Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • I'd like to have you look at this pencil.

    請大家看看這支鉛筆 -

  • It's a thing. It's a legal thing.

    它是「法律上的物品」;

  • And so are books you might have or the cars you own.

    你們擁有的書本和汽車也一樣,

  • They're all legal things.

    它們全都是「法律上的物品」。

  • The great apes that you'll see behind me,

    你們即將在我背後屏幕上 所看到漂亮的黑猩猩,

  • they too are legal things.

    牠們也是法律上的物品;

  • Now, I can do that to a legal thing.

    此時此刻我可以對 法律上的物品做這種事,

  • I can do whatever I want to my book or my car.

    我可以隨意對我的書、 車子做任何事。

  • These great apes, you'll see.

    你們在螢幕上所看到 這些漂亮的黑猩猩,

  • The photographs are taken by a man named James Mollison

    照片是寫出「詹姆士以及其他黑猩猩」 的詹姆士.莫里森所拍下來的,

  • who wrote a book called "James & Other Apes."

    他在書中講訴牠們之中的 每單隻、幾乎每一隻,

  • And he tells in his book how every single one them,

    都是看著爸爸、媽媽 在眼前死去的孤兒,

  • almost every one of them, is an orphan

    牠們是法律上的物品!

  • who saw his mother and father die before his eyes.

    好幾個世紀以來 一直有道法律高牆

  • They're legal things.

    區隔開「法律上的物品」 和「法律上的常人」,

  • So for centuries, there's been a great legal wall

    牆的一邊 -「法律上的物品」 對法官來說就像空氣一樣,

  • that separates legal things from legal persons.

    它們在法律裡不算數,

  • On one hand, legal things are invisible to judges.

    它們不具有任何法律所賦予權利、

  • They don't count in law.

    沒有資格得到該權利 - 牠們是奴隸!

  • They don't have any legal rights.

    牆的另一邊是「法律上的常人」,

  • They don't have the capacity for legal rights.

    「法律上的常人」對法官來說是具體的、

  • They are the slaves.

    在法律裡是算數的;

  • On the other side of that legal wall are the legal persons.

    他們可能擁有多項權利、

  • Legal persons are very visible to judges.

    有取得無數權利的能力,

  • They count in law.

    而且他們是主子!

  • They may have many rights.

    此時此刻全部的非人類動物 都是法律上的物品、

  • They have the capacity for an infinite number of rights.

    所有人類都是「法人」;

  • And they're the masters.

    不過成為常人而且是法人,

  • Right now, all nonhuman animals are legal things.

    從來不曾是、在今天也不是 與法人有相同涵義的,

  • All human beings are legal persons.

    人類不等同法人!

  • But being human and being a legal person

    高牆的一邊

  • has never been, and is not today, synonymous with a legal person.

    長達好幾個世紀以來有許多人類

  • Humans and legal persons are not synonymous.

    一向都是法律上的物品,

  • On the one side,

    奴隸是法律上的物品、

  • there have been many human beings over the centuries

    女人、孩童有時候也是法律上的物品。

  • who have been legal things.

    確確實實長達過去好幾個 世紀以來大量的民權抗爭

  • Slaves were legal things.

    已經在這道高牆上打穿了一個洞, 而且開始把這些人送過高牆去,

  • Women, children, were sometimes legal things.

    把他們變成了法人。

  • Indeed, a great deal of civil rights struggle over the last centuries

    唉呀!不過那個洞已被關上了,

  • has been to punch a hole through that wall and begin to feed

    牆的另一邊是法人,

  • these human things through the wall and have them become legal persons.

    但是他們從來不是只侷限於人類,

  • But alas, that hole has closed up.

    例如有許多法人甚至不是活著的東西。

  • Now, on the other side are legal persons,

    在美國我們都清楚公司是法人的事實;

  • but they've never only been limited to human beings.

    在獨立前的印度有個法庭認定 一尊印度神像是法人、

  • There are, for example, there are many legal persons who are not even alive.

    一間清真寺是法人,

  • In the United States,

    在 2000 年時印度最高法院

  • we're aware of the fact that corporations are legal persons.

    裁定錫克教的聖典是法人;

  • In pre-independence India,

    而就在最近的 2012 年

  • a court held that a Hindu idol was a legal person,

    紐西蘭原住民和君權政府之間的公約

  • that a mosque was a legal person.

    認可了一條河流是法人,

  • In 2000, the Indian Supreme Court

    它擁有著自己的河床。

  • held that the holy books of the Sikh religion was a legal person,

    我在 1980 年時拜讀過 「彼得.辛格」的著作,

  • and in 2012, just recently,

    當時我有著滿頭茂盛的棕髮,

  • there was a treaty between the indigenous peoples of New Zealand

    而深深被這本書感動,

  • and the crown, in which it was agreed that a river was a legal person

    因為我成為律師就是為了 來替弱勢者出聲、

  • who owned its own riverbed.

    為無力辯護的人來辯護;

  • Now, I read Peter Singer's book in 1980,

    而我從來不知道 有多如牛毛的非人類動物

  • when I had a full head of lush, brown hair,

    是沒有聲音的、無力辯護的,

  • and indeed I was moved by it,

    於是我開始當護守動物權利的律師。

  • because I had become a lawyer because I wanted to speak for the voiceless,

    到了 1985 年我意識到 自己正嘗試在做某種

  • defend the defenseless,

    根本不可能成功的事,

  • and I'd never realized how voiceless and defenseless the trillions,

    理由就是我的所有客戶 -

  • billions of nonhuman animals are.

    所有我正在捍衛其權利的動物

  • And I began to work as an animal protection lawyer.

    都是法律上的物品、被當成空氣一般!

  • And by 1985, I realized that I was trying to accomplish something

    這根本行不通的,

  • that was literally impossible,

    因此我做出決定唯一的方法是 牠們必須 - 至少有些動物 -

  • the reason being that all of my clients,

    也得一樣穿過我們在法律高牆上 再度打開的孔洞,

  • all the animals whose interests I was trying to defend,

    開始將合適的非人類動物送過這孔洞

  • were legal things; they were invisible.

    去到身為法人的另一邊去。

  • It was not going to work, so I decided

    在那時候後有關實切動物的權力

  • that the only thing that was going to work was they had, at least some of them,

    所知不多、談論也少,

  • had to also be moved through a hole that we could open up again in that wall

    有關於讓非人類動物擁有法人身分 或是法律上之權力的概念,

  • and begin feeding the appropriate nonhuman animals through that hole

    因此我知道這條路很漫長。

  • onto the other side of being legal persons.

    所以在 1985 年時 我以為會花上三十年的時間,

  • Now, at that time, there was very little known about or spoken about

    我們才會有辦法幾乎發起一樁 策略性訴訟、長期抗爭,

  • truly animal rights,

    為了能夠在法律的高牆上打穿另一個洞,

  • about the idea of having legal personhood or legal rights for a nonhuman animal,

    結果證明我太悲觀了 - 這只花了 28 年。

  • and I knew it was going to take a long time.

    為了要開始我們必須做的不只是

  • And so, in 1985, I figured that it would take about 30 years

    寫寫法律評論文章、開課或出書而已,

  • before we'd be able to even begin a strategic litigation,

    而且我們得接著開始認真專注於

  • long-term campaign, in order to be able to punch another hole through that wall.

    要如何提起爭訟的具體細節。

  • It turned out that I was pessimistic, that it only took 28.

    因此首要之事裡面有一件 便是釐清事由 -

  • So what we had to do in order to begin was not only

    法律上的訴訟事由,

  • to write law review articles and teach classes, write books,

    訴訟事由是律師在法官面前 用來表達論點的方法。

  • but we had to then begin to get down to the nuts and bolts

    結果有個非常值得玩味的案子,

  • of how you litigate that kind of case.

    發生在約 250 年前的倫敦, 被稱做「桑莫塞特與史都華爭訟」,

  • So one of the first things we needed to do was figure out what a cause of action was,

    藉此一位黑人奴隸利用了司法的體制

  • a legal cause of action.

    從法律上的東西轉變成為法人!

  • And a legal cause of action is a vehicle that lawyers use

    我對該案件深感興趣, 我最終還為此寫了一整本書。

  • to put their arguments in front of courts.

    詹姆斯.桑默塞特在西非 遭到綁架時年僅八歲,

  • It turns out there's a very interesting case

    他熬過了「中央航線」,

  • that had occurred almost 250 years ago in London called Somerset vs. Stewart,

    以及在維吉尼亞州被賣給一名 蘇格蘭商人查爾斯.史都華。

  • whereby a black slave had used the legal system

    20 年後查爾斯帶著詹姆斯去到倫敦,

  • and had moved from a legal thing to a legal person.

    到倫敦後詹姆斯便決定要脫逃。

  • I was so interested in it that I eventually wrote an entire book about it.

    所以他所做的第一件事便是受洗,

  • James Somerset was an eight-year-old boy when he was kidnapped from West Africa.

    目的是為了得到一對教父、母;

  • He survived the Middle Passage,

    對一個十八世紀的奴隸來說

  • and he was sold to a Scottish businessman named Charles Stewart in Virginia.

    他們知道教父的一個重責大任 就是幫助你脫逃。

  • Now, 20 years later, Stewart brought James Somerset to London,

    而在 1771 年的秋天,

  • and after he got there, James decided he was going to escape.

    詹姆斯和查爾斯起了衝突,

  • And so one of the first things he did was to get himself baptized,

    我們也不知道到底是發生了什麼事, 不過後來詹姆斯消失不見了。

  • because he wanted to get a set of godparents,

    盛怒的查爾斯隨後雇用了 獵奴人查訪倫敦市,

  • because to an 18th-century slave,

    找出他、帶他回泊留在倫敦港的 「安與瑪莉號」船上

  • they knew that one of the major responsibilities of godfathers

    而非帶回給查爾斯;

  • was to help you escape.

    而且他被鏈鎖在甲板上,

  • And so in the fall of 1771,

    該船預定要航向牙買加,

  • James Somerset had a confrontation with Charles Stewart.

    在那裡詹姆斯即將在奴隸市場被賣掉,

  • We don't know exactly what happened, but then James dropped out of sight.

    他被註定了奴隸在牙買加會有的日子 三到五年裡不停收割甘蔗。

  • An enraged Charles Stewart then hired slave catchers

    不錯,當下詹姆斯的教父、母 迅速有所行動,

  • to canvass the city of London,

    找上了最權威的法官 -

  • find him, bring him not back to Charles Stewart,

    「曼斯菲爾德」大法官, 其為「王座法庭」的首席法官。

  • but to a ship, the Ann and Mary, that was floating in London Harbour,

    他們代表詹姆士要求他簽發 人身保護令普通法傳票。

  • and he was chained to the deck,

    普通法是當未被法令或是憲法所納入

  • and the ship was to set sail for Jamaica

    英語系國家的法官可以 制訂法條的法律;

  • where James was to be sold in the slave markets

    而人身保護令傳票叫做「大令狀」,

  • and be doomed to the three to five years of life that a slave had

    旨在保護我們誰違反自身意願 遭受拘禁的任何人。

  • harvesting sugar cane in Jamaica.

    一旦人身保護令傳票被簽發,

  • Well now James' godparents swung into action.

    拘禁人受命帶來受拘禁者到庭上

  • They approached the most powerful judge,

    並且給出剝奪其身體自由 在法律上的充分理由。

  • Lord Mansfield, who was chief judge of the court of King's Bench,

    好了,曼斯菲爾德大法官必須 即刻做出決定,

  • and they demanded that he issue a common law writ of habeus corpus

    因為詹姆士是「法律上的物品」

  • on behalf of James Somerset.

    他不合乎於人身保護令傳票的用途,

  • Now, the common law is the kind of law that English-speaking judges can make

    除非他可以是個法人。

  • when they're not cabined in by statutes or constitutions,

    所以曼斯菲爾德大法官決定 - 他將會假定而不是裁定

  • and a writ of habeus corpus is called the Great Writ,

    詹姆斯確實是個法人,

  • capital G, capital W,

    他簽發了人身保護令傳票, 詹姆士人就被該船船長帶來法庭上。

  • and it's meant to protect any of us who are detained against our will.

    接下來六個月內有一連串的聽證會。

  • A writ of habeus corpus is issued.

    1772 年 6 月 22 日曼斯菲爾德 大法官直言奴隸制度是如此醜惡,

  • The detainer is required to bring the detainee in

    他用了「醜惡」這個字眼,

  • and give a legally sufficient reason for depriving him of his bodily liberty.

    這下普通法不會再助長它的, 他發出釋放詹姆士的命令。

  • Well, Lord Mansfield had to make a decision right off the bat,

    在那一刻詹姆斯經歷了法律上的轉形,

  • because if James Somerset was a legal thing,

    走出法庭這個自由的男人

  • he was not eligible for a writ of habeus corpus,

    看起來和走進法庭的奴隸完全相像,

  • only if he could be a legal person.

    不過就法律層面而言 他倆已經沒有任何相同之處了。

  • So Lord Mansfield decided that he would assume,

    我所成立的 「非人類權利專案」 所做的下一件事情是

  • without deciding, that James Somerset was indeed a legal person,

    接著開始著眼於我們想放在法官面前的 是什麼樣的價值觀和原則,

  • and he issued the writ of habeus corpus, and James's body was brought in

    哪些價值觀和原則 對他們來說再自然不過?

  • by the captain of the ship.

    在法學院裡有上過?每天都會用到? 他們打從心底相信?

  • There were a series of hearings over the next six months.

    而我們選中「自由」和「平等」。

  • On June 22, 1772, Lord Mansfield said that slavery was so odious,

    如今自由之權是那種因為 你的外觀所被賦予的權利,

  • and he used the word "odious,"

    而基本的自由權保護基本的利益。

  • that the common law would not support it, and he ordered James free.

    普通法至高的利益

  • At that moment, James Somerset underwent a legal transubstantiation.

    是自主和自決的權力。

  • The free man who walked out of the courtroom

    所以這兩種權利非常強大,

  • looked exactly like the slave who had walked in,

    在普通法國家要是你進了醫院 而拒絕了保命的醫療救治,

  • but as far as the law was concerned, they had nothing whatsoever in common.

    法官不會下令使其強加於你身上,

  • The next thing we did is that the Nonhuman Rights Project,

    因為他們會尊重你的自決和自主權。

  • which I founded, then began to look at what kind of values and principles

    平等權是那種因為你很某人在有關方面

  • do we want to put before the judges?

    看起來很相像而你所被賦予的權利,

  • What values and principles did they imbibe with their mother's milk,

    這裡有一個關卡 - 相關方面;

  • were they taught in law school, do they use every day,

    所以要是你是那樣, 然後因為他們有權利、你和他們相像,

  • do they believe with all their hearts -- and we chose liberty and equality.

    你就被賦予了該權力。

  • Now, liberty right is the kind of right to which you're entitled

    如今法院和立法機構 不時劃分出界限,

  • because of how you're put together,

    有些人被包含在內、有些人排除在外。

  • and a fundamental liberty right protects a fundamental interest.

    但是在最低限度你一定要、你得要 -

  • And the supreme interest in the common law

    那條線對合法性的目標來說 得要是合理的方式,

  • are the rights to autonomy and self-determination.

    「非人類權利專案」 據理說明:畫出一條線

  • So they are so powerful that in a common law country,

    就為了宰制像你所看到在我背後螢幕上 有自主和自決力的生物,

  • if you go to a hospital and you refuse life-saving medical treatment,

    那是違背了平等權。

  • a judge will not order it forced upon you,

    然後我們找遍80個司法管轄區,

  • because they will respect your self-determination and your autonomy.

    花費了七年的時間,