Let the fur fly
From Mr Richard Adams Sir: In your leading article (6 July) you deride backbenchers busying themselves sticking up for 'furry little animals'. You may not be fully aware of how evil and abusive the luxury fur trade is, both in several European countries and, most of all, in the United States. Millions of fur-bearing animals die every year, many of them in steel traps — horrible instruments of torture. Several species of wild felines have come close to extinction in South America, and this is matched by the massacre of wolves in Canada.
Fur-farming in this country will shortly be totally extinguished in pursuance of an Act of Parliament that passed through both Houses solely on account of moral unacceptability. Several European countries are following this example. What we need to do now is to introduce, by regulations, a ban on imported furs. Several years ago, such regulations were put to Mrs Thatcher, who refused to accept them on the grounds of the desirability of 'free trade'.
If a growing number of backbenchers are concerned about our participation in the luxury fur industry, this is all to the good. Let us hope that still more take up the matter until Parliament is in a position to ban the import of furs on moral grounds.
Richard Adams
Whitehureh, Hampshire
No votes from farmers
From Mr Claus von Bulow
Sir: Emma Tennant's feature (Fibs and
foot and mouth', 13 July) was elegantly argued and supported by evidence, even if it cannot be corroborated by a public inquiry, since Mr Blair refuses to authorise one. Emma Tennant cites official incompetence, waste and bullying. But was the government really incompetent, given its partypolitical objectives?
Let us compare its negligence to the negligence Mugabe shows towards white farmers in Zimbabwe. Both Mugabe and New Labour are perfectly well aware that farmers do not vote for them, so why should they give them aid when they are attacked by 'freedom fighters', or by some equally murderous epidemic? Mugabe does not provide police protection and Maff did not provide vaccination or remotely adequate state veterinarians.
From a party-political standpoint there is no justification for New Labour to support livestock agriculture in this country. There is no foreseeable U-boat blockade, and the Common Market has a huge food surplus for which we pay subsidies. Tourists come to look at castles, not at cows. This leaves only fox-hunting, which, because of the sartorial splendour of the mounted participants, is a valuable subject for revived class-warfare and more vote-catching.
It is perhaps dangerous to assume that a disaster is only the consequence of bureaucratic bungling. Machiavelli could not have managed the foot-and-mouth crisis better.
Claus von Bulow
London SW7
Previous page
