【BBC中文網】震驚英國的兇殺案：白領女子之死引發社會風暴的六個重點

倫敦女子莎拉·艾弗拉德（Sarah Everard）徒步回家路上被綁架殺害，案件在英國掀起一場反抗針對女性暴力的社會運動和輿論浪潮，震撼英國政壇和警方。

3月3日晚上9點，住在倫敦南部的莎拉走路回家途中失蹤。警察一周後在倫敦東南幾十公里外找到她的遺體。

案件轟動英國社會。有關這起兇殺案以及英國民間保護婦女、反對暴力的社會運動，BBC中文梳理六個關鍵重點：
血腥綁架兇殺案

莎拉·艾弗拉德今年33歲，長在英國約克郡，大學畢業後在倫敦一家電子媒體公司擔任營銷工作，住在倫敦南部的布里克斯頓（Brixton）。

3月3日晚上約9點，她離開友人住處徒步走回家，其間她還曾與男友通話約15分鐘，從此再無音訊。

3月7日警方在搜尋她的下落過程中，在她經過的一個保安監控相機裏找到她身前最後一張留影，時間是當晚9:30；

3月9日英國東南的肯特郡一名警察涉嫌綁架被捕；

3月10日警方在肯特郡的林間找到一具屍體；

3月12日通過牙醫記錄鑒定死者被確認是莎拉·艾弗拉德，但警方還沒有公布她的死因。

被捕的嫌疑人是48歲的懷恩·科曾斯（Wayne Couzens）。他於2018年9月加入倫敦警隊，2020年2月調入負責議會和外交保護工作的警察分隊，主要工作是在倫敦各外國領館周邊巡邏。

科曾斯已經被控綁架和謀殺，但案件審理預計將在今年10月展開。
英國女性遇害情況

莎拉遇害案件在媒體披露後，首先在英國女性中引起強烈反響：發生在莎拉身上的事，是不是也會發生在自己身上？難道女性晚間單獨走在街上有生命危險了嗎？

越來越多女性開始講出她們經歷過的恐懼、擔憂，遭遇過的騷擾、侵害，並且大聲呼籲政府、警方以及全社會正視女性面對的暴力問題。

那麼，英國女性遇害的情況究竟有多普遍呢？

據殺害女性普查（Femicide Census）的統計，在2018年之前的十年中英國共有1425名女性被男性殺害。這相當於每三天就有一名女性成為男性暴力的受害者。

其中2019年，女性被男性殺害的總數是過去十年最高，達241人。

另外還有兩個很說明問題的數據是：1）57%的女性死者是被她們熟識的人殺害，如伴侶或前伴侶；2）70%被殺害的女性是在自己的家中遇害。
女性被性侵的情況

據英國國家統計局（Office for National Statistics）所掌握的最近期的統計數據，2017年，全英國有340萬女性稱曾經遭遇過性侵犯，其中包括100萬遭遇過強姦或未遂強姦。

遭遇過性侵犯的男性總數為65萬人。

年輕女性遭遇性侵犯的情況最為普遍，大約十分之一的女性學生表示她們在過去一年中經歷過。

但是絶大多數針對女性的性暴力都沒有被處理。實際上，大部分的性侵行為甚至沒有報告給警方。
女性的不安全感

莎拉失蹤後，成千上萬的女性通過社交網站和英國媒體講出她們獨自走在街上時如何缺乏安全感、如何假裝鎮定、如何克服恐懼、如何互相守望、如何感到憤怒和無奈。

英國各地的女性發起了一場「收復街道」（Reclaim These Streets)的運動，為莎拉舉行悼念活動的同時要求當局重視女性晚間單獨出行的安全問題。

這場運動的發起者說，有人對女性施暴，應對的辦法卻是要求女性改變自己不這樣不那樣，「這簡直錯得離譜」。

主管治安的英國內政大臣普麗提·帕特爾（Priti Patel）對女性們夜間單獨出行的擔心表示感同身受。她說：「每個女性走在我們的街道上都應該感到安全，不怕受到騷擾和暴力。」

倫敦警察局局長克麗絲達·狄克（Cressida Dick）表示女性在街上被綁架的事件極為罕見。「儘管如此，我完全理解倫敦和更大範圍的女性、特別是莎拉失蹤地區附近的女性會非常擔心，甚至會感到害怕。」
女警察局長的壓力

克麗絲達·狄克作為英國警隊近兩百年歷史上的第一位女局長，在本次莎拉失蹤受害案中面對巨大壓力。

身為警察的本案嫌疑人懷恩·科曾斯在莎拉失蹤的三天前，曾在倫敦南部的一個快餐館內「露體」被報告給警方。警方目前正在調查對這一報案情況的處理是否有失職之處。

最關鍵的是倫敦警方對悼念活動的處理手法受到活動的參加者和組織者以及社會各界聲援者的批評。

由於英國的新冠疫情防控措施仍然沒有解除，警方對不顧禁令在莎拉失蹤地附近舉行守夜悼念活動的民眾採取了執法行動。

期間，警方與集會者發生肢體衝突。之後，警方被指執法手段過於激烈，他們強行拖走幾名年輕女性的照片在社交媒體、主流媒體上廣泛傳發。

狄克局長因此面臨社會上要求她辭職的呼聲。

對此她回應說：「在我看來，我的警隊有權認定這是非法集會，對人們健康構成一定風險。所發生的這一切讓我繼續領導警隊的決心有增無減。」

轉折點

莎拉被殺案件形成巨大民間反響，促使英國政府迅速採取行動。

首先政府為街道照明和監控經費大幅增加2500萬英鎊的撥款。

其次將開始試點計劃，向酒吧和夜總會等場所派遣便衣警察，向執勤警察通報慣犯或疑犯的情況。

負責治安的官員表示，政府將與商界和警方合作，確保在疫情過後重新開業時，讓「女性走在街上有安全感。」

有關英國該如何加強對女性的保護，英國議會政黨間的辯論也還在繼續。

主要反對黨工黨領導人斯塔默爾（Keir Starmer）在3月17日的議會首相問答會上說，全體議員對莎拉家人蒙受的痛苦深表慰問，「在相當長的一段時間內我們都不會忘記的一句話就是：她走在回家路上卻遭綁架殺害。」

首相約翰遜贊同斯塔默爾的看法，認為現在應該是保護女性和女童權益的一個轉折點，並承諾政府將加強立法和執法打擊針對女性的暴力行為。

莎拉遇害案預計將會成為英國保護女性和女童免遭暴力社會運動的一個里程碑。

#社會

經過近日美國媒體大幅報導，身邊很多原本以為我是在遠東神秘叢林中長大的或是聽到我是台灣人馬上說他們愛吃泰國菜的美國朋友，都驟然了解到台灣這次防疫有多厲害。

所以我身上這件根本就是防護罩啊哈哈哈哈哈！

（是防白痴不是防病毒）

話說美國十年一度的人口普查即將在四月一號到來。現今據估計在美國傳說中的台灣人有超過一百萬，可是二十年前的普查只統計出不到十五萬人，十年前的普查也只統計出二十一萬人，比寮國跟柬埔寨還少這是怎麼一回事！？

所有長居美國合法非法的人都是美國人口普查的一部份，普查填寫者的隱私權有法律保障。人口普查結果有著幫助政府分配學校、醫療、公共建設等預算資源、針對不同族裔提供公平補助與保障、規劃選區界線與分配議員席次等等重要的功能。準確性過低的政府資訊容易導致政策分配的不公平。

由於美國人口普查表格上，亞洲只有中日韓菲越與印度以及「其他亞裔身分」（Other Asian）等七個選項。台灣人請務必記得要勾選「Other Asian」，然後在後面空格勇敢地手動用筆填上「Taiwanese」！！！✏️✏️✏️

如果你的出生地是台灣，請填Taiwanese。

如果你娘或爹來自台灣，請填Taiwanese。（人口普查可以勾選多重種族選項，全都會算進去）

如果阿罵阿公曾祖父母來自台灣，也請填Taiwanese。（這還看得懂中文算你厲害）

BE PROUD. BE COUNTED. WRITE IN TAIWANESE！❤️❤️❤️

Taiwanese Census 2020

[美國文化觀察]

川普前幾天說, 以後的移民要在移民美國時, 就要會說英文. 經濟學人這篇文章講的挺好: 其實移民移居美國後, 早晚都會說英文的.

在我身上其實也應證了這說法. 旅居美國十幾年, 雖然平常有跟此地的台灣同胞保持互動, 但因為身處在美語環境, 也為了生存下去, 所以我漸漸地習慣說英文, 聽英文歌, 看美國電視, 看原文書. 我也很清楚地意識到, 自己的母語(中文)能力在退化中. 所以我前幾年開始接英翻中的case, 而兩年前也開始藉著寫中文個股分析與開部落格來彌補這問題. 很多時候不是我故意在秀英文, 而是我真的不知道該用甚麼中文字來表達意思了, 或是我覺得用英文能夠更傳神地表達我的想法.

"Rather than refusing to learn English, today’s immigrants actually abandon their first language much more readily than previous generations. German, the language spoken by the president’s ancestors, is a case in point. Germans arrived in America in big waves in the middle of the 19th century. Generations later, they were still speaking German at home; a small number were even monolingual in German despite being born in America. Only with America’s entry into the first world war did German-speakers drop their suddenly unpopular language.

Today the typical pattern is that the arriving generation speaks little English, or learns it imperfectly; the first children born in America are bilingual, but English-dominant, and their children hardly speak the heritage language. This is as true of Hispanics as it is of speakers of smaller languages—and all without a lecture from the White House."

以下是全文:
DONALD TRUMP’s young administration is adept at one particular manoeuvre. Whenever the president is having a terrible time in the press, for some embarrassing statement, interview or imbroglio, the White House announces a far-reaching policy designed to stoke up his nationalist base while infuriating his opponents. In February it was the proposed ban on visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries. Last month it was the announcement on Twitter that he would not let transgender soldiers serve in the military.

In each case, the new policy tends to hurt people who can be portrayed as threatening outsiders to ordinary Americans who work hard and pay their taxes. Yesterday’s announcement to back a months-old plan to overhaul America’s immigration rules falls in the same category. If implemented, it would reward applicants with sought-after job skills who already speak English, at the expense of low-skilled workers without language skills.

This may seem perfectly sensible: after all, skilled immigrants are a good thing. But as an ongoing shortage of farm workers in California shows, unskilled immigrants are just as crucial. Equally, it is a good thing if immigrants speak English. But they need not speak it before arrival: as it is impossible to participate fully in American life without speaking English, the incentive to learn it quickly is overwhelming.

The administration’s emphasis on English skills therefore harks back to an old myth that the linguistic make-up of America, which has been an English-dominant country for a long time, is changing: that the status of English is somehow threatened, especially by Spanish, but more generally by the notion that English is no longer needed in the economy.

The myth goes something like this: today’s immigrants want to come to America to isolate themselves into communities that do not speak English. American policy tacitly encourages this by not being tough enough in requiring English. In the past, immigrants happily learned English quickly; “my grandpa came here from the old country but he refused to speak his old language; he insisted on getting by in his broken English until he was fluent.” But today’s immigrants no longer do so, as multiculturalism has replaced the melting pot.
All of this is wrong. America began as a thin band of English colonies clinging to the eastern coast, vastly outnumbered by speakers of other languages. The foreign-born percentage of the population peaked not last year—the administration likes to talk of “unprecedented” numbers—but in 1890, when the share of foreign-born residents was at an all-time high of 14.8%. This proportion has risen again after declining in the mid-20th century (it stood at 12.9% in the 2010 census). America today has multilingual big cities with their voting instructions in Korean, Chinese and Russian.

Historically, this is the norm rather than the exception: the years from 1925 to 1965, when immigration was almost completely cut off, were unusual. But those born from the 1940s to the 1960s became used to the low numbers of foreign-born residents, regarding this state as normal. That in turn supported a belief that America has always naturally belonged completely to English.
For most of its history, America was precisely the “polyglot boardinghouse” Teddy Roosevelt once worried it would become. That history has turned out very well not just for America, but for English—the most successful language in the history of the world. Along with American power, English has spread around the globe. At home, wave after wave after wave of immigrants to America have not only learned English but forgotten the languages their parents brought with them.

Rather than refusing to learn English, today’s immigrants actually abandon their first language much more readily than previous generations. German, the language spoken by the president’s ancestors, is a case in point. Germans arrived in America in big waves in the middle of the 19th century. Generations later, they were still speaking German at home; a small number were even monolingual in German despite being born in America. Only with America’s entry into the first world war did German-speakers drop their suddenly unpopular language.

Today the typical pattern is that the arriving generation speaks little English, or learns it imperfectly; the first children born in America are bilingual, but English-dominant, and their children hardly speak the heritage language. This is as true of Hispanics as it is of speakers of smaller languages—and all without a lecture from the White House.