even richer than some countries.

甚至比一些國家還要富裕。

We'll show you how ordinary people have taken on massive corporations,

我們將向你展示普通人是如何與大公司對抗的。

using the power of the law.

利用法律的力量。

The longest running libel case in British legal history:

英國法律史上持續時間最長的誹謗案。

the two friends who took on the might of McDonald's...

兩位朋友挑戰麥當勞的力量......

Cancelled flights: the reason you can now get your money back in Europe...

被取消的班機：你現在可以在歐洲拿回你的錢的原因...

First, you might have heard of McLibel,

首先，你可能聽說過McLibel。

the longest running libel case in history in England.

這是英國曆史上持續時間最長的誹謗案。

Activists Helen Steel and David Morris handed out a leaflet

活動人士Helen Steel和David Morris分發了一份傳單

called 'What's wrong with McDonald's?'

叫做'麥當勞有什麼問題？

It said McDonald's encouraged litter, was cruel to animals and its workers,

它說麥當勞鼓勵亂扔垃圾，對動物和工人都很殘忍。

and destroyed the rainforests.

並破壞了雨林。

But McDonald's fought back, demanding that the activists apologise

但麥當勞進行了反擊，要求活動家們進行道歉

or go to court...

或者上法庭...

which they did.

他們這樣做了。

Well, the British judge said McDonald's were right

嗯，英國法官說麥當勞是對的

and ordered Helen and David to pay £60,000 damages,

並命令海倫和大衛支付60,000英鎊的賠償金。

which was later reduced to £40,000,

後來減少到40,000英鎊。

but the case didn't end there.

但此案並沒有就此結束。

The activists went to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg,

活動家們來到了位於斯特拉斯堡的歐洲人權法院。

taking action against the UK government this time.

這次對英國政府採取行動。

They said, because they didn't have access to legal aid,

他們說，因為他們沒有機會獲得法律援助。

they didn't have a fair trial.

他們沒有得到公平的審判。

The court in Strasbourg agreed and also said

斯特拉斯堡的法院同意，還說

their right to freedom of speech had not been protected.

他們的言論自由權沒有得到保護。

The UK government was ordered to pay £57,000!

英國政府被勒令支付57000英鎊!

So, to find out more about why this case went to an international court,

是以，要了解更多關於這個案件為什麼要提交給國際法院的情況。

let's speak to one of the lawyers involved – Mark Stephens.

讓我們採訪其中一位相關律師--馬克-斯蒂芬斯。

When you go to the European Court, you're taking a case –

it's not an appeal – you're taking a case against the British government,

這不是上訴--你在對英國政府提起訴訟。

because the British government hasn't assured

因為英國政府還沒有保證

the basic minimum standards of human rights.

享有最低限度的基本人權標準。

So, what we were doing was publicly pointing out

是以，我們所做的是公開指出

that there had been problems with the trial

審判中出現了一些問題

because they had not had legal representation,

因為他們沒有法律代表。

which they should have done.

這也是他們應該做的。

As Mark says, David and Helen didn't have a fair trial in the UK,

正如馬克所說，大衛和海倫在英國並沒有得到公平的審判。

so they were able to take a new case to the European Court.

是以，他們能夠向歐洲法院提起新的訴訟。

So, what helped Helen and David?

那麼，是什麼幫助了海倫和大衛？

I think one of the things about McLibel, which isn't properly understood,

我認為關於麥克利貝爾的一件事，並沒有被正確理解。

is the sort of David and Goliath element,

是那種大衛和歌利亞的元素。

in the sense that Steel and Morris didn't have the benefit of lawyers

在這個意義上，Steel和Morris並沒有得到律師的幫助。

and so the judge gave them very great latitude

是以，法官給了他們很大的自由度

in the asking of their questions, the framing of their questions

在提出他們的問題，他們的問題的框架中

and the way in which they were able to comment.

以及他們能夠進行評論的方式。

And as a result, they were able to get things into the case,

結果是，他們能夠把東西弄到案子裡。

which a team of lawyers would have just been prevented from doing,

其中，一個律師團隊將剛剛被阻止做。

and that played to their real advantage.

這對他們起到了真正的好處。

And I think there's another issue as well, which is that

我認為還有一個問題，那就是

Steel and Morris were indigent: they were smart, but they had no money.

斯蒂爾和莫里斯很窮：他們很聰明，但他們沒有錢。

They had nothing to lose; they had no house to lose.

他們沒有什麼可失去的；他們沒有房子可失去。

Other people, who were also in the group,

其他的人，也在這個小組中。

settled out early with McDonald's,

儘早與麥當勞結算。

because they didn't want to lose their homes.

因為他們不想失去他們的家園。

Mark says Helen and David had nothing to lose, and that was an advantage.

馬克說，海倫和大衛沒有什麼可失去的，這就是一種優勢。

Ultimately, should big companies be allowed to sue individuals?

歸根結底，是否應該允許大公司起訴個人？

One of the real benefits for society, and a great outcome from this case,

對社會的真正好處之一，也是本案的一個偉大成果。

is that the law has now been amended so that companies can't sue for libel,

是，現在法律已經被修改，公司不能起訴誹謗。

because libel is about an individual's hurt feelings

因為誹謗是關於一個人的傷害的感情

and of course a company doesn't have feelings.

當然，公司是沒有感情的。

Of course, you know, directors and officers of a company

當然，你知道，一個公司的董事和高級職員

can sue for libel, but not a company any more.

可以起訴誹謗，但不能再起訴公司了。

So, this case couldn't be brought in the modern era,

所以，這個案子不可能在現代提起。

following these law reforms as a result of the McLibel case.

在這些法律改革之後，由於McLibel案的發生。

Companies now can't do this: this case resulted in UK law being changed

公司現在不能這樣做：此案導致英國法律被修改

so companies can't sue for libel.

所以公司不能起訴誹謗罪。

Mark Stephens showed us that not only can

馬克-斯蒂芬斯向我們表明，不僅可以

individuals take on these massive companies in court,

個人在法庭上與這些龐大的公司對抗。

they can sometimes even change the law

他們有時甚至可以改變法律

to help other individuals in future.

以便在未來幫助其他個人。

If you've ever had a flight cancelled,

如果你曾經有一個班機被取消。

you might have been able to claim compensation.

你可能已經能夠要求賠償。

And that could be because of one woman.

而這可能是由於一個女人。

Friederike Wallentin-Hermann's flight was cancelled

弗裡德里克-瓦倫丁-赫爾曼的班機被取消了

because the plane broke down.

因為飛機壞了。

The airline, Alitalia, said this was an 'exceptional circumstance' –

航空公司Alitalia說這是一個 "特殊情況" --

something very unusual and unpredictable –

非常不尋常和不可預知的事情

so they wouldn't refund customers the money they'd lost.

所以他們不會向客戶退還他們所損失的錢。

Friederike took this case to court,

弗裡德里克將此案告上法庭。

where a judge said that engine failure should be expected.

其中一位法官說，發動機故障應該是可以預期的。

The case went to higher European courts, but they said the same thing.

該案件被提交到歐洲高級法院，但他們說的是同樣的事情。

Friederike got her money back

弗裡德里克拿回了她的錢

and now all European customers are entitled to refunds

而現在所有歐洲客戶都有權獲得退款

for cancelled flights because of mechanical problems.

因機械問題而取消的班機。

Let's speak to aviation lawyer Tony Payne

讓我們採訪一下航空律師託尼-佩恩

about the impact one small case can have.

關於一個小案件可能產生的影響。

While it might only be a...

雖然這可能只是一個...

perceived as a small amount of money for one person,

被認為是一個人的小錢。

the reality of the situation is there are a lot of people

現實的情況是，有很多人

on any one flight and... and there are a lot of flights.

在任何一個班機上，......而且有很多班機。

And, by application therefore,

而且，通過申請，是以。

what you can see is one poor decision can have a floodgate effect.

你可以看到的是，一個糟糕的決定會產生水門效應。

And while this might only be £250,

雖然這可能只是250英鎊。

these sorts of claims, almost in a class action likeness,

這些種類的索賠，幾乎是集體訴訟的形式。

can end up being a very, very significant cost for an airline.

最終會成為航空公司非常、非常重要的成本。

That shows that one person taking a company to court and winning

這表明，一個人將一家公司告上法庭並獲勝

can make it more likely for others to win too.

可以使其他人也更有可能獲勝。

Will multinationals win in court

跨國公司將在法庭上獲勝

because they have more money than an individual?

因為他們比個人有更多的錢？

While it might be the perception

雖然這可能是一種看法

that the airlines have bottomless amounts of money,

航空公司有無底洞的資金。

that certainly is not the case: this...

當然不是這樣的：這...

they run very, very tight margins,

他們的利潤率非常、非常低。

which allows consumers like you and I

這使得像你和我這樣的消費者能夠

to purchase airline tickets at very low cost.

以非常低的成本購買機票。

So, they are in fact... can be losing a very significant amount of money

是以，他們事實上......可能會損失非常大的一筆錢

when these cases go against them.

當這些案件對他們不利時。

What Tony's saying is that airlines aren't as rich as they seem

託尼的意思是，航空公司並不像他們看起來那麼富有

and don't have unlimited money, so they can be in real danger

而且沒有無限的錢，所以他們可能會有真正的危險。

when a lot of people take them on in court.

當很多人在法庭上與他們對峙時。

So, can one case change the law?

那麼，一個案例能改變法律嗎？

Well, it's the basis on which the law is...

嗯，這是法律的基礎...

law is modified. So, the law is made by...

法律被修改。是以，法律是由...

by Parliament, or by the European Commission in this case,

由議會決定，或由歐盟委員會在本案中決定。

or the European Parliament, and the law will be modified

或歐洲議會，而法律將被修改

as the courts look to interpret

在法院解釋

the way in which that law has been created.

該法律的創建方式。

So, it does happen every day of the week:

是以，它確實在這一週的每一天都發生。

you know, the courts are in session all of the time

你知道，法院一直在開庭。

at different levels and the... that...

在不同的級別和......那......。

those statutes – that law is being interpreted.

這些法規--該法律正在被解釋。

So, it is something that is happening very, very regularly.

是以，這是一件非常、非常經常發生的事情。

In the aviation context,

在航空方面。

you might see something like this every six months –

你可能會看到這樣的事情，每六個月 -

that there is, sort of, significant new law coming about,

某種程度上，有重要的新法律即將出臺。

but I can tell you that, you know,

但我可以告訴你，你知道。

there are hundreds and hundreds of these claims on for...

有成百上千個這樣的索賠要求...

sometimes for any one airline at any one time. So, it's a...

有時在任何一個時間為任何一家航空公司。是以，它是一個...

it's a significant likelihood that you are seeing these things happen.

這是你看到這些事情發生的重要可能性。

This means that although parliaments or other bodies make the laws,

這意味著，儘管議會或其他機構制定了法律。

action by small people in court can and does have a real effect

小人物在法庭上的行動可以而且確實產生了真正的影響

in changing how the law is interpreted in court cases.

在改變法院案件中對法律的解釋方面。

That case might have left us wondering

這一案件可能讓我們感到疑惑

why Alitalia decided to go to court not once, but twice!

為什麼意大利航空公司決定上法庭不是一次，而是兩次！？

Tony explained that people can have a real impact on big companies.

託尼解釋說，人們可以對大公司產生真正的影響。

Often lots of people make the same complaint.

經常有很多人提出同樣的抱怨。

He also showed that the way the law is used

他還表明，法律的使用方式

is changed and updated by people like you going to court.

是由像你這樣的人上法庭來改變和更新的。

We also showed you how, when a national court fails you,

我們還向你展示了，當一個國家法院讓你失敗時，你是如何做到的。

you can take your case to an international court.

你可以把你的案件提交給國際法庭。