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，

Now, an equality right is the kind of right to which you're entitled

找出我們要提出第一個 訴案的司法管轄地，

because you resemble someone else in a relevant way,

我們選擇了紐約。