一篇近乎完美的议会演讲，一个祖传政客的犯上逆袭

曲蕃夫

12月1日，是保守党华人之友早早就定好的圣诞酒会的日子，但笔者在下午突然收到一封群发邮件，被告知原定当晚在伦敦金融城举行的酒会由于“议会紧急事务”被迫取消。不需多问，这必定是因为第二天（12月2日）要举行的关于“英国是否应空袭叙利亚的ISIL武装”的马拉松辩论，原定要参加酒会并致辞的商务大臣SajidJavid阁下被首相抓去内阁办公室连夜开会了，头面人物不来，酒会索然无味，自然取消。

笔者第二天中午打开电视机，BBC新闻台甚至停播了正点新闻，全程在转播议会辩论。平时，英国议会下院并不拥挤，一般性的立法和辩论并不会有多少议员出席，绿色的长凳上稀稀拉拉坐着几十个议员而已，只有每周三的首相问答、以及关于诸如财政预算或者重要立法的辩论，才会看到长凳上坐满议员，而且议会两端有议员站着出席会议。（英国下议院共650名议员，但议会大厅只能坐下不足500人）。这一天，笔者就看到了少见的拥挤和喧闹，而且议会自由辩论的规程和平时大家最熟悉的周三首相问答并不相同，议长并不需要多说话，是由首相，内阁成员，反对党领袖，影子内阁成员等等前座议员轮流主持辩论，议员们也不限发言时间，等主持者说累了，就会give way（可以翻译成“交麦”）给其它议员提问或自由演说

辩论从上午11点持续到了晚上10点，十一个小时的马拉松辩论，对于大多数非政治专业的听众而言，这场辩论处于冗长乏味且经常重复的状态，大家基本纠结在“怎么称呼那群混蛋”“首相昨晚说走了嘴应该道歉”“炸到平民咋办”以及“那些反对派武装到底有多少人，他们是不是可靠的盟友”等等无聊的问题，中间还穿插着各位议员对议长的插科打诨，比如“议长先生，我对您的膀胱无比敬仰”之类的（但是议长真的自始至终十多小时未曾离开座位，没进食也没去洗手间！）。直到接近辩论结束，9点半，两边只剩最后一位选手做总结发言，那就是工党的影子外相Hilary Benn和保守党的正牌外相Philip Hammond。

Hilary Benn议员，是英国下议院利兹中央（Leeds Central）选区工党议员，现任反对党影子外相。1953年生于伦敦西部的Hammersmith区，自从1999年以来，连续五次胜选Leeds Central选区。和一般认识中的左派政客不同，Hilary可谓出身政治世家，是连续家中第四代的议员。他的曾祖父和祖父都是自由党议员，可谓世代与保守党针锋相对。20世纪初，自由党衰落，工党崛起，其祖父William Benn遂加入工党，曾任职印度事务大臣和空军大臣的高位，并获封世袭贵族Stansgate子爵，Hilary的父亲Tony和兄长Stephen都袭封了这个爵位。不过也许正是因为其世袭贵族和祖传政客的身份，Hilary的政治观点在工党中偏右，较为支持布莱尔提出的“新工党”的主张，主张削弱与工会的联系，右倾以获得更多中间选民，这就与三个月前刚刚被选出的、观点极左到近乎于老 红 卫 兵的工党党首Jeremy Corbyn不和。

对于这次政府提出的空袭动议，Hilary早早就表示了支持政府动议的立场。而且不仅仅是他，共有11名工党影子内阁的成员（影子内阁共有28人）都明确了自己会支持政府，反对党首Corbyn的立场。这里插一句，笔者在过去一天中，看到有些文章，尤其是中文文章，都把Hilary的演讲看作是叛党，看作是抢班夺权的阴谋，看作纸牌屋的现实版，然而这并不是事实。自从Corbyn上台后，他的极左理念形态一直无法团结整个工党，很多人并不支持他的领导，这不是阴谋，而是阳谋。但是鉴于Corbyn的获选是工党党内民主（包括所谓“三英镑党员”投票^_^）的结果，因此Corbyn在一定时期内仍然可以保持对工党的控制。

 在我们进入Hilary激动人心的演讲之前，笔者愿意简单为读者们普及几个在演讲中出现的概念，当作注释。

1

为什么工党成员可以不支持党首的意见，这样不会被开除吗？嗯，这个问题很好，首先，在西方政治语境中，开除一名党员这近乎是不可能的，因为入党不写申请、不宣誓、没介绍人、也没证件……高级党员和党真的出现矛盾，没等党开除，该党员早就宣布退出改投他处，或者成为独立议员。那么投票时，党鞭这个职务就变得十分重要，如果是重大事项，比如财政预算案之类，某党议员必须按照党派意志投票，由党鞭负责事先和所有本党议员达成一致并负责监督。叛党者一般要自动辞职议员，这是因为，英国的大选看似是选人，实际依然是选党。是党安排候选人参选某选区，任何一名候选人的当选都离不开其党派的大量金钱、宣传和竞选团队的支持。选民在几乎不熟悉候选人本人（因为他们通常不居住在当地）的情况下，也几乎完全是按照党籍来决定自己选票归属的。

但是在很多不甚重要，或者重要但是争议分歧甚大的议会事务上，党会允许其议员根据其自由意志投票，这就称为free vote。本次空袭动议的投票，大家都很清楚动议一定会通过，因为占有绝对多数席位的保守党几乎铁板一块，因此动荡中的工党早早就宣布会采用自由投票。所以Hilary不是奇袭，他只是用自己非凡的演说技巧，进行了一次计划中的逆袭。

2

他们的称呼很奇怪……如果读者了解辩论，尤其是国会制辩论，就会很熟悉这套体系。辩论自从在古希腊诞生以来，就从不是一种说服对手的游戏，而是说服第三方。在辩论场上是评委，在法庭上是法官和陪审团，在议会中则是电视机前的选民。参加辩论只是一种有立场的工作，这份立场和其本人的为人处事往往并无任何关系。因此辩论中十分忌讳使用第二人称或者人名指代对方，以免产生直接冲突。英国议会辩论的规则就是发言者是对议长发言，而所有发言中要严格避免使用第二人称代词，而用第三人称代替。而且不直呼其名，用议员的选区来指代。所以我们会看到大量的“尊敬的来自XXX地的议员（先生／女士）”或者“我尊敬的来自XXX地的朋友”，前者是用来称呼和自己不同党派的议员，而后者则是与自己同党派的同僚。

3

Daesh到底是什么？这个问题在当天辩论中也是个热点。中文语境中，我们一般使用带引号的“伊斯兰国”来指代那群中世纪的疯子和野兽。但是英文语境中，IS，这是一个极度政治不正确的词汇，因为这会导致与数十个正牌的伊斯兰教国家的混淆，或者将正统的伊斯兰教妖魔化，污名化。因此大家发明了各种缩写词汇来称呼它们。我们常见的ISIS（伊拉克和沙姆伊斯兰国）或者ISIL（伊拉克与黎凡特伊斯兰国）就是常见例子。其中Sham是古阿拉伯语对叙利亚的称呼，而Levant是一个源于意大利语的词汇，在英语中用来指代包括叙利亚、黎巴嫩、约旦在内的地中海东岸的土地。不过这两个缩写同样没有避免伊斯兰一词，而且都是英语缩写，指代太过于明显。

Daesh，在联合国安理会的决议的中文版中，音译为“达伊沙”，同样是个缩写词汇，意思与ISIL完全一致，只不过是阿拉伯语的缩写。这样新引进一个外来词，就避免了使用英文固有词造成的政治不正确，而且既然野兽们很愿意用这个词来称呼自己，我们就顺其方便罢了。但鉴于这个词汇尚未广泛进入中文媒体环境，笔者在译稿中并未翻译这个词，保留了Daesh。

言归正传，奇文共欣赏，就让我们来共同欣赏一下这篇被Hilary Benn的对手Philip Hammond称为可以写入议会史册的演讲。英国议会传统上是没有鼓掌的习惯的，议员只用拖长声的Yeeeeeea～来表示支持。但这篇演讲结束后，掌声持续了30秒，直到议长起身打断了掌声，这足可见这篇演讲的分量。

The Speech by the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP during the debate on ISIL in Syria
House of Commons, 2 December 2015

影子外相，尊敬的Hilary Benn议员在关于空袭在叙利亚的ISIL武装的议会辩论上的演讲
英国下议院，2015年12月2日

译/曲蕃夫

Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Before I respond to the debate, I would like to say this directly to the Prime Minister: Although my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and I will walk into different division lobbies tonight, I am proud to speak from the same Despatch Box as him. My right honourable friend is not a terrorist sympathiser, he is an honest, a principled, a decent and a good man and I think the Prime Minister must now regret what he said yesterday and his failure to do what he should have done today, which is simply to say ‘I am sorry’.

非常感谢，议长先生。在我针对本次辩论发言之前，我希望直言不讳地对首相先生说：虽然今晚，我和我尊敬的朋友——反对党领袖将步入不同的投票厅，但是我依然很骄傲可以与他站在同一边的讲台上演讲。我尊敬的朋友并不是恐怖分子的同情者，他是一个诚实的、有原则的、正派的好人。我想，首相先生现在一定很后悔他昨天说过的话以及他今天应做却未做的事，那就是简单地说一句“抱歉”。

（首相卡梅伦此前将反对空袭者称为“恐怖分子同情者”的言论在辩论当天饱受批评）

Now Mr Speaker, we have had an intense and impassioned debate and rightly so, give the clear and present threat from Daesh, the gravity of the decision that rests upon the shoulders and the conscience of every single one of us and the lives we hold in our hands tonight. And whatever the decision we reach, I hope we will treat one another with respect.

议长先生，我们已经进行了紧张而又充满激情的辩论，确定无疑的是，因为Daesh清晰而现时的威胁，今晚，我们每个人在双肩和良心上都承载着这份决定的庄严，多少人的生命掌握在我们手中。所以无论今晚我们做出怎样的决定，我都希望我们可以尊重彼此。

Now we have heard a number of outstanding speeches and sadly time will prevent me from acknowledging them all. But I would just like to single out the contributions both for and against the motion from my honourable and right honourable friends the members for Derby South, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, Barnsley Central, Wakefield, Wolverhampton South East, Brent North, Liverpool, West Derby, Wirral West, Stoke-on-Trent North, Birmingham Ladywood and the honourable members for Reigate, South West Wiltshire, Tonbridge and Malling, Chichester and Wells.

我们已经聆听了许多精彩的发言，但很遗憾，时间关系我无法一一点出他们的名字。不过，我愿意挑选出一些来自我尊敬的朋友们的贡献——无论他们支持或反对此动议——来自Derby South, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, Barnsley Central, Wakefield, Wolverhampton South East, Brent North, Liverpool, West Derby, Wirral West, Stoke-on-Trent North, Birmingham Ladywood的（工党）议员，以及来自Reigate, South West Wiltshire, Tonbridge and Malling, Chichester和Wells的尊敬的（保守党）议员。

The question which confronts us in a very, very complex conflict is at its heart very simple. What should we do with others to confront this threat to our citizens, our nation, other nations and the people who suffer under the yoke, the cruel yoke, of Daesh? The carnage in Paris brought home to us the clear and present danger we face from them. It could have just as easily been London, or Glasgow, or Leeds or Birmingham and it could still be. And I believe that we have a moral and a practical duty to extend the action we are already taking in Iraq to Syria. And I am also clear, and I say this to my colleagues, that the conditions set out in the emergency resolution passed at the Labour party conference in September have been met.

尽管冲突十分复杂，我们面对的问题核心其实无比简单：当我们的公民、我们的国家以及其它国家面临威胁时，当人们在Daesh的枷锁、沉重的枷锁下痛苦呻吟时，我们应该怎样做？巴黎的大屠杀把这份来自它们的清晰而现时的危险带给我们。这原本可能轻易发生在伦敦、格拉斯哥、或者利兹、或者伯明翰，现在依旧有这种可能。因此，我认为我们在道德上和实质上都有责任进一步扩大我们已经在伊拉克和叙利亚进行的军事行动。我很清楚，并且我要对我的工党同僚们说，我们在九月份工党大会上通过的关于紧急状态决议的条件现已达成。

We now have a clear and unambiguous UN Security Council Resolution 2249, paragraph 5 of which specifically calls on member states to take all necessary measures to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Isil, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria.

我们现在有了清晰的、毫不含混的联合国安理会第2249号决议。尤其是决议第5条中，明确地促请会员国“采取一切必要的措施，加倍做出努力并进行协调，防止和打击ISIL所实施的恐怖主义行为，摧毁它们在伊拉克和叙利亚相当多的地方建立的庇护所”。

So the United Nations is asking us to do something. It is asking us to do something now. It is asking us to act in Syria as well as in Iraq. And it was a Labour government that helped to found the United Nations at the end of the Second World War. And why did we do so? Because we wanted the nations of the world, working together, to deal with threats to international peace and security – and Daesh is unquestionably that.

所以，联合国正在请求我们行动起来，它请求我们现在就行动起来，它请求我们在叙利亚和伊拉克都行动起来。当年，在二战结束时，正是工党政府帮助建立了联合国。我们为什么要这么做？因为我们希望全世界各国团结起来，共同处理对国际和平和安全的威胁——毫无疑问，Daesh就是这样的威胁。

So given that the United Nations has passed this resolution, given that such action would be lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter – because every state has the right to defend itself – why would we not uphold the settled will of the United Nations, particularly when there is such support from within the region including from Iraq. We are part of a coalition of over 60 countries, standing together shoulder-to-shoulder to oppose their ideology and their brutality.

现在联合国已经通过了这个决议，而且军事行动完全符合《联合国宪章》第51条：每个国家都有权自卫。为什么我们不能支持联合国已决定的意向？尤其是在包括伊拉克在内的该地区的国家都表示支持的情况下。我们是超过60个国家的同盟的一员，我们肩并着肩，共同反击Daesh的价值观和血腥暴行。

Now Mr Speaker, all of us understand the importance of bringing an end to the Syrian civil war and there is now some progress on a peace plan because of the Vienna talks. They are the best hope we have of achieving a cease-fire. That would bring an end to Assad’s bombing, leading to a transitional government and elections. And why is that vital? Both because it will help in the defeat of Daesh, and because it would enable millions of Syrians, who have been forced to flee, to do what every refugee dreams of: they just want to be able to go home.

议长先生，当下我们每个人都明白结束叙利亚内战的重要性，而且在维也纳会谈之后，和平计划也有了一定进展。这是达成停火的最大希望所在。这个计划将结束阿萨德政权的轰炸，并带来过渡政府和民主选举。为什么这个计划如此重要？不仅因为它可以帮助击败Daesh，更因为它可以使数百万被迫逃离家园的叙利亚人都可以做到每个难民梦寐以求的事：他们只想回家。

Now Mr Speaker, no-one in this debate doubts the deadly serious threat we face from Daesh and what they do, although sometimes we find it hard to live with the reality. We know that in June four gay men were thrown off the fifth storey of a building in the Syrian city of Deirez-Zor. We know that in August the 82-year-old guardian of the antiquities of Palmyra, Professor Khaled al-Assad, was beheaded, and his headless body was hung from a traffic light. And we know that in recent weeks there has been the discovery of mass graves in Sinjar, one said to contain the bodies of older Yazidi women murdered by Daesh because they were judged too old to be sold for sex.

议长先生，在座没有人会质疑Daesh以及它们的所作所为所带来的严重致命威胁，尽管有时我们依然会觉得直面现实太过残酷。我们知道，今年六月，在叙利亚的Deirez-Zor，四名男同性恋被从五楼扔下来摔死；我们知道，今年八月，帕尔迈拉古迹的保护者，82岁的卡勒德－阿萨德教授被斩首，无头尸体被悬挂于交通灯上；我们知道，几周前，在辛贾尔，多处集体屠杀坑被发现，其中一个坑中有年老的雅兹迪派妇女的尸体，她们惨遭屠戮的原因仅仅是她们被认定年纪太大，无法被贩为性奴。

We know they have killed 30 British tourists in Tunisia, 224 Russian holidaymakers on a plane, 178 people in suicide bombings in Beirut, Ankara and Suruc. 130 people in Paris including those young people in the Bataclan whom Daesh – in trying to justify their bloody slaughter – called ‘apostates engaged in prostitution and vice’. If it had happened here, they could have been our children.

我们知道，30名英国游客在突尼斯被杀；224名俄罗斯度假者在飞机上受难；178人在贝鲁特、安卡拉、苏鲁奇被自杀炸弹炸死；130人在巴黎遇害，包括巴塔克兰剧院里的年轻人——Daesh竟还在试图为他们的血腥兽行诡辩，把这些年轻人称为“淫乱堕落的叛徒”……假如这些事发生在英国，受害的就是我们的孩子！

And we know that they are plotting more attacks.So the question for each of us – and for our national security – is this: given that we know what they are doing, can we really stand aside and refuse to act fully in our self-defence against those who are planning these attacks? Can we really leave to others the responsibility for defending our national security when it is our responsibility? And if we do not act, what message would that send about our solidarity with those countries that have suffered so much – including Iraq and our ally, France.

我们知道它们正在策划更多袭击，所以各位和我们的国家安全正面对的问题就是：我们已经知道它们在做什么，但我们真的可以视若无睹，眼看它们策划袭击，却不全面自卫吗？我们真的可以袖手旁观，让别人来保卫我们的国家安全，而推卸本应属于我们自己的责任吗？如果我们不采取行动，我们对那些遭受那么多苦难的国家发出了什么样“团结”的信息？包括伊拉克，还有我们的盟友——法国。

Now, France wants us to stand with them and President Hollande – the leader of our sister socialist party – has asked for our assistance and help. And as we are undertaking airstrikes in Iraq where Daesh’s hold has been reduced and we are already doing everything but engage in airstrikes in Syria – should we not play our full part?

现在，法国需要我们与他们并肩作战。奥朗德总统——也是我们的姐妹党：法国社会党的党首——正请求我们的帮助。而且，我们正在伊拉克进行空袭，Daesh的地盘已被缩小。除了没在叙利亚发动空袭，我们已经做了一切，那么为什么不能干脆全面参与呢？

It has been argued in the debate that airstrikes achieve nothing. Not so. Look at how Daesh’s forward march has been halted in Iraq. The House will remember that, 14 months ago, people were saying: ‘they are almost at the gates of Baghdad’. And that is why we voted to respond to the Iraqi government’s request for help to defeat them. Look at how their military capacity and their freedom of movement has been put under pressure. Ask the Kurds about Sinjarand Kobani. Now of course, air strikes alone will not defeat Daesh – but they make a difference. Because they are giving them a hard time – and it is making it more difficult for them to expand their territory. Now, I share the concerns that have been expressed this evening about potential civilian casualties. However, unlike Daesh, none of us today act with the intent to harm civilians. Rather, we act to protect civilians from Daesh – who target innocent people.

刚刚辩论中有人提到：空袭没有作用。我认为并不尽然。我们来看看Daesh在伊拉克的前进势头是怎样被阻挡的。本院应该还记得，14个月前，人们惊呼：“它们已经逼近巴格达了！”于是，我们投票决定答应伊拉克政府的请求，帮助击败它们。想知道它们的军事实力和移动自由受到了多大打击吗？去问问辛贾尔和科瓦尼的库尔德人吧！当然当然，仅靠空袭当然不能摧毁Daesh，但是这比袖手旁观要好得多！因为空袭会让它们难过，会让它们更难以扩张地盘。我也同意今晚诸位对于平民伤亡所表达出的担心。但是，除了Daesh，我们没有人希望伤害平民！相反，我们的行动正是在保护无辜平民免受Daesh的伤害！

（无论在辩论还是辩论前的采访中，对平民可能带来的误伤都是科尔宾的主要反对意见之一）

Now on the subject of ground troops to defeat Daesh, there’s been much debate about the figure of 70,000 and the government must, I think, better explain that. But we know that most of them are currently engaged in fighting President Assad. But I’ll tell you what else we know, is whatever the number – 70,000, 40,000, 80,000 – the current size of the opposition forces mean the longer we leave taking action, the longer Daesh will have to decrease that number. And so to suggest, Mr Speaker, that airstrikes should not take place until the Syrian civil war has come to an end is, I think, to miss the urgency of the terrorist threat that Daesh poses to us and others, and I think misunderstands the nature and objectives of the extension to airstrikes that is being proposed. And of course we should take action. It is not a contradiction between the two to cut off Daesh’s support in the form of money and fighters and weapons, and of course we should give humanitarian aid, and of course we should offer shelter to more refugees including in this country and yes we should commit to play our full part in helping to rebuild Syria when the war is over.

关于出动地面部队击溃Daesh的问题，辩论焦点集中在“7万人”的数字上，我认为，政府需要作出更明确的解释。我们清楚这些人中的大多数正在和阿萨德总统作战。然而，我想提醒诸位的是，无论这个数字是7万，4万还是8万，现在的反对派武装人数意味着，我们越晚采取行动，Daesh就会把这个人数减到越低。所以，议长先生，我认为那些表示“在叙利亚内战结束之前不应进行空袭”的意见罔顾了Daesh给我们和他人带来的恐怖主义威胁的紧迫性，并且误解了计划中空袭的实质和目的。我们当然应该采取行动，以斩断Daesh获得金钱、战士以及武器的渠道。与此同时，我们当然应该给予人道主义援助，我们当然应该为包括在英国的叙利亚难民在内的所有难民提供庇护，这与军事行动并不矛盾。而且，没错，我们当然应该承诺在战后对叙利亚的重建给予全面帮助。

Now I accept that there are legitimate arguments, and we have heard them in the debate, for not taking this form of action now. And it is also clear that many members have wrestled, and who knows, in the time that is left, may still be wrestling, with what the right thing to do is. But I say the threat is now, and there are rarely, if ever, perfect circumstances in which to deploy military forces. Now we heard very powerful testimony from the honorable member for Eddisbury earlier when she quoted that passage, and I just want to read what Karwan Jamal Tahir, the Kurdistan regional government high representative in London, said last week and I quote: ‘Last June, Daesh captured one third of Iraq over night and a few months later attacked the Kurdistan region. Swift airstrikes by Britain, America and France, and the actions of our own Peshmerga, saved us. We now have a border of 650 miles with Daesh. We’ve pushed them back, and recently captured Sinjar. Again, Western airstrikes were vital. But the old border between Iraq and Syria does not exist. Daesh fighters come and go across this fictional boundary.’ And that is the argument Mr Speaker, for treating the two countries as one, if we are serious about defeating Daesh.

我承认有人提出了合法性上的担忧，正如我们在辩论中听到的，认为不应该采取军事行动。很明显，很多议员争论的是“究竟怎么做才是正确的”，而且在剩余的时间里，可能还会继续为此争论。但是我想说，威胁就在眼前，但出动军事力量这种事几乎不存在什么完美的前提。我们刚才已经听到了来自Eddisbury的尊敬的议员的有力证词，她引用了这段话。我也愿意为大家朗读一段来自库尔德斯坦地方政府驻伦敦高级专员Karwan Jamal Tahir上周所说的话，如下：“去年六月，Daesh在一夜之间就占领了伊拉克三分之一的土地，数月后就开始进攻库尔德斯坦。是英国、美国和法国及时的空袭，以及我们库尔德自由民兵的战斗拯救了我们。我们现在与Daesh之间有650英里的边界。我们将它们击退，重新夺回了辛贾尔城，西方的空袭又一次帮助良多。但是伊拉克和叙利亚原来的边境线早已不复存在，Daesh的武装人员可以轻易越过这条虚拟的边境，来去自如。”议长先生，这就是我的论断：如果我们真的想要击溃Daesh，我们必须将伊叙两国视同为一。

Now Mr Speaker, I hope the house will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the House. As a party we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility one to another. We never have – and we never should – walk by on the other side of the road.

现在，议长先生，我希望各位可以允许我将我的结语说给我这一侧工党的朋友和同僚。作为一个政党，我们一直被我们所坚守着的国际主义信念所定义。我们坚信，我们相互承载着对于彼此的责任，我们未曾，也绝不应该事不关己地绕行他路。

And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight, and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt. And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria. And that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for the motion tonight.

我们现在面对的，是法西斯。并不仅仅因为它们有计划的残暴行径，还有它们自命的高贵。它们自认为比我们今天在场的每个人都高贵，比我们所代表的所有人民都高贵。它们对我们只有蔑视。对我们的价值观，它们蔑视；对我们宽容和高尚的信念，它们蔑视；对我们今晚做出决定的方式——民主制度，它们蔑视！而对于法西斯，我们清楚知道的是，它们必须被击溃！正如我们今晚听到的那样，这就是为什么在1930年代，社会主义者、工会成员以及更多的人加入国际纵队，并肩对抗佛朗哥的统治；这就是为什么当年整个议会奋起反抗希特勒和墨索里尼；这就是为什么我们的党会永远与对人权价值的否定相抗争，永远为正义而战！议长先生，我的观点是，我们现在必须直面这群恶魔，我们现在就要尽到我们在叙利亚的责任！这就是为什么，我促请我的同僚们，为这一动议投下赞成的一票。

（ 图文编辑：刘彪    本文英文原文属于公有领域，中文翻译版权归译者所有，微思客WeThinker获得译者授权推送。非盈利转载需注明译者，用于盈利用途请与译者联系，微信wolfonisland）

★本文由微思客首发，译者：曲蕃夫，本科毕业于英国约克大学政治、经济与哲学（PPE）专业，现居伦敦。热爱英国历史与文化，长期关注英国政治及在英华人参政，英国保守党华人之友成员。