With respect to animals, yes. The Humane Party position vis-a-vis genetic manipulation of animals is substantially similar to that of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (“UNESCO”), except that the HP position extends protection to all sentient species, just as the HP’s position extends protection to all sentient species in other matters. See, e.g., HP Platform, §10.
With respect to plants, no. The Humane Party position calls for a ban on all GMO plants that are designed to kill animals, such as plants that are genetically engineered to be toxic (e.g., plants that are euphemistically labeled “plant-incorporated protectants” or “PIPs” by the Democrat-Republicans and their corporate sponsors). The HP also calls for strict liability for the release of any genetically manipulated organism into contact with the natural environment (e.g., GMO crops planted outdoors). See, e.g., HP Platform, §10. But the HP platform does not take a position on genetic engineering of non-sentient organisms in a contained environment (e.g., a lab).
Note that the HP position, while it addresses the food supply, is not and never has been based on whether or not GMO foods are toxic to humans. A plant engineered to kill other animals (e.g., insects) falls squarely into the category to be banned regardless of whether it is safe for humans.
No. Vaccination has proven to be one of the most effective public health measures in history.
If a particular vaccine is tested in an unethical manner (e.g., tested without the informed consent of the person being tested), the HP would oppose that testing for the same reason it opposes torture/vivisection in all other contexts. See, e.g., Humane Party Platform §10 .
Yes. Even after the meat, dairy, egg, vivisection, and other violence- and exploitation-based industries have been forever expunged from U.S. territory, and even after the legal status of all animals has been changed from “property” to “persons” such that the institution of slavery and “ownership” of sentient beings has been forever abolished in all U.S. jurisdictions, animal-welfare laws will still be necessary.
Returning adventurous animals to safety. In a post-abolition world, other animals, such as the adventurous reptile seen in the photo below, will continue to innocently wander into human-dominated areas. Other species do not recognize anthropogenic, anthropocentric boundaries. But crossing into human-dominated areas represents an extreme peril for virtually all other species.
Animal-welfare laws will, therefore, still be needed for establishing procedures for returning such animals to areas where they can be safe from intentional human violence—unfortunately, violent, animal-abusing criminals are likely to still exist even after abolition has been achieved—or from accidental human violence (e.g., being hit by a vehicle).
Habitat-protection and crime-victim-rehabilitation laws. The “adventurous animal” case is but one of many examples of animal-welfare laws that will remain necessary even after abolition has been achieved. Other examples include (i) all manner of environmental-protection laws, those designed to prevent human encroachment on or destruction of other animals’ homes and ecosystems, and (ii) animal-refugee or crime-survivor laws, those designed to help find, rescue, rehabilitate, and repatriate animals who are victims of kidnapping, trafficking, and enslavement. These crimes will, in all likelihood, continue to be committed against both humans and other animals, even after the Abolition Amendment has been passed. Animal-welfare laws will, therefore, continue to be needed to ensure that survivors of such ordeals can safely return to a normal life.
The Non-Militarization of Animals Treaty (“NMAT”) is a treaty proposed by the Humane Party, for agreement by and between any and all nations, to exclude, inter alia, (i) the use of animals in warfare, including as weapons, “living shields,” or intelligence gatherers; and (ii) the use of any drones or other machines which resemble animals.
The International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Faunacide (i.e., the “Faunacide Convention”) strengthens the protections of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (i.e., the “Genocide Convention”) and extends those protections to all other sentient species.
The Genocide Convention was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and went into force in 1951. The text of the Faunacide Convention is substantially identical to that of the Genocide Convention, except for the additional protections described in Sections 2 of the Faunacide Convention.
Civil Rights Day is an annual celebration established by the Humane Party in order to (i) commemorate past civil rights victories and (ii) promote further protection of civil rights in the United States. Civil Rights Day is celebrated on April 9, which is the anniversary of the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Yes. State constitutions can be amended to abolish all forms of slavery within the given state’s jurisdiction even prior to the passage of the Abolition Amendment at the federal level. That is, of course, exactly what happened in the case of human slavery, which had already been abolished in many states by the time the 13th Amendment was ratified.
To pass the Abolition Amendment at the state level, simply change the federal references to appropriate state references, such as:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude of any animal shall exist within the state of New Yorkthe United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.The state legislatureCongress shall, within two years of ratification hereof, establish a system whereby the writ of habeas corpus shall be available to ensure the rights of any animal or group of animals…..
Passing the Abolition Amendment at the state level will help the abolition movement as a whole gain momentum. However, focus should ultimately remain on passing the Abolition Amendment at the federal level to avoid the slave state vs. free state dynamic and related problems.
Outreach attire. When representing the Humane Party at a booth or table, a panel or presentation, or other in-person, public-outreach setting, team members should wear “professional” attire. Such attire would include, for instance, clothes that one would wear for a job interview (e.g., for males, a suit and tie).
Wearing a Humane Party button with one’s professional attire will provide the finishing touch.
Any out-of-pocket expenditure made on behalf of the Humane Party (for example, a volunteer’s personal payment of a booth fee for a Humane Party booth) should be reported to the Humane Party as an “in-kind” contribution. Such contributions will, in turn, be reported by the Humane Party to the appropriate governmental agency.
Exception: expenditures that fall under the “travel exception” (below) do not need to be reported:
Exempt Travel. An individual may spend up to $2,000 per calendar year on his or her own transportation expenses for party-related travel without making a contribution, and a volunteer may spend unlimited amounts for his or her normal subsistence expenses (food and lodging) while volunteering.
~ Federal Election Commission Guide, 100.79 and 116.5(b)(1).
When opening new electronic accounts (such as a social media account) for a Humane Party state chapter, team members should follow certain conventions with respect to the names of the accounts. Here are models or templates for account names, listed in descending order of preference (i.e., beginning with the best choice):
“humane” + [two-letter postal abbreviation for that state] ….. then, if that’s not available:
“humane” + [full state name]
[two-letter abbreviation] + “humane”
[full state name] + “humane”
Thus, for example, when opening a social media account for the Humane Party of California (which state’s two-letter postal abbreviation is “CA”), the following nomenclature choices should be followed (in descending order of preference):