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.
美國上下，越來越多的人意識到 性暴力和性騷擾在我們的各個組織中 發生得實在過於普遍了。這些行為卻常常沒有受到任何追究。於是，「我也是（Me Too）」 這個運動誕生了。 各地的受害者都在 大聲疾呼，要求改變現狀。學生們在校園集會反對性侵犯， 服役人員要求國會改革軍隊， 從好萊塢明星到門衛的工作人員， 都在大聲揭露辦公場所的性騷擾。這是一個轉折點。 這是一個社會運動創造 持久法律變革的時候。 但前提是我們要改變策略。不要再通過一個又一個機構 去爭取變革， 是時候訴諸於憲法了。
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.
就目前的情況看，美國憲法並沒有對 性侵犯，親密伴侶暴力和騷擾 等性別暴力行為的受害者 提供基本保護。 尤其是憲法第十四條修正案， 旨在禁止政府濫用權力， 不要求州政府干涉 在私人團體中發生的， 虐待其成員的行為。 那麼這在現實中意味著什麼？ 這意味著當一個女性在家中報警， 擔憂入侵者將要攻擊她時， 她沒有資格得到國家保護。 不僅警方無法做出回應， 甚至當可預防的傷害發生後， 她也不受任何法律保護。
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.
為什麼會這樣？ 這是因為國家，在理論上 代表全民的共同利益， 而非針對每一個個體。 由此產生的憲法缺陷 直接違背了國際法。 國際法要求國家幹預 和保護公民免受 親密伴侶的性別暴力， 這是一項人權。 不幹預也罷了， 我們的憲法還留下了 自由裁量權—— 使得州政府習慣了系統性歧視， 去否決無數受害者的任何補救措施。
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.
跟你們在《法律與秩序：特殊受害者》 中看到的不一樣， 正義很少降臨到 性別暴力受害者身上。 即便在極少數的案子中， 執法部門已經選擇採取行動， 受害者在刑事訴訟過程中 也沒有任何權利。 你看，受害者並不是 刑事案件的當事人。 相反，它們是證人， 他們的身體，是證據。 控方不代表受害人的利益， 相反，控方代表著國家的利益。 國家有權撤銷刑事指控， 進入寬鬆的認罪協議， 還會從過程中 移除受害者的聲音。 又是因為 國家理論上代表全體公民的利益， 而非每一個個體公民的利益。
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.
儘管存在這一憲法缺陷， 有部分性別暴力的受害者 在聯邦民權法規中 找到過保護措施， 比如美國教育法 第九修正案（Title IX）。 第九修正案不僅是關於體育運動的， 它更是禁止了一切形式的性別歧視， 包括在接受聯邦資助的 教育項目中的 性暴力和性騷擾。 最初這個法律的目標 是針對招生性別歧視， 但第九修正案慢慢演變成 要求教育機構對特定群體的 性別暴力問題 進行幹預並解決， 比如老師，學生或 校園訪客實施的性侵犯 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.
所以這意味著通過第九修正案， 那些正接受教育的人受到了 不受性別暴力侵害的保護， 以一種除此之外 則不受法律管轄的方式。 第九修正案要求教育機構認真對待 性別暴力報告， 或者承擔責任。 通過校園層級的訴訟， 第九修正案目前賦予了在校受害者 公平的權利， 這意味著受害者可以在訴訟過程中 代表他們自己的利益， 而不需要依賴教育機構。 這真的非常重要。 因為教育機構過去 掩蓋性別暴力的歷史 劣跡斑斑， 跟我們今天的刑事司法系統一樣。 所以雖然公民權利 保護了一些受害者， 我們還應該去保護所有的受害者。 不要再通過一個又一個組織，在校園、在軍隊、 在工作場所爭取改革。 是時候訴諸於憲法， 通過平等權利修正案了。
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.
最初於1923年提出的 平等權利修正案， 將保證法律規定的性別平等。 跟校園裡的第九修正案類似， 憲法修正案可要求各州進行幹預， 解決性別暴力問題， 將其作為一種 禁止性別歧視的方式。 在20世紀70年代， 平等權利修正案沒有通過時， 它實際在三個州內是有實行的。 在過去的一年裡， 至少其中一個州 已經批准了該修正案， 因為我們生活在不同的政治時代。 從婦女遊行到「我也是」運動， 我們有越來越多的政治意願 去創造持久的法律變革。
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."
所以作為一名受害者權益律師， 為全國各地的倖存者 爭取正義的前景， 同時也作為一個倖存者， 我在這裡不是要說：「時間到了」。 我想說的是：「是時候了」。 性別暴力之後，現在是 把追究責任正常化的時候了。 是時候通過平等權利修正案了。 這樣我們的法律體系就可以 成為一個公正的體系， 而「我也是」最後就會變成「不再有」。
Thank you.
謝謝