Repeal of the Fur Farming in the UK Act on the grounds:
1. It set a dangerous precedent in UK Law:
a Law was passed in ‘the interests of public morality’ – no legal precedent for such rubbish
2. It sends out a bad public message about a completely legitimate, ethical, Conservation friendly material. Fur is an infinitely renewable resource. The alternatives; made from petro chemicals are evidently as we see in the Gulf of Mexico are not eco friendly and are finite.

Why is this idea important?

When Labour first came to power they had been funded by a million pounds by the organization PAL; a radical animal rights group related to IFAW; an organization regarded as counter productive to Conservation by the IUCN.
One of the first things Labour did was ban fur farming in the UK.
It was a token gesture which only affected a few people: there were only a handful of fur farms in the UK anyway.

Next to intensive meat farming, fur farming has far better welfare conditions. It would be stupid to mistreat a furbearer as stress in animals results in fur loss; and in cases where mistreatment may arise there are already laws in place.

The ban came about based on the idea that it was in “the interests of public morality’ ; an idea completely new to British Law making and which sets a very dangerous precedent. What else could a Government be allowed to do if getting away with this? Imagine a BNP government who wanted to do things on grounds of public morality?
In addition the Act sent out the idea that somehow fur itself was ‘immoral’. This makes no rational sense whatever and like the foxhunting act was based on perceived class prejudice. The idea that fur is worn by wealthy vain women. In fact the message this Government sent out to pople was that fur is wrong and that has hit people like the Inuit, Sami, Evenk and Cree hard; and also small rural communities in Finland etc who rely on fur farming for income.

All the so called video evidence of animals being poorly treated have been discredited; often fabricated by animal rights groups for propaganda.

This Law should be repealed on the two grounds above and in doing so while it may be seen by some as academic – I doubt fur farms will return to the UK – it will send a message to the rest of the world that fur is NOT immoral and stop marginalising the UK as anti fur to foreign visitors; encourage trade which will help indigenous peoples small rural communities in the EEC and arctic and our commonwealth nations like Canada and NZ; and allow British designers like Julien Macdonald a market in our own nation and abroad without being tarnished. It will allow London to bloom as the serious Fashion Capital of the World by sending the message worldwide that fur is ethical.

You can read more here about fur as a legitimate ethical resource. Paula Lishman the designer, whose husband Bill is a serious respected Conservationist; is head of the Fur Council of Canada:

Repeal this Act now and stop making a mockery of Britain in Fashion and allowing a dangerous legal precedent on the statute books.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.