瑞典气候学者安德烈亚斯·马尔姆谴责英国政府对他实施的旅行禁令，称此举是“滑向威权主义”，该禁令也招致了批评。
The Swedish climate academic Andreas Malm has condemned a travel ban imposed on him by the UK government as a “drift into authoritarianism” amid criticism of the move.
著有《如何炸毁一条管道》的马尔姆表示，英国移民当局一直“让他蒙在鼓里”，没有说明他的电子旅行授权（ETA）被撤销的原因。
Malm, the author of How to Blow Up a Pipeline, said he had been “kept in the dark” by the UK’s immigration authorities over the reasons for his electronic travel authorisation (ETA) being revoked.
他说，他仅被告知他在英国的存在“不被认为有利于公共利益”，《卫报》此前披露了这一消息。
He said he had only been told that his presence in the UK was “not considered to be conducive to the public good”, as the Guardian revealed.
周五在接受BBC广播四台《今日》节目采访时，他推测，该禁令唯一合理的理由是他计划于下周三与已被取缔的组织“巴勒斯坦行动”联合创始人胡达·阿莫里一同出席一场会议并露面。
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday, he speculated that the only plausible rationale for the ban was his advertised appearance at a conference next Wednesday alongside Huda Ammori, a co-founder of the proscribed group Palestine Action.
他说：“除了我预定于周三晚间在伦敦与胡达·阿莫里一起参加一个小组讨论并登台露面之外，我看不到任何其他解释。这……使我莫名其妙地成了恐怖分子或与恐怖主义有关联，因此被禁止前往英国。这相当令人不齿。”
He said: “I cannot see any other explanation than the scheduled appearance of me on stage for a panel on Wednesday evening in London, together with Huda Ammori. That … makes me somehow a terrorist or associated with terrorism, and therefore barred from travelling to the UK. That’s pretty scandalous.”
他补充说：“我在这里经历的一切，只是一个更大趋势中很小的一部分：这种滑向威权主义的趋势正针对巴勒斯坦运动、气候运动，以及其他反对掌控这个世界的破坏性力量的人。这是一件非常可悲的事。”马尔姆向《卫报》证实，他将在《论坛报》杂志组织的这场活动上通过视频连线发言。
He added: “What I am going through here is just a very small part of a major trend: this drift into authoritarianism that is targeting the Palestine movement, the climate movement, and others who oppose the destructive forces that are in control of this world. And that’s a very sad thing.”Malm confirmed to the Guardian that he would speak via video link at the event organised by Tribune magazine.
在接受BBC采访时，他否认支持或资助“巴勒斯坦行动”。但长期为巴勒斯坦权利奔走呼吁的马尔姆补充道：“你们或许能猜到我的观点和同情所在。”
In his BBC interview, he denied supporting or helping to finance Palestine Action. But Malm, who has long campaigned for Palestinian rights, added: “You might be able to guess my opinions and sympathies.”
内政部表示无法讨论个别案件。不过，一位消息人士称：“以在英国的存在可能不利于公共利益为由，决定拒绝或取消电子旅行授权，完全基于对个人可能对英国社会构成的潜在风险的评估。”
The Home Office said it could not discuss individual cases. However, a source said: “Decisions to refuse or cancel an ETA on the grounds that presence in the UK may not be conducive to public good are based solely on an assessment of the potential risk an individual may pose to UK society.”
马尔姆说：“我没有任何确凿证据表明这到底是为了什么。我被蒙在鼓里。我要求澄清、解释，但没有收到任何回复。”马尔姆在《今日》节目中受到质询，被问及他将2023年10月7日哈马斯的袭击描述为“解放行动”是否可能成为禁令的原因。
Malm said: “I don’t have any concrete evidence for what this is all about. I’m left in the dark. I have asked for clarification, explanation. I haven’t received any.”Malm was challenged on Today over whether his description of the Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023 as an “act of liberation” could be the reason for the ban.
他回答：“有可能。但我对10月7日发生的事情以及巴勒斯坦局势的看法早已公之于众。我最近一次访问英国是在5月。”
He replied: “It could be. But my views about what happened on 7 October and in Palestine have been in the public realm for a long time. I was most recently in the UK in May.”
马尔姆补充道：“我公开做过的任何事都与‘巴勒斯坦行动’无关。我没有以任何方式公开支持或宣传他们。”马尔姆说，他受邀与阿姆里一同发言，讨论伊朗战争。
Malm added: “I’ve done nothing in public that is associated with Palestine Action. I have not publicly supported them or promoted them in any way.”Malm said he was invited to speak alongside Ammori to discuss the war in Iran.
“因此，他们阻止的正是我们就中东帝国主义侵略的驱动因素进行讨论，”他说。
“So, what they’re preventing here is for us to have a discussion about the drivers of the imperial aggression in the Middle East,” he said.
“与‘巴勒斯坦行动’唯一的联系就是她（阿姆里）这个人。如果继续沿用这种株连式的逻辑，那么推测起来，如果我因与她交谈而被视为对英国公共利益的威胁，那么与我交谈的人大概也会被视为对公共利益的威胁。这究竟要到哪里才算完？”
“The only link to Palestine Action is her [Ammori] as a person. If you continue with these guilt-by-association links, then presumably if I am a threat to the public good in the UK by dint of talking to her, then someone who talks to me presumably is also a threat to the public good. Where does that end?”
这项旅行禁令引发广泛批评。作家萨莉·鲁尼称这是“令人悲伤且可怕的文化自残行为”。
The travel ban has been widely criticised. The author Sally Rooney said it was a “sad and frightening act of cultural self-harm”.
绿党领袖扎克·波兰斯基在X平台发帖称：“这感觉非常像是斯塔默工党政府2.0版。安迪·伯纳姆对言论自由发动了一次非同寻常的攻击。”工党议员克莱夫·刘易斯去年曾提出辞去诺里奇南选区议员职务，以便让安迪·伯纳姆有机会重返议会，他表示：“当任何政府开始因政治观点而拒绝学者入境时，警钟就应该敲响了。
In a post on X, the Green party leader, Zack Polanski, said: “This all feels very much Starmer’s Labour government 2.0. An extraordinary attack on free speech from Andy Burnham.”The Labour MP Clive Lewis, who last year offered to stand down from his Norwich South seat to allow Andy Burnham the chance to return to parliament, said: “When any government starts barring academics for their political views, alarm bells should be ringing.
“如果部长们有证据证明安德烈亚斯·马尔姆具有危险性，请拿出来。否则，这看起来像是披着公共安全外衣的政治审查。这对任何民主国家来说都是一条危险的道路。”
“If ministers have evidence Andreas Malm is dangerous, produce it. Otherwise, this looks like political censorship dressed up as public safety. That’s a dangerous road for any democracy.”
阿穆里表示：“禁止学者兼作家安德烈亚斯·马尔姆入境英国，以阻止他与我——巴勒斯坦行动联合创始人——同台发言，是严厉禁令导致的又一次令人发指的言论自由受攻击。该禁令必须被推翻。”
Ammori said: “Banning academic and author Andreas Malm from entering Britain to stop him from speaking alongside myself, a Palestine Action co-founder, is another disgusting attack on free speech as a result of the draconian ban. The ban must be overturned.”
智库Compass主任尼尔·劳森在推特上写道：“这让我为身为英国人而感到羞耻，也为一个实施非自由主义手段以压制合法声音的英国工党政府感到羞耻。”
Neal Lawson, the director of the thinktank Compass, tweeted: “This makes me ashamed to be British and ashamed of an @UKLabour government that enacts illiberal attempts to stifle legitimate voices.”
前影子财政大臣约翰·麦克唐奈表示：“本以为政府里会有人领会其中的讽刺意味：实际上审查了一位想来此讨论审查制度的人。内政部的决策已沦为危险的闹剧。”
John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, said: “You would have thought there was someone in government to appreciate the irony of effectively censoring someone who wanted to come here to discuss censorship. Home Office policy-making has degenerated into dangerous farce.”
《如何炸毁一条管道》启发了同名电影，书中主张破坏和毁坏财产是道德上和战略上都合理的行动主义形式。
How to Blow Up a Pipeline, which inspired a film of the same name, argues that sabotage and destroying property are morally and strategically justified forms of activism.