评论
打印
She has four limbs, expressive eyes and likes to walk through greenery in New York City.
她有四条腿，一双富有表情的眼睛，喜欢在纽约市的绿叶植物中漫步。
Happy is an Asian elephant.
Happy是一头亚洲象。
But can she also be considered a person?
但她也能被视为一个人吗？
That question was before New York's highest court this week.
这个问题本周在纽约最高法院提出。
The case involves the Nonhuman Rights Project (NRP) and the Bronx Zoo.
此案涉及非人类权利计划和布朗克斯动物园。
Supporters at the Nonhuman Rights Project say Happy is an independent being with complex thinking abilities.
非人类权利计划的支持者表示，Happy是一个具有复杂思维能力的独立个体。
They want her moved from what they say is a prison-like space she lives in at the zoo.
他们想让她从他们所说的该动物园的一处像监狱一样的住所离开。
They argue that she should have that right under law as "a person."
他们辩称，根据法律，她应该像“人”一样享有这一权利。
The Bronx Zoo, where Happy lives, argues Happy is neither illegally imprisoned nor a person.
Happy所在的布朗克斯动物园认为，Happy既没有遭到非法监禁，也不是人。
The zoo says Happy is a well-cared-for elephant "respected as the magnificent creature she is."
该动物园表示，Happy是一头被精心照顾的大象，“一只受到尊敬的伟大生物。”
Happy has lived at the Bronx Zoo for 45 years.
Happy已经在布朗克斯动物园生活了45年。
The state Court of Appeals heard arguments over whether she should be released through a special proceeding, known as a habeas corpus proceeding.
州上诉法院听取了关于是否应该通过特别程序（即人身保护令程序）释放她的辩论。
It is a way for people to fight illegal imprisonment.
这是人们反对非法监禁的一种方式。
The Nonhuman Rights Project wants Happy moved from the zoo to a larger area.
非人类权利计划希望Happy从该动物园搬到更大的地方。
Project attorney Monica Miller told The Associated Press ahead of the court arguments that Happy "has an interest in exercising her choices and deciding who she wants to be with, and where to go, and what to do, and what to eat."
该计划的律师莫妮卡·米勒在法庭辩论前告诉美联社，Happy“有兴趣行使她的选择，决定她想和谁在一起，去哪里，做什么，吃什么。”
Miller added, "And the zoo is prohibiting her from making any of those choices herself."
米勒还说，“该动物园禁止她自己做选择。”
The group said that in 2005, Happy became the first elephant to pass a self-awareness test.
该组织表示，2005年，Happy成为第一头通过自我意识测试的大象。
Happy repeatedly touched a white "X" on her forehead as she looked into a large mirror.
当Happy看着一面大镜子时，她反复触摸她额头上的一个白色的“X”标记。
The zoo and its supporters warn that a win for the Nonhuman Rights Project could open the door to more legal actions about animals, including pets and other animals in zoos.
该动物园及其支持者警告称，非人类权利计划的胜利可能会为更多关于动物的法律行动打开大门，包括宠物和动物园里的其他动物。
Happy was born in the wild in Asia in the early 1970s.
Happy于上世纪70年代初出生在亚洲的野外。
She was captured and brought as a 1-year-old to the United States.
她在1岁时被捕并被带到美国。
Happy arrived at the Bronx Zoo in 1977 with Grumpy, another elephant.
1977年，Happy和另一头大象Grumpy一起来到布朗克斯动物园。
Grumpy died 20 years ago after a fight with two other elephants.
20年前，Grumpy在与另外两头大象打架后死亡。
Happy now lives in an area next to the zoo's other elephant, Patty.
Happy现在住在该动物园的另一头大象Patty旁边的一个区域。
The zoo's attorney argued in court filings that Happy can swim, eat and do other behaviors that are natural for elephants.
该动物园的律师在提交给法庭的文件中辩称，Happy会做诸如游泳、吃东西等对大象来说很自然的行为。
NRP's lawyers say no matter how Happy is being treated at the zoo, her right to "bodily liberty" is being violated.
非人类权利计划的律师表示，无论Happy在该动物园受到怎样的待遇，她的“身体自由”权利都受到了侵犯。
If the court recognizes Happy's right to that liberty under habeas corpus, she must be released, they argue.
他们争辩说，如果根据人身保护令，法院承认Happy享有自由权，她就必须被释放。
Judge Jenny Rivera asked Miller about NRP's position on human-animal relationships.
珍妮·里维拉法官向米勒询问了非人类权利计划在人与动物关系上的立场。
"So does that mean that I couldn't keep a dog?" Rivera asked.
里维拉问道：“这是不是意味着我不能养狗了？”
"I mean, dogs can memorize words."
“我的意思是，狗可以记住单词。”
Miller said there evidence showing elephants are more mentally complex.
米勒说，有证据表明大象的心智更复杂。
Lower courts have ruled against the NRP.
下级法院已经做出了不利于非人类权利计划的裁决。
And the group has failed to win in similar cases, including one involving a chimpanzee named Tommy.
该组织在类似的案件中也未能获胜，其中包括一起涉及一只名叫汤米的黑猩猩的案件。
Opponents hope the NRP's series of court losses continues with the New York court.
反对者希望非人类权利计划在纽约法院继续败诉。
The court's decision is expected in the coming months.
预计该法院将在未来几个月做出裁决。
At least one animal rights supporter suggests a court decision will not change society's view of animal use.
至少有一名动物权利支持者表示，法院的裁决不会改变社会对动物使用的看法。
Rutgers Law School professor Gary Francione, who is not involved in the case, said that would require a wider cultural change.
罗格斯大学法学院教授加里·弗朗西奥内没有参与此案，他表示，这需要更广泛的文化变革。
I'm John Russell.
约翰·拉塞尔为您播报。
译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！
