方案（我认为有缺陷），以改善劳动人民的生活，那么人们显然就会投票给他们。
虽然我的个人观点有些不同，但我完全可以理解为什么人们会投票给他们，因为他们还有什么选择呢？更多的非法越境，更多的国家医疗体系和学校混乱，更多的工作时间和更少的钱。
DiscountLending
I wonder how many people who will respond to this thread had ever heard of Civicus or cared what they had to say prior to this
我想知道会回复这个帖子的人里有多少之前听说过“公民监测”，或者关心他们之说过的话
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I wonder how many people who will respond to this thread had ever heard of Civicus or cared what they had to say prior to this
我想知道会回复这个帖子的人里有多少之前听说过“公民监测”，或者关心他们之说过的话
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Emotional-Ebb8321
There was a time when I have never heard of Janes Information Services, or UNESCO, or Children in Need. But that doesn't make them irrelevant within their field of expertise. What's your point?
有一段时间，我从未听说过简斯信息服务、联合国教科文组织或“待助儿童”。但这并不意味着他们与自己的专业领域无关。你想表达什么？
There was a time when I have never heard of Janes Information Services, or UNESCO, or Children in Need. But that doesn't make them irrelevant within their field of expertise. What's your point?
有一段时间，我从未听说过简斯信息服务、联合国教科文组织或“待助儿童”。但这并不意味着他们与自己的专业领域无关。你想表达什么？
Happy_Transition5550
We hadn't heard of them because there was nothing newsworthy about them (from what I know)? "Britain maintains civic freedoms rating" is hardly front page news.
我们没有听说过他们，因为他们没有什么新闻价值（据我所知）？“英国维持公民自由评级”很难成为头版新闻。
We hadn't heard of them because there was nothing newsworthy about them (from what I know)? "Britain maintains civic freedoms rating" is hardly front page news.
我们没有听说过他们，因为他们没有什么新闻价值（据我所知）？“英国维持公民自由评级”很难成为头版新闻。
points_finest_pills
‘Peaceful assembly’ in the UK now includes sitting down in the middle of major roads for extended periods. Too right that behaviour should be clamped down on.
英国的“和平集会”现在包括长时间坐在主要道路中间。太对了，这种行为就应该受到限制。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
‘Peaceful assembly’ in the UK now includes sitting down in the middle of major roads for extended periods. Too right that behaviour should be clamped down on.
英国的“和平集会”现在包括长时间坐在主要道路中间。太对了，这种行为就应该受到限制。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Former_Advert Scotland
Imagine being so backwards that you think peaceful protest should be "clamped down on".
Fascists in all but name.
想象一下，你倒退到认为和平抗议应该被“镇压”的地步。
除了叫法，其他都是法西斯。
Imagine being so backwards that you think peaceful protest should be "clamped down on".
Fascists in all but name.
想象一下，你倒退到认为和平抗议应该被“镇压”的地步。
除了叫法，其他都是法西斯。
Earl0fYork
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it automatically fascist same with saying everything left leaning is communism that should earn you a spank with something I don’t really know.
仅仅因为你不喜欢它，并不意味着它自动成为法西斯主义，就像说一切左倾都是共产主义，应该用一些我叫不出名字的东西来打你一巴掌一样。
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it automatically fascist same with saying everything left leaning is communism that should earn you a spank with something I don’t really know.
仅仅因为你不喜欢它，并不意味着它自动成为法西斯主义，就像说一切左倾都是共产主义，应该用一些我叫不出名字的东西来打你一巴掌一样。
ICreditRedditEngland
You need to wake up and start actually reading what this govt is trying to do. Here's just one aspect of the Public Order Bill currently going through the Lords:
"Part 2 of this Bill introduces a new civil order – Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs) – that can be imposed on individuals who have carried out (or contributed to another person carrying out) activities relating to at least two protests within a five-year period, whether or not they have been convicted of a crime.[9] They can last anywhere from one week to two years, with the potential to be renewed indefinitely."
That's right, if you pack a lunch for a peaceful protester who goes on to commit zero crimes, isn't arrested or charged, you can get a SDPO for two years which bans you from all forms of protest, stops you from meeting anyone they name, relative, husband, kid, anyone, and limits your access to the internet.
So fucking happy your commute won't be delayed unnecessarily, I'm sure this'll have your support.
你需要清醒一下，开始真正了解这个政府正在试图做什么。以下是目前正在上议院审议的《公共秩序法案》的一个方面：
“该法案的第2部分引入了一项新的民事命令——防止严重破坏令——可对在五年内至少进行过两次抗议活动（或协助他人进行活动）的个人实施，无论他们是否被定罪。期限从一周到两年不等，也有可能无限期延长。”
没错，如果你为一个和平抗议者打包午餐——他没有犯罪，没有被逮捕或指控，那你可以得到为期两年的防止严重破坏令，禁止你参加任何形式的抗议，禁止你见任何他们列举出来的人，亲戚，丈夫，孩子，任何人，并限制你上网。
所以tmd为你的通勤不会被不必要的延误而开心吧，我相信这法案会得到你的支持的。
You need to wake up and start actually reading what this govt is trying to do. Here's just one aspect of the Public Order Bill currently going through the Lords:
"Part 2 of this Bill introduces a new civil order – Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs) – that can be imposed on individuals who have carried out (or contributed to another person carrying out) activities relating to at least two protests within a five-year period, whether or not they have been convicted of a crime.[9] They can last anywhere from one week to two years, with the potential to be renewed indefinitely."
That's right, if you pack a lunch for a peaceful protester who goes on to commit zero crimes, isn't arrested or charged, you can get a SDPO for two years which bans you from all forms of protest, stops you from meeting anyone they name, relative, husband, kid, anyone, and limits your access to the internet.
So fucking happy your commute won't be delayed unnecessarily, I'm sure this'll have your support.
你需要清醒一下，开始真正了解这个政府正在试图做什么。以下是目前正在上议院审议的《公共秩序法案》的一个方面：
“该法案的第2部分引入了一项新的民事命令——防止严重破坏令——可对在五年内至少进行过两次抗议活动（或协助他人进行活动）的个人实施，无论他们是否被定罪。期限从一周到两年不等，也有可能无限期延长。”
没错，如果你为一个和平抗议者打包午餐——他没有犯罪，没有被逮捕或指控，那你可以得到为期两年的防止严重破坏令，禁止你参加任何形式的抗议，禁止你见任何他们列举出来的人，亲戚，丈夫，孩子，任何人，并限制你上网。
所以tmd为你的通勤不会被不必要的延误而开心吧，我相信这法案会得到你的支持的。
GOT_Wyvern United Kingdom 2
Two things.
1) This was what the House of Lords gutted from the Police and Crime Bill.
2) The House of Lords have once again rejected the bill based of aspects like this one.
If anything, the Police and Crime, and Public Order bills just show that the checks and balances on the government work.
两点：
1、这就是上议院从《警察与犯罪法案》中剔除的内容。
2、上议院再一次否决了这一法案。
如果要说什么的话，《警察、犯罪和公共秩序法案》只是展示了对政府行为的制衡是有效的。
Two things.
1) This was what the House of Lords gutted from the Police and Crime Bill.
2) The House of Lords have once again rejected the bill based of aspects like this one.
If anything, the Police and Crime, and Public Order bills just show that the checks and balances on the government work.
两点：
1、这就是上议院从《警察与犯罪法案》中剔除的内容。
2、上议院再一次否决了这一法案。
如果要说什么的话，《警察、犯罪和公共秩序法案》只是展示了对政府行为的制衡是有效的。
ICreditReddit England
The House of Commons has rejected the Lords amendments.
What this shows is what this govt wants to do, how they want to treat you, and how they are still trying to bend the laws in this country to steal your freedom. This is there second attempt, first was PCSC Act. They're not giving this up.
下议院又否决了上议院的修正案。
这表明了这个政府想做什么，他们想如何对待你，以及他们如何仍然试图扭曲这个国家的法律来窃取你的自由。这已经是第二次尝试了，第一次是《警察、犯罪、判决和法院条例》。他们不会放弃的。
The House of Commons has rejected the Lords amendments.
What this shows is what this govt wants to do, how they want to treat you, and how they are still trying to bend the laws in this country to steal your freedom. This is there second attempt, first was PCSC Act. They're not giving this up.
下议院又否决了上议院的修正案。
这表明了这个政府想做什么，他们想如何对待你，以及他们如何仍然试图扭曲这个国家的法律来窃取你的自由。这已经是第二次尝试了，第一次是《警察、犯罪、判决和法院条例》。他们不会放弃的。
GOT_Wyvern United Kingdom
The government isn't the whole of the United Kingdom.
With the Police and Crime Bill, the Government failed to implement these measures.
They have failed so far with the Public Orders Bill, are parts of the measures have failed permanently as far as that bill is concerned.
Both these bills showcase the measures of accountability in British democracy preventing a Government from passing bills they wish to.
政府并不代表整个英国。
至于《警察与犯罪法案》，政府未能实施这些措施。
到目前为止，他们在公共秩序法案上失败了，就该法案而言，部分措施已经永远失败了。
这两项法案都展示了英国民主的问责措施，阻止政府通过他们想要的法案。
The government isn't the whole of the United Kingdom.
With the Police and Crime Bill, the Government failed to implement these measures.
They have failed so far with the Public Orders Bill, are parts of the measures have failed permanently as far as that bill is concerned.
Both these bills showcase the measures of accountability in British democracy preventing a Government from passing bills they wish to.
政府并不代表整个英国。
至于《警察与犯罪法案》，政府未能实施这些措施。
到目前为止，他们在公共秩序法案上失败了，就该法案而言，部分措施已经永远失败了。
这两项法案都展示了英国民主的问责措施，阻止政府通过他们想要的法案。
willowhawk
Fuck me this country is going to shit. Watch a bunch of idiots vote Tory again next election.
我cao，这个国家要完蛋了。看着一群白痴下次选举继续投票给保守党吧。
Fuck me this country is going to shit. Watch a bunch of idiots vote Tory again next election.
我cao，这个国家要完蛋了。看着一群白痴下次选举继续投票给保守党吧。
bugbugladybug
I'm so sad about this. Everything is going to shite and there's nothing I can do about it except for a single poxy vote.
我对此感到很难过。一切都会糟透了，而我也无能为力，除了投一张毫无价值的票。
I'm so sad about this. Everything is going to shite and there's nothing I can do about it except for a single poxy vote.
我对此感到很难过。一切都会糟透了，而我也无能为力，除了投一张毫无价值的票。
PRamone
There is something you can do actually. You can get politically involved, and try to persuade other people to vote. Whether it's canvassing or delivering leaflets or contributing money or whatever, there's always something you can do.
其实你可以做点什么。你可以参与政治，并试图说服其他人投票给你。无论是拉票、散发传单、捐钱还是其他什么，你总能做些什么。
There is something you can do actually. You can get politically involved, and try to persuade other people to vote. Whether it's canvassing or delivering leaflets or contributing money or whatever, there's always something you can do.
其实你可以做点什么。你可以参与政治，并试图说服其他人投票给你。无论是拉票、散发传单、捐钱还是其他什么，你总能做些什么。
Charlie_Mouse
Fortunately there probably won’t be enough idiots for the Tories to win next time, judging by the polls at least.
But the election after that or the one after that? Yep. Sooner or later - sadly usually sooner - England will vote the Tories back in. They always do in the end - heck, from the electoral record over the decades it’s evident that it does so far more often than not.
And even though Labour have an impressive lead right now it’s painfully evident that they are fully aware a lot of the swing their way in England is made up of people who are fairly right wing - people who voted for Boris of all people back in 2019 and a lot of whom also voted for Brexit.
Which is why Labour are so dismayingly reluctant to do anything that might scare them back to the Tories - like opposing Brexit or embracing any actual left wing or progressive policies.
幸运的是，至少从民意调查来看，可能不会有足够多的白痴让保守党赢得下次大选。
但之后的选举或者再之后的选举呢？是的。迟早——不幸的是通常会更早——英国人又会投票给保守党。他们最终总是这样做的——见鬼，从过去几十年的选举记录来看，很明显，到目前为止，它往往是这样的。
尽管工党目前遥遥领先，但令人痛苦的是，很明显，他们充分意识到，在英格兰，他们的很多支持者都是相当右翼的人——在2019年投票给鲍里斯的人，其中很多人也投票支持英国脱欧。
这就是为什么工党如此沮丧地不愿做任何可能“把他们吓回去支持保守党”的事情——比如反对英国脱欧或接受任何真正的左翼或进步政策。
Fortunately there probably won’t be enough idiots for the Tories to win next time, judging by the polls at least.
But the election after that or the one after that? Yep. Sooner or later - sadly usually sooner - England will vote the Tories back in. They always do in the end - heck, from the electoral record over the decades it’s evident that it does so far more often than not.
And even though Labour have an impressive lead right now it’s painfully evident that they are fully aware a lot of the swing their way in England is made up of people who are fairly right wing - people who voted for Boris of all people back in 2019 and a lot of whom also voted for Brexit.
Which is why Labour are so dismayingly reluctant to do anything that might scare them back to the Tories - like opposing Brexit or embracing any actual left wing or progressive policies.
幸运的是，至少从民意调查来看，可能不会有足够多的白痴让保守党赢得下次大选。
但之后的选举或者再之后的选举呢？是的。迟早——不幸的是通常会更早——英国人又会投票给保守党。他们最终总是这样做的——见鬼，从过去几十年的选举记录来看，很明显，到目前为止，它往往是这样的。
尽管工党目前遥遥领先，但令人痛苦的是，很明显，他们充分意识到，在英格兰，他们的很多支持者都是相当右翼的人——在2019年投票给鲍里斯的人，其中很多人也投票支持英国脱欧。
这就是为什么工党如此沮丧地不愿做任何可能“把他们吓回去支持保守党”的事情——比如反对英国脱欧或接受任何真正的左翼或进步政策。
Make_the_music_stop
Is there still free speech in this country?
Government, Ofcom, the MSM and Big Tech have just stopped any debate. One narrative or get cancelled.
这个国家还有言论自由吗？
政府、英国通信管理局、主流媒体和大型科技公司已经停止了任何争论。要么统一叙事，要么被取消。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Is there still free speech in this country?
Government, Ofcom, the MSM and Big Tech have just stopped any debate. One narrative or get cancelled.
这个国家还有言论自由吗？
政府、英国通信管理局、主流媒体和大型科技公司已经停止了任何争论。要么统一叙事，要么被取消。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Witch_of_Dunwich
We’ve never had totally “free speech”. It has never existed in the UK.
我们从来没有完全的“言论自由”。它在英国从未存在过。
We’ve never had totally “free speech”. It has never existed in the UK.
我们从来没有完全的“言论自由”。它在英国从未存在过。
WerewolfNo890
We had it with the earlier internet, kinda. But it was more like piracy, it wasn't legal it just was pretty much unenforceable.
Its still a bit like that, but the internet is trending towards 1 platform and as it gets smaller just a few companies have the power to dictate what the rules are.
I miss the days of reddit being pretty much "nothing illegal and don't spam" as pretty much the only rules.
早期的互联网就是这样。但这更像是盗版，它是不合法的，几乎是不可执行的。
它仍然有点像那样，但互联网正朝着一个平台的方向发展，随着它变得越来越小，只有少数公司有能力决定规则是什么。
我怀念当年那个几乎只有“不得违法，不准发垃圾邮件”这个唯一版规的红迪网。
We had it with the earlier internet, kinda. But it was more like piracy, it wasn't legal it just was pretty much unenforceable.
Its still a bit like that, but the internet is trending towards 1 platform and as it gets smaller just a few companies have the power to dictate what the rules are.
I miss the days of reddit being pretty much "nothing illegal and don't spam" as pretty much the only rules.
早期的互联网就是这样。但这更像是盗版，它是不合法的，几乎是不可执行的。
它仍然有点像那样，但互联网正朝着一个平台的方向发展，随着它变得越来越小，只有少数公司有能力决定规则是什么。
我怀念当年那个几乎只有“不得违法，不准发垃圾邮件”这个唯一版规的红迪网。
mankindmatt5
The term free speech should be rebranded as freedom to express an opinion.
When this matter is being discussed, that's really what is at stake.
Freedom of speech absolutism doesn't really exist anywhere, you're not free to make false police reports, lie as a witness in a courtroom, or divulge certain secret information, amongst other things, all of which are reasonable controls.
However, there should be freedom to express abstract ideas, opinions, jokes etc.
“言论自由”一词应该被重新命名为“表达意见的自由”。
当这个问题被讨论时，这才是真正的利害攸关之处。
言论自由绝对主义在任何地方都不存在，你不能自由地虚假报警，在法庭上作伪证，或者泄露某些秘密信息，等等，所有这些都是合理的控制。
然而，应该有表达抽象想法、观点、笑话等的自由。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The term free speech should be rebranded as freedom to express an opinion.
When this matter is being discussed, that's really what is at stake.
Freedom of speech absolutism doesn't really exist anywhere, you're not free to make false police reports, lie as a witness in a courtroom, or divulge certain secret information, amongst other things, all of which are reasonable controls.
However, there should be freedom to express abstract ideas, opinions, jokes etc.
“言论自由”一词应该被重新命名为“表达意见的自由”。
当这个问题被讨论时，这才是真正的利害攸关之处。
言论自由绝对主义在任何地方都不存在，你不能自由地虚假报警，在法庭上作伪证，或者泄露某些秘密信息，等等，所有这些都是合理的控制。
然而，应该有表达抽象想法、观点、笑话等的自由。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
chickensmoker
I’m all for getting rid of pro-suicide and pro-self harm content online, but this is absolutely not the way to do that. If this bill passes, all it’ll take is one bigoted parent and a judge who agrees with them, and all LGBT content online could be seen by the law as “dangerous to children”.
Likewise for religious minorities like Islam, Sikhism etc - one kid converts to a faith their parents disagree with, and there could easily be legal president to ban that faith online if the courts wanted it, and nothing could stop them.
It’s an extremely dangerous bill whose positives are irrelevant in the face of the potential harm it could cause and the amount of power it gives to populist right wing lawmakers and legislators.
我完全赞成清除网上支持自杀和自残的内容，但出台这个法案绝对不是正确的方式。如果这项法案通过，只需要一个固执的父母和一个同意他们的法官，那么网上所有的跨性别恋内容都可能被法律视为“对儿童有害”。
同样，对于伊斯兰教、锡克教等少数宗教群体来说，一个孩子皈依了父母不赞同的信仰，如果法院想要，很容易就会有合法的总统在网上禁止这种信仰，没有什么能阻止他们。
这是一项极其危险的法案，与它可能造成的潜在伤害，以及它赋予民粹主义右翼立法者和立法者的权力相比，它的积极意义是无关紧要的。
I’m all for getting rid of pro-suicide and pro-self harm content online, but this is absolutely not the way to do that. If this bill passes, all it’ll take is one bigoted parent and a judge who agrees with them, and all LGBT content online could be seen by the law as “dangerous to children”.
Likewise for religious minorities like Islam, Sikhism etc - one kid converts to a faith their parents disagree with, and there could easily be legal president to ban that faith online if the courts wanted it, and nothing could stop them.
It’s an extremely dangerous bill whose positives are irrelevant in the face of the potential harm it could cause and the amount of power it gives to populist right wing lawmakers and legislators.
我完全赞成清除网上支持自杀和自残的内容，但出台这个法案绝对不是正确的方式。如果这项法案通过，只需要一个固执的父母和一个同意他们的法官，那么网上所有的跨性别恋内容都可能被法律视为“对儿童有害”。
同样，对于伊斯兰教、锡克教等少数宗教群体来说，一个孩子皈依了父母不赞同的信仰，如果法院想要，很容易就会有合法的总统在网上禁止这种信仰，没有什么能阻止他们。
这是一项极其危险的法案，与它可能造成的潜在伤害，以及它赋予民粹主义右翼立法者和立法者的权力相比，它的积极意义是无关紧要的。
SaluteMaestro
Utter nonsense, you can still protest you just cant be a dick about it.
完全是扯淡，你仍然可以抗议，只是不能表现得像个混蛋一样。
Utter nonsense, you can still protest you just cant be a dick about it.
完全是扯淡，你仍然可以抗议，只是不能表现得像个混蛋一样。
eenachtdrieEurope
This is exactly what protesting is though. No protest has ever succeed by being pleasant. They need to be abrasive, or else it's just a tea-party
可这正是抗议的意义所在。没有哪一种抗议是靠讨好而成功的。他们就需要强硬一点，否则这只是个茶话会
This is exactly what protesting is though. No protest has ever succeed by being pleasant. They need to be abrasive, or else it's just a tea-party
可这正是抗议的意义所在。没有哪一种抗议是靠讨好而成功的。他们就需要强硬一点，否则这只是个茶话会
很赞 0
收藏