Throughout the United States, there is growing social awareness that sexual violence and harassment are far too common occurrences within our various institutions -- occurrences often without any accountability. As a result, the Me Too movement is upon us, and survivors everywhere are speaking out to demand change. Students have rallied against sexual assault on campus. Service members have demanded Congress reform the military, and workers ranging from Hollywood stars to janitorial staff have called out sexual harassment in the workplace. This is a tipping point. This is when a social movement can create lasting legal change. But only if we switch tactics. Instead of going institution by institution, fighting for reform, it's time to go to the Constitution.
在美國各地, 社會意識不斷在成長, 意識到性暴力和性騷擾太常發生在 我們的各種機構當中—— 發生卻沒有人負責。 因此,出現了「我也是」運動, 各地的性暴力倖存者 都勇於出聲,要求改變。 學生團結起來,對抗校園性侵。 軍隊成員要求國會要改革軍方, 還有勞動者,從好萊塢 明星到工友都有, 大聲說出在工作場所的性騷擾遭遇。 這是個關鍵轉折點。 在這樣的時刻,社會運動 能夠創造出長久的法律改變。 但前提是我們要改變戰略。 不是再一個機構一個機構 造訪,為改革而戰, 現在該是把矛頭 指向憲法的時候了。
As it stands, the US Constitution denies fundamental protections to victims of gender violence such as sexual assault, intimate partner violence and stalking. Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits state governments from abusing its citizens, does not require state governments to intervene when private parties abuse its citizens. So what does that mean in real life? That means that when a woman calls the police from her home, afraid that an intruder may attack her, she is not entitled to the state's protection. Not only can the police fail to respond, but she will be left without any legal remedy if preventable harm occurs as a result.
現在的美國憲法拒絕將基本的保護 提供給性別暴力受害者,如性侵、 親密伴侶暴力, 及跟蹤的受害者。 明確來說,憲法第十四修正案 禁止州政府虐待其公民, 但它卻沒有要求州政府去干涉 私方對於其公民的虐待。 那在現實中是什麼意思? 意思就是,當一名女子 從家中打電話報警, 說她很害怕,覺得有位 闖入者可能會攻擊她, 此時她卻沒資格得到州的保護。 不但警方可以不回應, 若最後確實發生了 本可預防的傷害, 她仍然無法得到任何法律賠償。
How can this be? It is because the state, theoretically, acts on behalf of all citizens collectively, not any one citizen individually. The resulting constitutional flaw directly contradicts international law, which requires nation-states to intervene and protect citizens against gender violence by private parties as a human right. Instead of requiring intervention, our Constitution leaves discretion -- discretion that states have used to discriminate systemically to deny countless victims any remedy.
怎麼會這樣? 原因是因為,在理論上, 州可以代表整體公民來做事, 但不可代表個別的公民。 這樣所產生出來的憲法瑕疵, 直接與國際法律抵觸, 國際法律要求民族國家要干涉 並保護公民, 避免受到私方的性別暴力, 這是一種人權。 我們的憲法不但沒有要求干涉, 反而是把酌情權—— 州用來做系統性區別的酌情權—— 用來拒絕提供任何賠償給受害者。
Unlike what you may have seen on "Law & Order: SVU," justice is rare for victims of gender violence. And even in those rare cases where law enforcement has chosen to act, victims have no rights during the resulting criminal process. You see, victims are not parties in a criminal case. Rather, they are witnesses; their bodies, evidence. The prosecution does not represent the interests of a victim. Rather, the prosecution represents the interests of the state. And the state has the discretion to dismiss criminal charges, enter lax plea deals and otherwise remove a victim's voice from the process, because again, a state theoretically represents the interests of all citizens collectively and not any one citizen individually.
和影集《法律與秩序:特殊受害者》 演的不一樣, 性別暴力的受害者通常 都不會見到正義伸張。 即使在少數的案例中, 執法單位選擇採取行動, 在發生的刑事訴訟過程中, 受害者也沒有權利可言。 你們要知道,在刑事案件中, 受害者並不算其中一方。 他們的身分倒是像個證人。 他們的身體,是證據。 檢方並不代表受害者的利益。 檢方代表的反而是州的利益。 而州有酌情權, 可以駁回刑事指控, 進入鬆散的認罪協商, 並用其他方式讓受害者 無法在訴訟過程中發聲, 因為,同樣的, 理論上,州代表的是 所有公民的集體利益, 不是任何個別公民。
Despite this constitutional flaw, some victims of gender violence have found protections under federal Civil Rights statutes, such as Title IX. Title IX is not just about sports. Rather, it prohibits all forms of sex discrimination, including sexual violence and harassment within educational programs that accept federal funding. While initially targeting sex discrimination within admissions, Title IX has actually evolved over time to require educational institutions to intervene and address gender violence when committed by certain parties, such as when teachers, students or campus visitors commit sexual assault or harassment.
儘管憲法有瑕疵, 有些性別暴力的受害者還是在 聯邦公民權法規底下找到保護, 如教育法修正案第九條。 教育法修正案第九條 不只和運動有關。 它禁止所有形式的性別歧視, 包括在接受聯邦資助的 教育專案計畫中 發生的性暴力和性騷擾。 雖然一開始的目標是 為了防止入學的性別歧視, 教育法修正案第九條 仍有隨著時間演變, 開始要求教育機構 干涉和處理性別暴力, 只要是由某些方所犯下的, 比如老師、學生, 或校園訪客犯下性侵 或性騷擾。
So what this means is that through Title IX, those who seek access to education are protected against gender violence in a way that otherwise does not exist under the law. It is Title IX that requires educational institutions to take reports of gender violence seriously, or to suffer liability. And through campus-level proceedings, Title IX goes so far as to give victims equitable rights during the campus process, which means that victims can represent their own interests during proceedings, rather than relying on educational institutions to do so. And that's really important, because educational institutions have historically swept gender violence under the rug, much like our criminal justice system does today. So while Civil Rights protects some victims, we should want to protect all victims. Rather than going institution by institution, fighting for reform on campus, in the military, in the workplace, it's time to go to the Constitution and pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
所以,意思就是說, 透過教育法修正案第九條, 接受教育的人能受到保護, 不受到性別暴力的傷害, 在法律之下,其他情況 是沒有這種保護方式的。 教育法修正案第九條要求教育機構 要認真看待關於性別暴力的通報, 否則就要負責任。 透過校園層級的訴訟程序, 教育法修正案第九條 能夠做到在校園訴訟程序中 給予受害者公平的權利, 也就是說,在訴訟程序中, 受害者可以代表他們自身的利益, 而不用依靠教育機構 來代表他們的利益。 這點十分重要, 因為教育機構過去有不良記錄, 刻意隱瞞性別暴力, 和我們現今的刑事司法體制很像。 所以,雖然公民權能保護一些受害者, 我們應該要保護的是所有的受害者。 與其一個機構一個機構造訪, 為了校園、軍隊、 工作場所的改革而戰, 現在該是把矛頭指向憲法, 並通過平等權利修正案的時候了。
Originally proposed in 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment would guarantee gender equality under the law, and much like Title IX on campus, that constitutional amendment could require states to intervene and address gender violence as a prohibitive form of sex discrimination. While the Equal Rights Amendment did not pass in the 1970s, it actually came within three states of doing so. And within the last year, at least one of those states has ratified the amendment, because we live in different political times. From the Women's March to the Me Too movement, we have the growing political will of the people necessary to create lasting, legal change.
平等權利修正案 原本在 1923 年提出, 旨在保障法律下的性別平等, 很像教育法修正案第九條之於校園, 該憲法修正案能夠要求各州去干涉 並處理性別暴力, 做為禁止性別歧視的一種措施。 雖然在七○年代, 平等權利修正案沒有被通過, 其實已經有三個州就快要通過了。 去年, 至少其中一州已經批准了該修正案, 因為我們身在不同的政治時代。 從女性大遊行到「我也是」運動, 大家不斷成長的政治意志 已經足以創造出長久的法律變遷。
So as a victims' rights attorney fighting to increase the prospect of justice for survivors across the country and as a survivor myself, I'm not here to say, "Time's Up." I'm here to say, "It's time." It's time for accountability to become the norm after gender violence. It's time to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, so that our legal system can become a system of justice, and #MeToo can finally become "no more."
所以,身為維護受害者權利的律師, 我努力為全國各地的倖存者 伸張正義, 我也同為受害者, 我不是來這裡說「時間到了」。 我是來這裡說「是時候了」。 該是建立準則讓性別暴力 犯罪者負責任的時候了。 該是通過平等權利修正案的時候了, 這樣我們的法律體制 才能變成正義的體制, 而「我也是」才能終於 能夠變成「不再發生」。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)