UK considers outright ban on fur sales after Brexit

[FfFfFfFF 41,528]

Fur sales could be banned after Brexit under plans being considered by the Department for Environment, it has emerged.

The UK was the first country in Europe to ban fur farming in 2000, but sales of some furs are still legal in this country and across the EU.

Government sources said that during the Brexit transition period, which ends on 31 December, “it is not possible to introduce restrictions relating to the fur trade as this would restrict free movement within the EU single market”.

But once Brexit happens, “there will be an opportunity for the government to consider further steps it could take in relation to fur sales”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/25/uk-considering-outright-ban-on-fur-sales-after-brexit

[RAMROD 61,199]

So those who need it will have to import it then. 

[Lemonky 509]

That's good but I fear black market will do more harm, I mean it has even worse conditions for poor animals

[alsemanche 12,640]

I can't believe fur sale is still casually legal it's sick

[Illuminati 12,941]

10 minutes ago, Lemonky said:

That's good but I fear black market will do more harm, I mean it has even worse conditions for poor animals

I don't think it will negatively affect the animals. All the potential black market or customers themselves have to do is import it/ buy while in another country, it doesn't change the process of how fur is made. The law is still beneficial as it may lower the demand.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Illuminati

[GagaSine 3,257]

I find this so strange considering stuff like sport hunting is allowed. But I guess that is more central to upper class ‘English’ Identity while wearing fur is just not that popular anymore.

[DiskoBaby 1,928]

But yet factory farming and slauterhousing is still legal.

There’s no difference between wearing an animal and eating an animal. This is just some type of virtue signaling to make them feel good about themselves and think they’re making a difference without looking at the bigger picture.

[myluis617 2,773]

3 minutes ago, DiskoBaby said:

But yet factory farming and slauterhousing is still legal.

There’s no difference between wearing an animal and eating an animal. This is just some type of virtue signaling to make them feel good about themselves and think they’re making a difference without looking at the bigger picture.

That part, baby. 

[Lemonky 509]

30 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

I don't think it will negatively affect the animals. All the potential black market or customers themselves have to do is import it/ buy while in another country, it doesn't change the process of how fur is made. The law is still beneficial as it may lower the demand.

But black market can import from "suspicious" furmakers

I hope you're right tho

24 minutes ago, DiskoBaby said:

But yet factory farming and slauterhousing is still legal.

There’s no difference between wearing an animal and eating an animal. This is just some type of virtue signaling to make them feel good about themselves and think they’re making a difference without looking at the bigger picture.

That's true, but it's like saying that we should not abolish cars that run on petrol since they make only 10% of CO2 emissions. Every change counts

[Meta Mart 45]

54 minutes ago, RAMROD said:

So those who need it will have to import it then.

Who needs it?

[Runway 23,758]

17 minutes ago, Meta Mart said:

Who needs it?

The ones who can pay for it

[Meta Mart 45]

1 minute ago, Runway said:

The ones who can pay for it

Yeah but really? What good is it? My shoes may be made out of leather but I'm not revelling in the death of the animal, it's been so processed into something quite different. Fur is really about showing off the animalness. It's not modest at all. Even if we eat meat, do we need to eat it all the time? Do we need to take animals for all they've got? Some would say it's real to show the animalness in fur for the reality of the animal that died for it rather than try and hide the animal behind processing, but I think in this day and age it's not a good look as its especially cosmetic sourcing, not base utility. I don't know enough about how they source all the animal products we use on a daily basis but I don't think we should take it in excess if we don't have to, and I don't think anyone needs it.

[HausOfAntonio 3,589]

Tbh and I know I might get heat for this, but if we’re eating animals, we might as well show respect and utilize as much of their bodies as possible, including the fur. 
 

Of course thats not referring to the furs of animals that we don’t eat. 
 

And there’s absolutely no problem in buying vintage furs, especially considering its miles better for the environment than synthetic fur. 

[Illuminati 12,941]

51 minutes ago, DiskoBaby said:

There’s no difference between wearing an animal and eating an animal.

I would disagree. Wearing an animal is a fashion choice, real fur is also more expensive than the alternatives available.

It's not a necessity in a way food is. And while lots of people could and should pursue to be vegan their reason behind consuming meat comes from a basic need and convenience rather than vanity.

[CannaeDrive 2,899]

I'm not convinced about that kind of measures, look what happened when countries ban some stuff labeled as "wrong" or "bad" like alcohol or narcotics . There's always be a market for these things and sometimes these interdiction/repressive measures can have negative impacts, sometimes unexpected.