Though you’d think the human race would be past the point of needing to skin animals for their fur, the practice is currently being debated in the U.K. – well, the practice of allowing fur to be imported into the country (because fur farms were outlawed in the U.K. in 2000).
To give an example of the ineptitude / apathy / blatant disregard shown towards animals by some members of parliament, here’s the transcript from the debate. The whole thing took roughly two hours and little was achieved at the end of it – is this indicative of our present political system (it probably is, you know)?
And the feeblest excuse for not proposing a full-scale ban on fur is that it would only solve the problem in this country and not anywhere else. Perhaps that’s exactly where we should start, banning all use of fur in the U.K., before expecting others to do what we have not.
And this debate takes place against the backdrop of the recent statistic that tells us the human race has wiped out 83% of all wild mammals. Given such information, what is there to debate? Speaking of Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the Lisbon Treaty, Daniel Zeichner states: “I therefore argue that there is a legitimate argument for the UK to prohibit fur imports on grounds of public morality, similar to the exemption allowed under WTO rules.” Zeichner points to the political framework allowing the trade of fur to be banned in the U.K. Don’t let M.P.s off the hook, contact your own M.P. and tell them to pursue this matter to its logical conclusion.