MP to introduce private members' bill to ban fur in UK
A complete ban on fur imported and sold in the UK is on the agenda again. Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn, Ruth Jones, has introduced a Private Members' Bill to parliament that would prohibit the import and sale of new fur products, reports the BBC.
While fur farming has been banned in Wales and England since 2000, many types of fur are still legally imported and sold, she noted.
Jones said: 'Twenty years ago, a Labour government banned fur farming because it was cruel and inhumane. If we think it's cruel and inhumane to farm it, why are we importing it? It doesn't make sense.'
The MP added: 'Caged animals are kept in dreadful, inhumane conditions just to provide fur for a declining industry. Faux fur could do the job just as well.'
But the proposal isn't without opposition, as the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) has accused Jones of being the 'wardrobe police', adding the ban would be 'unenforceable and unworkable' and may breach trade agreements with the EU and the US.
In a statement, the BFTA also warned that a ban could cost thousands of skilled British jobs: 'Standards in the fur sector are among the highest of any form of animal husbandry with rigorous and comprehensive animal welfare standards, third-party inspection and strict international and national laws,' it added.
The bill follows Sonul Badiani-Hamment, UK director for animal welfare organisation Four Paws, recently presenting a petition with one-and-a-half million signatures in support of a fur-free Britain, alongside other campaigners.
'There isn't any justification for the cruelty experienced by these animals on fur farms,' she said. 'Country after country are leaving the market. Sweden recently committed to decommissioning the fur trade entirely.'
But Mel Kaplan, who works at Vintage Fur Garden in London, also told the BBC that demand for vintage fur 'was growing... We have queues going out the door in the winter. Over the past three years, there's been a resurgence in the want for vintage fur.
'I think younger people especially are looking more to vintage clothing in general. I think fast fashion has taken a decline in popularity.'
The second reading of the bill is expected to take place in parliament on 4 July.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fashion Network
2 hours ago
- Fashion Network
Trump says EU not offering fair trade deal, Japan being 'tough' too
White House officials said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett also remained in Canada and would be meeting their counterparts. They said Trump met informally with all G7 members, but had not seen the leaders of India, Australia or Mexico, who were also slated to meet him in Canada this week. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum tweeted later in the day that she had a "very good" phone call with Trump on Tuesday and they agreed to work together to reach a deal on "diverse topics." The White House later confirmed the call. "We're talking, but I don't feel that they're offering a fair deal yet," Trump told reporters, referring to the European Union. "They're either going to make a good deal or they'll just pay whatever we say they have to pay." European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters on the sidelines of the G7 summit that the objective was still to reach a deal before higher reciprocal tariffs go into effect on July 9 after a 90-day pause. "It's complex but we are advancing, that is good, and I push hard to pick up more speed, so we are mixed in the negotiations, and we will see what the end brings," she said. Greta Peisch, a trade lawyer at Wiley Rein in Washington, said Trump's departure was disappointing for trading partners since he was leading trade policy and it was sometimes unclear what tradeoffs he was willing to make. "If they don't have a clear view of what that is ... that can obviously slow things down and make it more difficult to conclude the negotiations," she said. Trump also said there was a chance of a trade deal between Washington and Japan. "They're tough, the Japanese are tough, but ultimately you have to understand we're just going to send a letter saying 'this is what you're going to pay, otherwise you don't have to do business with us'. But there's a chance," he said. Trump also said pharmaceutical tariffs were coming very soon, repeating a threat he has made repeatedly to impose import taxes on medical goods in a bid to force drug makers to rebase production to the U.S. "We're going to be doing pharmaceuticals very soon. That's going to bring all the companies back into America," he said, referring to an ongoing Commerce Department investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. "It's going to bring most of them back into, at least partially back in." Matthew Goodman, a former senior U.S. official and fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said it was always a "stretch goal" for Trump to reach any deals at the G7 summit beyond finalizing the terms of a limited deal with Britain. The U.S.-UK deal, announced by Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Canada, reaffirmed quotas and tariff rates on British automobiles and eliminated tariffs on the U.K. aerospace sector, but the issue of steel and aluminum remained unresolved. Over a dozen other major U.S. trading partners are still in talks to work out agreements with Trump before the three-month hiatus on his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs expires in about three weeks. "I think July 9 is the real deadline. That's when the 90-day pause ends, and I suspect that Trump and his team are trying to use that as maximum pressure to get countries to give more ground," Goodman said. Trump has signaled he could extend the deadline for countries that engaged in negotiations, but repeated his threat to send letters to other countries that simply spell out the U.S. tariffs they would be facing.
France 24
8 hours ago
- France 24
What Israel really wants in Iran
When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out his goals after launching strikes on Iran on Friday last week, he said that the Islamic Republic's nuclear weapons and existing ballistic missiles were the primary targets of the Israeli operation. The goal was to end the 'existential threat' Israel says it faces from Iran, which has long denied Israel's right to exist. But the latest air strikes seem to tell a different story. Israeli attacks targeted an Iranian foreign ministry building and the defence ministry in Tehran on Sunday. Police headquarters in the city centre were also hit by Israeli jets that same day. On Monday, Israel said it had struck the command centre of Iran's Quds Force, the branch of the elite Revolutionary Guards that coordinates operations outside the country and reports directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. These new targets are much more closely tied to the heart of the Iranian regime's military and political decision-making fulcrum than to its nuclear programme. Priorities Israel on Saturday also targeted the massive South Pars gas field, which is the world's largest reservoir of natural gas. 'The logic [for the Israeli government] is incremental. There is a priority of targets,' explained Clive Jones, professor of regional security at Durham University's School of Government and International Affairs. The first is to significantly slow down – or potentially end – Iran's nuclear programme. 'The second is to target military delivery systems and the leadership that controls them,' Jones said. Jones believes the second priority was the reasoning behind Israel's attacks on the gas field. 'If you look at the strikes Israel has conducted, what they've tried to do is hit fuel plants that supply the Iranian military – those associated with their rockets programmes, for example, or refuelling tankers,' Jones said. 'They've not yet really hit civilian energy infrastructure. That may be something that comes later, depending on what happens next.' Other targets might be chosen for shock value, according to Middle East expert Filippo Dionigi of the University of Bristol. Attacks on buildings linked to the regime or the targeted assassinations of officials can be seen as an attempt by Israel to 'shock the enemy and try to subvert its chain of command and create chaos, so that it slows down its capacity to react', Dionigi said. 01:33 The Octopus Doctrine Israel's multi-pronged strategy is also known as the 'Octopus Doctrine', which was first established by former prime minister Naftali Bennett in 2021, said Veronika Poniscjakova, an expert on conflicts in the Middle East at Portsmouth University. 'Iran is the octopus with tentacles all around the Middle East,' Poniscjakova said, with proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza. Its new approach means that Israel will 'no longer go after the tentacles of the octopus, [targeting these groups] or carrying out covert attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities [as with] the Stuxnet computer virus, but go for the octopus's head directly … striking at the source of the threat – the regime itself'. But the scope of Israel's strikes on Iran could suggest the country has broader geopolitical goals, some analysts believe. 'Israel is aiming for a regime collapse in Iran. That is the only reason they would attack energy infrastructures, to increase social unrest against the Islamic Republic by the Iranian people,' said Shahin Modarres, director of the Iran Desk at the International Team for the Study of Security Verona. And if Israel decides to target civilian energy infrastructure exclusively, power cuts across the country could become more frequent, widespread, and eventually 'undermine the trust the population has in its leaders', Dionigi said. The Iranian health ministry has said that 90 percent of casualties so far are civilians. Strikes on political buildings and the targeting of the state-run TV during a live broadcast could be seen as a way to signal to the Iranian opposition that '[they] can exploit the opportunity to stand up against the regime', Poniscjakova explained. 09:40 Most tellingly, Netanyahu issued a direct appeal to Iranians as the Israeli offensive began on Friday, saying he hoped the military operation will 'clear the path for you to achieve your freedom'. "This is your opportunity to stand up [to the regime]," he added. Netanyahu's 'social media post aimed at the Iranian people, in which he effectively says Israel is paving the way and targeting a regime that has kept you repressed', Jones said, adding that the post made it pretty clear the Israeli premier is hoping for regime change. But whether an internal revolt is something that can be encouraged by a competing regional power that has long been at odds with Iran is far from certain. An 'existential war' for Iran Israel's bombing of Iranian police headquarters in Tehran and its subsequent attacks on the ministry of intelligence and security 'could degrade the regime's ability to maintain internal security and social control' on a practical level, according to a report published by the Institute for the Study of War on Monday. But it remains to be seen whether Iranian leadership can be weakened to the point where it is no longer capable of halting an uprising. 'That's the ultimate question that nobody can really answer, at least for now,' Jones said. Any interference from abroad could also backfire. 'External interference in the political affairs of a country rarely has the effect of simply provoking a reaction against the leadership,' Dionigi said. 'Interference could have the opposite outcome and awaken a sense of national awareness, national pride and regrouping.' In other words, in positioning himself as a supporter of the Iranian opposition, Netanyahu could actually strengthen the regime – at least for the duration of the war. The Israeli prime minister is taking a 'huge risk' by going beyond his initial aim of dismantling Iran's nuclear programme. 'When countries are under attack, there is a tendency for people to rally around the flag, even if they dislike the regime,' Jones said. 'For the Iranian regime, this is an existential war,' Dionigi added. 'They will use all of their military capacity for as long as necessary to guarantee their existence.' For Netanyahu there is also the looming threat of greater escalation that could lead to 'a higher number of civilian fatalities [in Israel], which could put more political pressure on the government', Modarres said. 'It all depends on how [Netanyahu] ends this war. Either he dismantles the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme and manages to conduct a regime change, or it backfires and his political career ends,' he added.
Fashion Network
9 hours ago
- Fashion Network
MP to introduce private members' bill to ban fur in UK
A complete ban on fur imported and sold in the UK is on the agenda again. Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn, Ruth Jones, has introduced a Private Members' Bill to parliament that would prohibit the import and sale of new fur products, reports the BBC. While fur farming has been banned in Wales and England since 2000, many types of fur are still legally imported and sold, she noted. Jones said: 'Twenty years ago, a Labour government banned fur farming because it was cruel and inhumane. If we think it's cruel and inhumane to farm it, why are we importing it? It doesn't make sense.' The MP added: 'Caged animals are kept in dreadful, inhumane conditions just to provide fur for a declining industry. Faux fur could do the job just as well.' But the proposal isn't without opposition, as the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) has accused Jones of being the 'wardrobe police', adding the ban would be 'unenforceable and unworkable' and may breach trade agreements with the EU and the US. In a statement, the BFTA also warned that a ban could cost thousands of skilled British jobs: 'Standards in the fur sector are among the highest of any form of animal husbandry with rigorous and comprehensive animal welfare standards, third-party inspection and strict international and national laws,' it added. The bill follows Sonul Badiani-Hamment, UK director for animal welfare organisation Four Paws, recently presenting a petition with one-and-a-half million signatures in support of a fur-free Britain, alongside other campaigners. 'There isn't any justification for the cruelty experienced by these animals on fur farms,' she said. 'Country after country are leaving the market. Sweden recently committed to decommissioning the fur trade entirely.' But Mel Kaplan, who works at Vintage Fur Garden in London, also told the BBC that demand for vintage fur 'was growing... We have queues going out the door in the winter. Over the past three years, there's been a resurgence in the want for vintage fur. 'I think younger people especially are looking more to vintage clothing in general. I think fast fashion has taken a decline in popularity.' The second reading of the bill is expected to take place in parliament on 4 July.
