It's time for the law to protect victims of gender violence | Laura L. Dunn

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Adrienne Lin

Throughout the United States, there is growing social awareness

在美國各地， 社會意識不斷在成長，

that sexual violence and harassment are far too common occurrences

意識到性暴力和性騷擾太常發生在

within our various institutions --

我們的各種機構當中——

occurrences often without any accountability.

發生卻沒有人負責。

As a result, the Me Too movement is upon us,

因此，出現了「我也是」運動，

and survivors everywhere are speaking out to demand change.

各地的性暴力倖存者 都勇於出聲，要求改變。

Students have rallied against sexual assault on campus.

學生團結起來，對抗校園性侵。

Service members have demanded Congress reform the military,

軍隊成員要求國會要改革軍方，

and workers ranging from Hollywood stars to janitorial staff

還有勞動者，從好萊塢 明星到工友都有，

have called out sexual harassment in the workplace.

大聲說出在工作場所的性騷擾遭遇。

This is a tipping point.

這是個關鍵轉折點。

This is when a social movement can create lasting legal change.

在這樣的時刻，社會運動 能夠創造出長久的法律改變。

But only if we switch tactics.

但前提是我們要改變戰略。

Instead of going institution by institution, fighting for reform,

不是再一個機構一個機構 造訪，為改革而戰，

it's time to go to the Constitution.

現在該是把矛頭 指向憲法的時候了。

As it stands, the US Constitution denies fundamental protections

現在的美國憲法拒絕將基本的保護

to victims of gender violence such as sexual assault,

提供給性別暴力受害者，如性侵、

intimate partner violence

親密伴侶暴力，

and stalking.

及跟蹤的受害者。

Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

明確來說，憲法第十四修正案

which prohibits state governments from abusing its citizens,

禁止州政府虐待其公民，

does not require state governments to intervene

但它卻沒有要求州政府去干涉

when private parties abuse its citizens.

私方對於其公民的虐待。

So what does that mean in real life?

那在現實中是什麼意思？

That means that when a woman calls the police from her home,

意思就是，當一名女子 從家中打電話報警，

afraid that an intruder may attack her,

說她很害怕，覺得有位 闖入者可能會攻擊她，

she is not entitled to the state's protection.

此時她卻沒資格得到州的保護。

Not only can the police fail to respond,

不但警方可以不回應，

but she will be left without any legal remedy

若最後確實發生了 本可預防的傷害，

if preventable harm occurs as a result.

她仍然無法得到任何法律賠償。

How can this be?

怎麼會這樣？

It is because the state, theoretically,

原因是因為，在理論上，

acts on behalf of all citizens collectively,

州可以代表整體公民來做事，

not any one citizen individually.

但不可代表個別的公民。

The resulting constitutional flaw directly contradicts international law,

這樣所產生出來的憲法瑕疵， 直接與國際法律抵觸，

which requires nation-states to intervene

國際法律要求民族國家要干涉

and protect citizens against gender violence by private parties

並保護公民， 避免受到私方的性別暴力，

as a human right.

這是一種人權。

Instead of requiring intervention,

我們的憲法不但沒有要求干涉，

our Constitution leaves discretion --

反而是把酌情權——

discretion that states have used to discriminate systemically

州用來做系統性區別的酌情權——

to deny countless victims any remedy.

用來拒絕提供任何賠償給受害者。

Unlike what you may have seen on "Law & Order: SVU,"

和影集《法律與秩序：特殊受害者》 演的不一樣，

justice is rare for victims of gender violence.

性別暴力的受害者通常 都不會見到正義伸張。

And even in those rare cases where law enforcement has chosen to act,

即使在少數的案例中， 執法單位選擇採取行動，

victims have no rights during the resulting criminal process.

在發生的刑事訴訟過程中， 受害者也沒有權利可言。

You see, victims are not parties in a criminal case.

你們要知道，在刑事案件中， 受害者並不算其中一方。

Rather, they are witnesses;

他們的身分倒是像個證人。

their bodies, evidence.

他們的身體，是證據。

The prosecution does not represent the interests of a victim.

檢方並不代表受害者的利益。

Rather, the prosecution represents the interests of the state.

檢方代表的反而是州的利益。

And the state has the discretion to dismiss criminal charges,

而州有酌情權， 可以駁回刑事指控，

enter lax plea deals

進入鬆散的認罪協商，

and otherwise remove a victim's voice from the process,

並用其他方式讓受害者 無法在訴訟過程中發聲，

because again,

因為，同樣的，

a state theoretically represents the interests of all citizens collectively

理論上，州代表的是 所有公民的集體利益，

and not any one citizen individually.

不是任何個別公民。

Despite this constitutional flaw,

儘管憲法有瑕疵，

some victims of gender violence have found protections

有些性別暴力的受害者還是在

under federal Civil Rights statutes,

聯邦公民權法規底下找到保護，

such as Title IX.

如教育法修正案第九條。

Title IX is not just about sports.

教育法修正案第九條 不只和運動有關。

Rather, it prohibits all forms of sex discrimination,

它禁止所有形式的性別歧視，

including sexual violence and harassment

包括在接受聯邦資助的 教育專案計畫中

within educational programs that accept federal funding.

發生的性暴力和性騷擾。

While initially targeting sex discrimination within admissions,

雖然一開始的目標是 為了防止入學的性別歧視，

Title IX has actually evolved over time

教育法修正案第九條 仍有隨著時間演變，

to require educational institutions to intervene and address gender violence

開始要求教育機構 干涉和處理性別暴力，

when committed by certain parties,

只要是由某些方所犯下的，

such as when teachers, students or campus visitors commit sexual assault

比如老師、學生， 或校園訪客犯下性侵

or harassment.

或性騷擾。

So what this means is that through Title IX,

所以，意思就是說， 透過教育法修正案第九條，

those who seek access to education are protected against gender violence

接受教育的人能受到保護， 不受到性別暴力的傷害，

in a way that otherwise does not exist under the law.

在法律之下，其他情況 是沒有這種保護方式的。

It is Title IX that requires educational institutions

教育法修正案第九條要求教育機構

to take reports of gender violence seriously,

要認真看待關於性別暴力的通報，

or to suffer liability.

否則就要負責任。

And through campus-level proceedings,

透過校園層級的訴訟程序，

Title IX goes so far as to give victims equitable rights

教育法修正案第九條 能夠做到在校園訴訟程序中

during the campus process,

給予受害者公平的權利，

which means that victims can represent their own interests during proceedings,

也就是說，在訴訟程序中， 受害者可以代表他們自身的利益，

rather than relying on educational institutions to do so.

而不用依靠教育機構 來代表他們的利益。

And that's really important,

這點十分重要，

because educational institutions have historically swept gender violence

因為教育機構過去有不良記錄，

刻意隱瞞性別暴力，

under the rug,

much like our criminal justice system does today.

和我們現今的刑事司法體制很像。

So while Civil Rights protects some victims,

所以，雖然公民權能保護一些受害者，

we should want to protect all victims.

我們應該要保護的是所有的受害者。

Rather than going institution by institution,

與其一個機構一個機構造訪，

fighting for reform on campus, in the military, in the workplace,

為了校園、軍隊、 工作場所的改革而戰，

it's time to go to the Constitution

現在該是把矛頭指向憲法，

and pass the Equal Rights Amendment.

並通過平等權利修正案的時候了。

Originally proposed in 1923,

平等權利修正案 原本在 1923 年提出，

the Equal Rights Amendment would guarantee gender equality under the law,

旨在保障法律下的性別平等，

and much like Title IX on campus,

很像教育法修正案第九條之於校園，

that constitutional amendment could require states to intervene

該憲法修正案能夠要求各州去干涉

and address gender violence

並處理性別暴力，

as a prohibitive form of sex discrimination.

做為禁止性別歧視的一種措施。

While the Equal Rights Amendment did not pass in the 1970s,

雖然在七○年代， 平等權利修正案沒有被通過，

it actually came within three states of doing so.

其實已經有三個州就快要通過了。

And within the last year,

去年，

at least one of those states has ratified the amendment,

至少其中一州已經批准了該修正案，

because we live in different political times.

因為我們身在不同的政治時代。

From the Women's March to the Me Too movement,

從女性大遊行到「我也是」運動，

we have the growing political will of the people

大家不斷成長的政治意志

necessary to create lasting, legal change.

已經足以創造出長久的法律變遷。

So as a victims' rights attorney

所以，身為維護受害者權利的律師，

fighting to increase the prospect of justice

我努力為全國各地的倖存者

for survivors across the country

伸張正義，

and as a survivor myself,

我也同為受害者，

I'm not here to say, "Time's Up."

我不是來這裡說「時間到了」。

I'm here to say, "It's time."

我是來這裡說「是時候了」。

It's time for accountability to become the norm after gender violence.

該是建立準則讓性別暴力 犯罪者負責任的時候了。

It's time to pass the Equal Rights Amendment,

該是通過平等權利修正案的時候了，

so that our legal system can become a system of justice,

這樣我們的法律體制 才能變成正義的體制，

and #MeToo can finally become "no more."

而「我也是」才能終於 能夠變成「不再發生」。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）