【文/观察者网专栏作者 摩根】

当今英国正变得日益分裂——不止体现在政治上，更体现在认知层面。

那些原本属于外交政策范畴的争论——以色列与反犹问题、俄罗斯与中国，以及在虚假信息时代“何为真相”——如今都已成为撕裂社会的内部裂痕。源自特朗普时代的民粹主义借网络发酵，与英国本土的极端主义焦虑交织，最终引爆了一幕幕文化战争与地缘政治猜忌的危机。

地缘政治与英国反移民事件交织

当地时间10月2日，英国曼彻斯特犹太教堂外发生汽车冲撞和持刀伤人事件，已造成2名平民死亡、3人重伤。据警方描述，嫌疑人是一名35岁的叙利亚裔英国公民，当日穿着看似带有爆炸装置的背心，被警察当场开枪击毙。由于这起事件发生在犹太教的“赎罪日”当天，因此很难让人不联想到英国境内当前的反犹主义。

自加沙冲突升级以来，英国境内反犹主义与伊斯兰恐惧症事件同步上升，此案再次点燃民众对宗教暴力的担忧。许多人认为，这又是英国“向内撕裂”的一个征兆：海外战争与网络谣言不断为本土仇恨行为添柴加薪。

几天之后，东萨塞克斯郡皮斯黑文一座清真寺遭纵火，警方按仇恨犯罪立案调查。

大火于拂晓前燃起，虽未造成人员伤亡，却造成严重损毁。调查人员不排除该案是对曼彻斯特刺伤事件的“报复”，可能是旧恨诱发新恨的写照。社区领袖警告称，那些散布反穆斯林与反犹言论的网络群体，正在助长愤怒与恐惧的恶性循环。这两起事件共同揭示：英国的极端主义已难再以单一意识形态或信仰来界定，而反映出一种更普遍的社会心态——由猜忌与怨愤交织而成的文化症候。

曼彻斯特事件迅速成为英国网络极右翼的集结点。与美国MAGA阵营一致的网红与边缘评论者放大并渲染了嫌疑人动机的虚假或夸张说法，将袭击纳入更广泛的反移民叙事。分析人士指出，这类言论从美国社媒空间流入英国舆论的速度，凸显美国政治极化如何直接为英国文化战争“供氧”——恰逢英国极端主义走高与中美地缘紧张加剧之时，社会分裂进一步加深。

曼切斯特教堂恐袭案发生地点图片来源：曼切斯特警方

自2024年以来，受后疫情时期移民压力、经济停滞与社交媒体极化推动，欧洲极右翼政党持续走强。德国选择党（AfD）得票翻番；意大利与匈牙利的右翼政府定下政治基调；而法国“民调地震”及德国地方选举的异动，正将主流政党整体推向右翼。分析人士警告，若趋势延续至2027年法国总统选举，欧盟政治或将迎来关键拐点。

这一趋势与“特朗普主义”愈发紧密相连。MAGA阵营与欧洲盟友频繁在波兰、匈牙利的CPAC大会上聚首，交流在移民与舆论议题上的策略；前英国首相特拉斯亦登台呼吁，在英国掀起“类MAGA运动”。

上月伦敦爆发自脱欧以来规模最大的反移民集会，现场多次出现对特朗普与万斯的公开赞扬，显示美国民粹话术已深度渗入英国街头政治。在战争、压迫与后疫情经济冲击驱动的新一轮移民潮之下，加之网络虚假信息的迅速扩散，英国正面对一锅“易燃混合物”：美国的民粹话语、欧洲极右翼的上扬势头及本土政治极化，三者交织并发。

英国工人党政客机场被带走——一场政治打压

就在英国仍在消化紧张氛围之际，盖特威克机场又引发一场争议。英国工人党领袖、长期直言批评西方外交路线的乔治·加洛韦从莫斯科返英时，被反恐警察拦截。他与妻子依据《2019年反恐与边境安全法》附表三被扣留——这部法律允许在英国口岸拦截并讯问人员，以“判断其是否从事危害国家安全的敌对活动”。

加洛韦和他的妻子被讯问了数小时，并被没收了电子设备。当他们被释放时，伦敦的活动已经结束，这让许多人怀疑，这次拦截的时机究竟是巧合，还是有意阻止他发声。

在加洛韦的案例中，仅仅是从莫斯科返回就被视为足够的理由，使他遭受数小时的拘留，被问及他对俄罗斯和中国的看法，并被没收个人设备，而这一切都没有伴随逮捕、指控或证明其涉嫌犯罪。这种权力的广泛性与监督的有限性结合在一起，使得《反恐与边境安全法》附表三成为英国反恐框架中争议最大的一项内容。

乔治·加洛韦

要理解这一事件的重要性，必须先了解其中的核心人物。加洛韦是英国政坛的老将，早在20世纪80年代末，他便以工党议员的身份进入议会，但因反对伊拉克战争而被开除出党。此后，他创立了“尊重党”，最近又建立了“英国工人党”，并以此为政治平台至今。在整个政治生涯中，他始终把自己定位为一名异见者，愿意挑战主流的外交政策立场，即便因此遭受政治孤立。

这些挑战越来越集中在他与英美政府视为“不友好国家”的关系和立场上。加洛韦长期在莫斯科建立关系，频繁出现在RT和“卫星通讯社”等媒体平台上，这使他成为英国最突出的北约批评者之一。这些节目在国外吸引了观众，但在国内却引发了强烈批评，反对者指责他是克里姆林宫的传声筒。

他对中国的立场更为引人注目。加洛韦称中华人民共和国的成立是“人类历史上最重大的成就”。他赞扬中国在减贫、全球基础设施建设和外交拓展方面取得的成就，坚持认为“中国是所有民族都应效仿的榜样”，“中国就是未来”。用他的话说，中国人民“把自己从束缚和落后中解放出来，成为黑暗时代里世界的光明”。在去年召开的工人党特别代表大会上，加洛韦还承诺，英国工人党将努力“建设具有英国特色的社会主义”，明确表示要从中国的发展道路中汲取灵感。

这些言论使他成为大多数英国政客中的“异类”，那些政客通常通过冷冰冰的成本—风险分析来对待中国。然而，这些言论出现在英中关系在英国遭受前所未有的审查的时刻。

就在几周前，检察官撤销了对两名男子的间谍指控，其中包括前议会研究员克里斯托弗·卡什，此前，他们被指控根据《官方保密法》为中国从事间谍活动。案件因证据不足而崩溃，但政府部长们仍然表示“严重关切”，并称此事“极其令人失望”。卡什表示，自他被捕以来的两年是“一场噩梦”，而整个过程本身就成了一种惩罚。中国称这些指控是“恶意的污蔑”，而批评人士则警告，英国有可能把政治联系或文化交流当作监视的理由。

在这种背景下，加洛韦对中国的公开赞赏不仅仅是非同寻常的言辞，而是使他直接处于一个越来越以怀疑为特征的政治氛围之下。当大多数西方政府在与中国的交往中保持谨慎时，他却公开表示要与之并肩前行。

这种分歧使得他在盖特威克机场的拘留看起来不仅是个人遭遇，更反映出当今英国社会对谁能就中国问题自由发声更广泛的不安。这些立场与大多数西方政府（包括英国工党政府）采取的冷静成本—风险分析形成鲜明对比，后者在贸易机会与安全和影响的担忧之间寻找平衡。

至于俄罗斯，他的分歧更为尖锐：当西方领导人将莫斯科视为唯一的对手时，加洛韦却将其描绘为多极秩序中的合法伙伴。这种亲华热情与亲俄挑战相结合，使他成为一个独特而具争议的人物，也解释了为什么他在盖特威克被带走会引发更深远的共鸣。

同样具有争议的是加洛韦对中东问题的看法。他长期将以色列称为“种族隔离国家”，并多次发表支持哈马斯的言论。本月早些时候，他前往德黑兰，据英国和伊朗媒体报道，他在那里接受了以被以色列暗杀的哈马斯领导人伊斯梅尔·哈尼亚命名的奖项，并称哈尼亚奖是他最“珍贵的财产”。这些立场使他成为英国最具争议的声音之一，但同时也强化了其支持者的看法——他所受到的对待反映的不是正常的安全执法，而是政治压制。

背后的特朗普主义

这一事件之所以引发广泛共鸣，还因为更宏大的政治背景。唐纳德·特朗普在英国政治上变得越来越活跃，而像埃隆·马斯克和史蒂夫·福布斯这样的商界领袖也尖锐批评英国在言论问题上的走向。无论人们如何看待这种言辞，它都显示了像加洛韦这样的事件如何影响国际社会对英国民主文化的看法。

在国内，他被拘留的时间点正值英国对言论自由的态度日益收紧。去年南港（Southport）持刀袭击案成为一个转折点。三名年轻女孩在一堂以泰勒·斯威夫特为主题的舞蹈课上被杀，虚假信息迅速在网络上扩散。极右翼人物如奈杰尔·法拉奇和汤米·罗宾逊放大错误言论，声称凶手是一名穆斯林寻求庇护者。事实上，袭击者是一名17岁的卢旺达裔基督教移民二代，但谣言已经在数个城镇引发暴力抗议。清真寺、难民中心和少数族裔社区在官方辟谣前就频繁遭到袭击。

2024年7月29日上午，英国默西赛德郡绍斯波特一所舞蹈学校内发生一宗大规模持刀袭击事件，造成3名儿童死亡，另外10人受伤，其中包括8名儿童。

这些虚假信息的迅速传播，以及随之而来的极右翼暴力动员，加深了民众对英国国家稳定的担忧。作为回应，政府出台了扩大打击虚假信息权力的全面立法。部长们声称这些法律对公共安全至关重要，但批评者警告，这赋予国家过大的权力去决定什么能说、什么不可以被说。当针对像加洛韦这样的政治人物也动用反恐权力时，人们得到的印象是：在这个社会里，充满争议的声音正日益受到压制，而非被付诸公开辩论。

英国政府在处理犹太教堂袭击事件中，汤米·罗宾逊及其他极右翼网红一直是最强烈的批评者。他宣布，应支持其立场的团体邀请，他计划前往以色列。期间，他和同伴预计将访问以色列议会（克奈塞特）并前往约旦河西岸，以示对以色列的声援。这一行动突显了极右翼对英国政府日益对抗的立场，特别是在以色列与加沙问题上，他们认为政府的态度过于软弱。此次访问预计将引发支持者和反对者的关注，前者视其为扩大影响的机会，后者则认为他试图将英国国内的不安局势与西方民粹主义和中东之间的意识形态对立相联系。

对许多人而言，政治格局的日益分裂已经昭然显现：极右翼活动者在海外建立联系的同时，国内的异见声音却受到反恐框架的审查。

这场辩论并不仅限于英国。在美国，支持巴勒斯坦的抗议学生遭遇了警方拘留和学校处分，引发了人们对异议空间被不断压缩的担忧。在英国，汤米·罗宾逊在南港骚乱中的被捕被其支持者视为选择性执法的证据，并被拿来与美国的类似事件进行比较。

这些相似之处凸显了整个西方民主国家面临的更广泛矛盾：在两极分化和虚假信息盛行的时代，如何在维持公共秩序的同时保护言论自由。

一个日益清晰的图景是：国际冲突不再止于国际舞台。英国的街头、校园与社交媒体，正映照全球同款的分裂——亲以与亲巴、亲中与亲美、亲西方与亲俄的对立。彼此互指“极端”或“受外部操控”，而国家在“遏制真实暴力不够”与“压制政治异议过度”之间摇摆。其结果是，这个国家的意识形态边界日益模糊，而“敌对行为”的定义也变得无所不包——从恐怖主义行径到离经叛道的观点，皆可被归入其中。

这也引出一个棘手的“一致性”问题：若加洛韦可因与俄中关系被扣留，罗宾逊可因煽动骚乱被捕，学生可因批评以色列受罚，那么与被广泛指控犯下暴行（包括被指在加沙实施种族灭绝）的政府保持密切关系的主流政治人物，又为何鲜见同等审视？言论自由标准的不均衡适用，正在侵蚀公众信任。（翻页请看英文版）

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.

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。