This chart provides a good breakdown of five different tiers of the animal-protection movement. Find the one that’s right for you and then let the Humane Party know by submitting the volunteer application.
During the process of creating and naming what is now called the Humane Party, this organization had three alternate names. They were:
- the “Vegan Party”
- the “Abolition Party”
- the “Humane Party”
All three of these names are now, always have been, and always will be accurate ways to refer to the Humane Party.
For example, the Humane Party is indeed the Vegan Party, because it requires, through the Humane Party Oath, that all candidates, officers, and board members must be vegan. Moreover, the Humane Party is indeed the Abolition Party, because it is expressly committed to abolition of all forms of slavery.
Notwithstanding the accuracy of all three names, the Humane Party chose the “Humane Party” name as its formal name because the word “humane” encompasses many concerns that fall outside of the commonly understood scope of the word “abolition”. For instance, the Humane Party’s leadership in areas such as civil rights (for example, the Equal Rights Amendment II (ERA2)) falls comfortably within the generally recognized ambit of the word “humane” but may not relate as directly to the word “abolition.”
Modern abolitionists often ask about the origin of the text of Section 1 of the Abolition Amendment, particularly the phrase “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude”. This phrase is a word-for-word quote from the 13th Amendment. Re-using this phrase verbatim has several benefits, such as:
- INTENDED RESULT: the actual, historical effect of the 13th Amendment is undeniable: it ended human slavery; re-using the operative text of the 13th Amendment sends a clear signal that the Abolition Amendment will do the same thing for other animals
- TAPPING INTO EXISTING PRECEDENTS: legal precedents based on the 13th Amendment will be more easily applied to cases involving the Abolition Amendment if the language used is identical; in other words, by re-using this language, the modern abolition movement taps into the power of 100+ years of existing case law interpreting this language
- RATIFICATION PROCESS: the political process of getting a Constitutional amendment ratified is very difficult; by re-using language that is already in the Constitution, the modern abolition movement minimizes the number of arguments available to pro-violence, pro-exploitation advocates; in other words, there’s simply a lot less to argue about than there would be if new language were used
These reasons represent some of the many benefits of keeping the text of the Abolition Amendment close to the relevant portions of the text of the 13th Amendment.
During the earliest days of the entity now called the Humane Party, this organization had three alternate names: the “Vegan Party”, the “Abolition Party”, and the “Humane Party”. All three of these names are now, always have been, and always will be accurate ways to refer to the Humane Party.
For example, the Humane Party is indeed the Vegan Party, because it is the first (and currently only) U.S. political party that requires all candidates, officers, and board members to be vegan. Moreover, the Humane party is indeed the Abolition Party, because it is the first (and currently only) U.S. political party committed to abolition of slavery.
Notwithstanding the accuracy of all three names, the Humane Party eventually chose the “Humane Party” name as its formal name because the word “humane” encompasses many concerns that fall outside of the commonly understood scope of the word “vegan” or the word “abolition”. For instance, the Humane Party’s leadership in areas such as civil rights, health care, economic development, and national security falls more comfortably within the generally recognized ambit of the word “humane” than that of the other two choices.
The “Violence Is Not Entertainment” (VINE) Act is a proposed update of U.S. intellectual property law. Under the VINE Act, animal abusers can no longer establish, maintain, or enforce intellectual property (“IP”) rights in material that includes abuse of a live animal.
The VINE Act directly impacts two bodies of IP law at the federal level—copyright and trademark—and serves as a model for analogous legislation at the state level. Drafting of a separate act abolishing patent eligibility for animal-abuse methods and devices is also underway.
Materials described in 17 U.S.C. 102—such as still photographs, video recordings, or audio recordings—will be excluded from copyright eligibility if those materials record acts of animal abuse. For example, property rights under U.S. law no longer attach to materials recording bullfights, dogfights, cockfights, horse races, dog races, animal sacrifices, vivisection, bestiality, or rodeo events, regardless of where those materials are recorded.
This portion of the VINE Act depropertizes only those materials that visibly or audibly record abuse of an actual, living animal. For example, illustrations, animations, and computer-generated simulations of animal abuse are unaffected by the VINE Act.
TRADEMARK / SERVICE MARK
Marks for goods and services that necessarily require death or mutilation will no longer be registrable with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and such marks that have already been registered will no longer be recognized as property under U.S. law. For example, the USPTO no longer grants, renews, or otherwise recognizes registration of marks wherein the identified goods include dead body parts, such as fur, skin, bone, ivory, or muscle tissue.
The VINE Act does not restrict, encumber, or otherwise affect the creation, financing, production, possession, reproduction, distribution, transmission, hosting, storing, advertising, marketing, publication, sale, rental, loan, display, viewing, or consumption of animal-abuse materials. Rather, the VINE Act merely withdraws Congress-created intellectual property status from such materials. Therefore, free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are unaffected by the VINE Act.
An initial draft of the VINE Act will be published for public comments and editorial suggestions later in 2016. Suggestions received from the public during the public-comment period will be reviewed, and the text of the VINE Act will be revised to incorporate such suggestions as appropriate.
What does the word “manumission” mean?
The word “manumission” denotes the voluntary freeing of a slave by a slaveholder. Unlike abolition—an event which happens to an entire legal system—manumission is an event that happens in a specific case, namely, that of a particular, living creature (an “owner”*) releasing another particular, living creature (a “slave”) from slavery.
Example: Jane, a slaveholder, is the “owner” of Bill, a slave who is “owned” by Jane; one day, Jane decides to—and does—release Bill such that Bill is, thereafter, neither a slave of Jane nor a slave of anyone else. That event—the freeing of Bill by Jane—is manumission.
Note that manumission permanently changes the status of the freed slave from property to personhood. If a slaveholder merely sells a slave to another slaveholder, the slave remains a slave, and manumission has not occurred.
Note also that if a slave is freed by abolition of the institution of slavery itself within the given jurisdiction, the slave’s status changes to that of a free being, but manumission has not occurred, because the “owner” himself or herself did not willingly free the slave. Rather, the freeing of the slave was forced upon the “owner”.
*The Humane Party does not recognize “ownership” of one living creature by another as a valid legal relationship. All purported cases of one sentient being’s “ownership” of another sentient being are, in fact, merely cases of coercion, oppression, and captivity.
What does “abolition” mean?
The word “abolition” denotes a legal event, specifically, the formal ending of the legal institution of slavery itself. This formal ending renders slavery a legal impossibility within the given jurisdiction, i.e., “abolishes” slavery. In other words, abolition makes it legally impossible for one sentient being to “own” another sentient being.
Example: Before abolition, Country X’s legal system allows slavery; after abolition, Country X’s legal system does not allow slavery.
Abolition is achieved through the law-making process established by the given sovereign.
Note: Since abolition is a legal event, abolition does not happen to an individual, living creature. Rather, abolition happens to a legal system. But, of course, abolition directly affects all living creatures who are freed from slavery by this legal event.
The specific language of the first draft of the Abolition Amendment was subject to public commentary through Jan. 25, 2016, and the second draft was subject to public comment through March 31, 2016. While the final wording of the Abolition Amendment—scheduled for publication on Abolition Day, 2016—may differ from these drafts, here are some general comments.
Some effects of the Abolition Amendment are the same as those of the APE Amendment (final draft published Dec. 6, 2015) and the 13th Amendment (ratified Dec. 6, 1865), which forbid primate slavery and human slavery, respectively.
The key distinction between the Abolition Amendment and these prior amendments is that the Abolition Amendment abolishes the property status of any and all animals—not just that of humans or primates. In so doing, the Abolition Amendment puts an immediate end to all remaining animal-killing-based and exploitation-based industries, including:
- dairy, veal
- vivisection (“animal testing”)
Removing these inherently violent and oppressive industries and practices from our nation represents the culmination of a political movement toward freedom and liberty that began more than 200 years ago in the United States. Abolition also ushers in a new day of economic prosperity, national security, and environmental recovery.
The Abolition Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. Upon ratification, the Abolition Amendment will abolish slavery with respect to all animals, thereby putting an immediate end to the meat, dairy, egg, and other exploitation- and killing-based industries. In so doing, the Abolition Amendment represents the fruit of decades of labor by animal rights activists, environmentalists, and vegan advocates in the U.S.
The final version of the Abolition Amendment was published on Abolition Day, December 6, 2016. The full text of the Abolition Amendment appears in the following image.
1. Abolishing slavery with respect to all primates. Just as the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution served to abolish the institution of human slavery within the U.S., the APE Amendment abolishes the institution of slavery for all other primates. Such abolition means that primates—including apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and several other mammalian species who are particularly closely related to homo sapiens—can no longer be treated as “property” and therefore can no longer be used for entertainment purposes, vivisection, or other forms of exploitation.
2. Recognizing the availability of the writ of habeas corpus for protecting the rights of all primates. The writ of habeas corpus is a key procedural mechanism for protecting the substantive rights of individuals in the American legal system. This mechanism allows demand, through a legal proceeding, that either (i) an adequate reason for holding an individual in captivity be demonstrated or (ii) the individual be released. By explicitly making the writ of habeas corpus available for safeguarding the rights of all primates, the APE Amendment activates a key vehicle for ensuring that other primates are free from slavery not only in theory but in actuality.
3. Providing a guardian ad litem when necessary to protect the rights of a primate. In the American legal system, when an individual does not have the capacity to properly protect his or her rights (e.g., an infant), a guardian ad litem can be appointed to act on behalf of the incapacitated individual. By explicitly making the guardian ad litem procedural mechanism available for use with respect to all primates, the APE Amendment activates another key vehicle for ensuring that other primates are free from slavery not only in theory but in actuality.
4. Eliminating the 13th Amendment exception for slavery in criminal cases. The language of the 13th Amendment provides an exception to its general prohibition of human slavery, namely, an exception for “punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”. The APE Amendment eliminates this exception, both for humans and for all other primates. In closing this loophole, the APE Amendment directly affects humans and enhances humans’ civil rights in the United States. This enhanced protection of human rights is particularly relevant and important in America today, where the Democrat-Republican bloc has incarcerated the largest population of prisoners in the world and has transformed the criminal justice system into a for-profit prison system.