Category:Animal advocacy parties
Pages in category "Animal advocacy parties"
The following 21 pages are in this category, out of 21 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
The following 21 pages are in this category, out of 21 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
1. Animal rights – They maintain that animals should no longer be viewed as property or used as food, clothing, research subjects, entertainment, or beasts of burden. Advocates approach the issue from a variety of perspectives, the abolitionist view is that animals have moral rights, which the pursuit of incremental reform may undermine by encouraging human beings to feel comfortable with using them. Gary Franciones abolitionist position promotes ethical veganism and he argues that animal rights groups that pursue welfare concerns, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, risk making the public feel comfortable about its use of animals. He calls such groups the new welfarists, PETA argues that Franciones criticism does little to help alleviate the suffering of individual animals and also trivializes the efforts of workers in the field who handle cruelty cases. It also creates divisiveness within the animal liberation movement instead of focusing on shared goals, sentiocentrism is the theory that sentient individuals are the subject of moral concern and therefore are deserving of rights. Protectionists seek incremental reform in how animals are treated, with a view to ending animal use entirely and this position is represented by the philosopher Peter Singer. Multiple cultural traditions around the world—such as Animism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, the animals most often considered in arguments for personhood are bonobos and chimpanzees. S. Congress with the enactment of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, Aristotle argued that animals lacked reason, and placed humans at the top of the natural world, yet the respect for animals in ancient Greece was very high. Some animals were considered divine e. g. dolphins, the 21st-century debates about animals can be traced back to the ancient world, and the idea of a divine hierarchy. Dominion need not entail property rights, but it has been interpreted, by some, contemporary philosopher Bernard Rollin writes that dominion does not entail or allow abuse any more than does dominion a parent enjoys over a child. Rollin further states that the Biblical Sabbath requirement promulgated in the Ten Commandments required that animals be granted a day of rest along with humans, correlatively, the Bible forbids plowing with an ox and an ass together. According to the tradition, this prohibition stems from the hardship that an ass would suffer by being compelled to keep up with an ox. Similarly, one finds the prohibition against muzzling an ox when it treads out the grain and these ancient regulations, virtually forgotten, bespeak of an eloquent awareness of the status of animals as ends in themselves, a point also corroborated by Norm Phelps. The philosopher and mathematician, Pythagoras, urged respect for animals, believing that human and nonhuman souls were reincarnated from human to animal, and vice versa. Against this, Aristotle, student to the philosopher Plato, argued that animals had no interests of their own. Theophrastus, one of Aristotles pupils, argued that also had reasoning. Plutarch in his Life of Cato the Elder comments that while law and justice are strictly to men only, beneficence. This is intended as a correction and advance over the merely utilitarian treatment of animals, according to Richard D. Ryder, the first known animal protection legislation in Europe was passed in Ireland in 1635
2. Animal welfare – Animal welfare is the well-being of animals. The standards of animal welfare vary considerably between different contexts. These standards are under constant review and are debated, created and revised by animal groups, legislators. These concerns can include how animals are slaughtered for food, how they are used in research, how they are kept. Animal welfare was a concern of some ancient civilizations but began to take a place in Western public policy in 19th-century Great Britain. In the 21st century, it is a significant focus of interest in science, ethics, there are two forms of criticism of the concept of animal welfare, coming from diametrically opposite positions. One view, dating back centuries, asserts that animals are not consciously aware, however, some still maintain that consciousness is a philosophical question that may never be scientifically resolved. The other view is based on the animal rights position that animals should not be regarded as property, accordingly, some animal rights proponents argue that the perception of better animal welfare facilitates continued and increased exploitation of animals. Some authorities therefore treat animal welfare and animal rights as two opposing positions, others see the increasing concern for animal welfare as incremental steps towards animal rights. There are many different approaches to describing and defining animal welfare, providing good animal welfare is sometimes defined by a list of positive conditions which should be provided to the animal. This approach is taken by the Five Freedoms and the three principles of Professor John Webster, in the past, many have seen farm animal welfare chiefly in terms of whether the animal is producing well. g. Others in the field, such as Professor Ian Duncan and Professor Marian Dawkins and this approach indicates the belief that animals should be considered as sentient beings. In any assessment of welfare, it is these feelings that should be assessed, Dawkins wrote, Let us not mince words, Animal welfare involves the subjective feelings of animals. Yew-Kwang Ng defines animal welfare in terms of economics, Welfare biology is the study of living things. Despite difficulties of ascertaining and measuring welfare and relevancy to normative issues and they have offered the following eight principles for developing and evaluating animal welfare policies. Decisions regarding animal care, use, and welfare shall be made by balancing scientific knowledge, Animals must be provided water, food, proper handling, health care, and an environment appropriate to their care and use, with thoughtful consideration for their species-typical biology and behavior. Animals should be cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, procedures related to animal housing, management, care, and use should be continuously evaluated, and when indicated, refined or replaced. Conservation and management of animal populations should be humane, socially responsible, Animals shall be treated with respect and dignity throughout their lives and, when necessary, provided a humane death
3. Animal Justice Party – Animal Justice Party is a political party in Australia representing an animal rights perspective in the Australian political arena. AJP is the first political party in Australia formed to advance animal rights issues, the party aims to give animals constitutional protection based on their sentience, as opposed to their instrumental value. The sole purpose of the AJP is to provide a point for people who feel there is a lack of action taken by political figures that concerns the wellbeing of animals. The AJP is highly against the export of any live animals for profit and they want an international ban of all live animal hauling throughout the world. The exported animals usually go to countries that have no animal welfare laws or protection codes that ensure their protection, at the 2013 federal election, the party was criticised for preferencing the Liberal Party ahead of the Greens in the ACT Senate. They did this because the Greens had supported the culling of kangaroos in the ACT and this preferencing decision had no impact on the result. The party was a member of Glenn Druerys Minor Party Alliance, the AJP recorded a 0.70 percent national Senate vote. She was one of a total of 55 Animal Justice Party candidates across both houses in the 2016 federal election, the AJP recorded a 1.15 percent national Senate vote, an increase of 0.46 percent. List of animal advocacy parties List of political parties in Australia Official website Animal Justice Party
4. Animal Protection Party of Canada – The Animal Protection Party of Canada is a minor registered political party in Canada that focuses on animal rights and environmentalism. It was formed in 2005 as the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada by the two organizations, the Animal Alliance of Canada and Environment Voters. Both parent organizations have been vocal in opposition to the hunt in Newfoundland and Labrador, fur farming, trapping. The party is led by Liz White, a Toronto-based animal rights advocate, federal laws restricting political advocacy by “third parties” during election campaigns led to the formation of this party. Following a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that allowed political parties to be registered by only running a single candidate, the AAEV party provides its members and candidates the opportunity to promote its views during election periods. The partys role in most ridings is to endorse a major-party candidate who promotes positions favourable to its own. Because the AAEV was running only one candidate, it was permitted to spend $66,715.37, in 2008, the party ran four candidates. In 2011, it ran 7 candidates with one candidate in the Western Arctic riding, in 2015, the party ran 8 candidates, with one in Victoria, British Columbia. While it finished second-to-last in the riding, this is the lowest number of votes, a factor in this result may have been the partys formal endorsement of the New Democratic Party in the election. During the March 17,2008 by-election, the party managed to improve its vote share, List of animal advocacy parties List of political parties in Canada Official website
5. Animal Rights Party – The Animal Rights Party is an animal welfare political party in Austria. It is led by Ralph Chaloupek and it contested the Lower Austrian state election. It also contested the 2008 national election, but only in Vienna
6. Animal welfare in Nazi Germany – There was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany among the countrys leadership. Adolf Hitler and his top officials took a variety of measures to ensure animals were protected, many Nazi leaders, including Hitler and Hermann Göring, were supporters of animal rights and conservation. Several Nazis were environmentalists, and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the Nazi regime, heinrich Himmler made an effort to ban the hunting of animals. Göring was an animal lover and conservationist, who, on instructions from Hitler. The legacy of Nazi animal welfare laws is controversial, some critics of animal rights use the historical link with Nazism to condemn the modern animal rights movement, by way of a fallacious argument of guilt by association. On the other hand, supporters of rights often deny the historical link between Nazism and animal welfare. The current animal welfare laws in Germany are diluted versions of the laws introduced by the Nazis, at the end of the nineteenth century, kosher butchering and vivisection were the main concerns of the German animal welfare movement. The Nazis adopted these concerns as part of their political platform, according to Boria Sax, the Nazis rejected anthropocentric reasons for animal protection—animals were to be protected for their own sake. In 1927, a Nazi representative to the Reichstag called for actions against cruelty to animals, in 1931, the Nazi Party proposed a ban on vivisection, but the ban failed to attract bipartisan support. By 1933, after Hitler had ascended to the Chancellery and the Nazis had consolidated control of the Reichstag, on April 21,1933, almost immediately after the Nazis came to power, the parliament began to pass laws for the regulation of animal slaughter. On April 21, a law was passed concerning the slaughter of animals, on April 24, Order of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior was enacted regarding the slaughter of poikilotherms. Germany was the first nation to ban vivisection, a law imposing total ban on vivisection was enacted on August 16,1933, by Hermann Göring as the prime minister of Prussia. On August 28,1933, Göring announced in a radio broadcast, Göring also banned commercial animal trapping and he prohibited boiling of lobsters and crabs. In one incident, he sent a fisherman to a camp for cutting up a bait frog. On November 24,1933, Nazi Germany enacted another law called Reichstierschutzgesetz, on February 23,1934, a decree was enacted by the Prussian Ministry of Commerce and Employment which introduced education on animal protection laws at primary, secondary and college levels. On 3 July 1934, a law Das Reichsjagdgesetz was enacted which limited hunting, on July 1,1935, another law Reichsnaturschutzgesetz was passed to protect nature. According to an article published in Kaltio, one of the main Finnish cultural magazines, in 1934, Nazi Germany hosted an international conference on animal welfare in Berlin. On March 27,1936, an order on the slaughter of living fish, on March 18 the same year, an order was passed on afforestation and on protection of animals in the wild