英國 | 巴吉特
受害者崇拜的迷思
當四名「性侵集團」受害者退出相關調查時，她們要求負責婦女與女孩安全事務的部長潔絲·菲利普斯（Jess Phillips）辭職。保守黨領袖凱米·貝登諾克（Kemi Badenoch）也加入了呼籲行列。奈吉爾·法拉吉（Nigel Farage）甚至與其中一名受害者艾莉·雷諾茲（Ellie Reynolds）共同召開記者會，要求菲利普斯下台並展開國會調查。
讓菲利普斯得以留任的原因之一是：另一些受害者表示，如果她被撤職，她們也會辭職。——是「一位受害者阻止了另一位受害者」。
這或許是對當今英國政治中「受害者」角色日益主導的最佳註解。自2020年以來，「受害者」（victims）一詞在國會中被提及16,515次，次數超過「脫歐」（Brexit，10,797次）、「福利」（welfare，9,978次）、「移民」（immigration，8,644次）、「退休者」（pensioners，3,438次）與「選民」（voters，2,540次）。
情況並非一直如此。過去，英國政府對自身失誤造成的受害者幾乎漠不關心。1966年，威爾斯村莊阿伯凡（Aberfan）的一座煤渣堆倒塌，15萬噸煤渣傾瀉而下，掩埋了一所學校，造成144人死亡，其中包括116名兒童。負責的國營機構——國家煤炭委員會否認有任何過失，並最初只願支付每位喪生兒童50英鎊的賠償金。最終金額提高到500英鎊——大約是一輛奧斯汀Mini汽車的價格。
直到1970年代與1980年代，即使國家以隨意的輕蔑或赤裸的殘酷對待人民，也屬「常態」。無論是警方捏造關於希斯堡球場（Hillsborough）97名利物浦球迷死於踩踏的謊言，還是英國國民保健署（NHS）因疏忽將感染HIV與其他疾病的受污染血液輸給病人，國家一貫地結合了殘忍、無能與不受追責。直到1990年代末與2000年代，這種態度才開始改變——受害者能夠反擊。《人權法案》（Human Rights Act）讓挑戰政府失誤變得更容易。於是，「受害者」在政治生活中的崛起就此展開。
如今，受害者成了主角。2010年設立了「受害者專員」（Victims’ Commissioner）一職（現任者本身也是受害者）。政府調查從罕見之舉變成了官僚反射行為——只要出錯，就開調查。以受害者命名的法律輕易通過國會，內容從公寓霉菌到恐怖主義應有盡有。新的《受害者與法庭法案》（Victims and Courts Bill）正在立法過程中，將賦予受害者在與警方互動時更多權利。
若說誰最能體現「受害者政治」的崛起，那便是首相基爾·斯塔默爵士（Sir Keir Starmer）。他並沒有成形的政治理念，除了模糊地相信「人權是好的，因為國家可能很壞」。在工黨最新的政綱中，「受害者」一詞出現了24次，而「退休者」僅兩次。在利物浦舉行的工黨年度大會上，斯塔默由瑪格麗特·阿斯皮納爾（Margaret Aspinall）引介上台——她的兒子死於希斯堡慘案。斯塔默說：「這個政黨的成立，就是要聆聽像她這樣的工人階級人民的聲音，直視他們的痛苦。」工黨過去致力於改善他們的經濟處境，如今則是撫慰他們的情感需求。
然而，這是一種空洞的政治，導致糟糕的政策。受害者令政治人物心生畏懼。他們成了「最高利益相關者」。凡有受害者參與，決策的常規準則——風險、成本、比例原則——全被拋諸腦後。若媒體頭條暗示「部長無視受害者」怎麼辦？——那就掏錢吧。官員一向謹慎，如今更成懦夫。運動人士深諳此道。將悲痛的父母推到鏡頭前，為某項政策（無論是限制智慧型手機或禁售「忍者刀」）背書的場面，已成為政治「王牌」。
當受害者帶頭推動運動時，政策取捨被忽視。例如以2017年曼徹斯特演唱會自殺炸彈案受害者命名的「馬汀法案」（Martyn’s Law），要求所有容納200人以上的場所都需制定反恐計畫，即使只是村莊禮堂。企業每年將因此花費約1.7億英鎊（2.25億美元），而社會收益僅約200萬英鎊，主要來自犯罪減少。若受害者母親親自參與，平衡各方利益幾乎不可能。斯塔默在與馬汀之母會面時說：「若沒有妳的努力，這一切不會發生。」這句話固然正確，但也揭示問題所在。
以受害者之名，正義往往被拖延。如今的官方調查規模龐大、程序冗長，受害者參與每一步。結果是效率更低、成本更高（政府即將通過以希斯堡命名的法案，讓任何受害者都能獲得國家資助參與調查）。短小精悍的調查已成不可能。對新冠疫情的調查已進入第三年，預計成本超過2億英鎊。即便如此，受害者往往仍不滿意——責任人早已離任，建議來得太遲。安撫受害者的過程甚至可能製造新的受害者。國家既能以冷酷傷人，也能在「過度善意」中再度傷人。
從「堅毅的英倫」到「哭泣的布萊帝」
在英國政治中將受害者置於神聖地位，忽視了一個事實：國家失誤往往是集體醜聞。希斯堡悲劇本可發生於任何球場、任何球迷身上；格倫費爾（Grenfell）火災的公寓並非唯一覆滿易燃外牆的高樓；「性侵集團」的惡行之廣，幾乎任何脆弱女孩都可能淪為受害者。當受害者的角色過於巨大，原本屬於整個社會的問題就被個人化，留下的，是一種扭曲的柴契爾主義：「沒有社會這回事，只有受害者及其家人。」
如此一來，英國政治淪為「親身經驗的獨裁」，政客給建議、受害者來決定。對於像斯塔默這樣空洞的政治人物，或像法拉吉這樣的犬儒主義者，這或許不是壞事。但當強暴受害者被迫彼此爭論政府部長的去留，並受到民選政治人物的助陣，這是一幅令人沮喪的畫面——卻是當今英國的現實。這是國家對受害者的最終失職：那些曾被政府辜負的人，如今再度被辜負。 ■
When four grooming-gang victims resigned from an inquiry on the topic, they called for Jess Phillips, the minister whose portfolio includes safeguarding women and girls, to quit. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, joined in. Nigel Farage even held a press conference alongside Ellie Reynolds, one of the four, calling both for Ms Phillips’s exit and a parliamentary inquiry. One factor helped keep Ms Phillips in place: other victims who in turn promised to quit if Ms Phillips were removed. It took a victim to stop a victim.
There is no better summary of the increasingly dominant role victims play in British politics. Since the start of 2020 “victims” have been mentioned in Parliament 16,515 times, more than “Brexit” (10,797 times), “welfare” (9,978), “immigration” (8,644), “pensioners” (3,438) and “voters” (2,540).
It was not always like this. Once, the British state cared little about the victims of its failures. In 1966 a coal tip collapsed at Aberfan, a Welsh village, sending 150,000 tonnes of spoil onto a school. It killed 144 people, including 116 children. The National Coal Board, the state body responsible, denied any wrongdoing before offering £50 compensation for each dead child. Eventually it gave £500, or about the price of an Austin Mini, a car.
Until well into the 1970s and 1980s it was the norm, rather than the exception, for the state to treat people with casual contempt or outright brutality. Whether it was police lying about how 97 Liverpool football fans died due to a crush at Hillsborough stadium, or the National Health Service carelessly infecting patients with hiv and other diseases via tainted blood, the British state mixed cruelty, incompetence and impunity. Only in the late 1990s and 2000s did this attitude begin to shift. Victims could fight back. The Human Rights Act made it simpler to challenge government failure. And so began the ascent of the victim in political life.
Now, victims dominate. A victims’ commissioner (the current one a victim herself) was created in 2010. Inquiries, once a rarity, became an instinctive reaction to any government mistake. Laws named after victims pass Parliament with ease, dealing with everything from mould in flats to terrorism. A Victims and Courts Bill, which will give victims more rights in their dealings with the police, is weaving its way into law.
If any man personifies the rise of the victim it is Sir Keir Starmer. The prime minister has few fully formed political beliefs beyond a vague idea that human rights are good because the state can be very bad. Victims are mentioned 24 times in Labour’s most recent manifesto. For comparison, “pensioners” appear twice. At the party’s annual conference in Liverpool the Labour leader was introduced on stage by Margaret Aspinall, whose son died at Hillsborough. “This party was founded to hear working-class people like that,” said Sir Keir. “To look directly into the eyes of their suffering.” Labour once advanced their economic interests, now it manages their emotional needs.
It is, however, a hollow politics that leads to bad policy. Victims petrify politicians. They are apex stakeholders. Normal rules for decisions—risk, cost, proportionality—are thrown away when they are involved. What if a headline suggests ministers snubbed victims? Write the cheque. Civil servants, always cautious, become cowards. Campaigners know this. The unedifying spectacle of a grieving parent wheeled in front of cameras to push a particular policy, whether limits on smartphones or ninja swords, has become a political trump card.
Trade-offs are ignored when victims campaign. Martyn’s law, named after a victim of a suicide-bombing at a concert in Manchester in 2017, requires any venue that can hold more than 200 people to have an anti-terror plan, even if it is a village hall. It is likely to cost businesses about £170m ($225m) a year to comply and bring about £2m of benefits, mainly from lower crime. A careful balancing of interests is close to impossible if a victim’s mother is involved. “This would not have happened without your campaigning,” said Sir Keir at a meeting with Martyn’s mother, rightly.
Justice is often delayed in the name of victims. Inquiries are now sprawling affairs, with victims involved at every step. The result is a less nimble and more costly process (which the state will soon finance for any victim, thanks to a bill named after the Hillsborough disaster). Short, sharp inquiries have become impossible. One on covid-19 is in its third year, with costs projected to be over £200m. Yet victims rarely leave the process happy. Anyone responsible has probably left office; any advice is dangerously late. Placating victims potentially creates more. The state can harm when it is callous, and it can harm when it is trying to be kind.
From stiff upper lips to blubbering Blighty
Allowing victims a hallowed status in British politics ignores the fact that state failures are collective scandals. Hillsborough could easily have happened at another stadium to other fans. Grenfell was not the only tower caked in flammable material. Grooming gangs were so widespread that any vulnerable girl could have been dragged in. When victims play such a large role, what should be society’s problem becomes an individual one. What is left is a mangled Thatcherite philosophy: there is no such thing as society, only victims and their families.
In this way British politics becomes an autocracy of lived experience, in which politicians advise and victims decide. For a politician as vapid as Sir Keir or as cynical as Mr Farage perhaps this is no bad thing. A world in which rape victims are compelled to argue with each other over the future of a government minister, cheered on by elected politicians, is a depressing one. But it is the one Britain inhabits. It is a final dereliction of duty to people the state has already failed once and now does again. ■
Explore more
Britain
World
Opinion
Columns
Bagehot
