The UK government is on the verge of backtracking on its proposal to ban imports of fur and foie gras, driven by the will of Jacob Rees Mogg and other Tory cronies. Claire Hamlett reports.

People are willing to defend a lot of violence towards animals in the name of “personal choice”. 

But Conservative MP and newly appointed Minister for Brexit Opportunities Jacob Rees Mogg seems intent on lowering the bar on what is considered justified animal abuse even further, as he has voiced his opposition to proposed bans on importing fur and foie gras to the UK as unfair restrictions on consumers.

Fur farming and foie gras production are already banned practices in the UK on animal welfare grounds, but bans on importing these items from abroad have been included in the new Animal Abroad Bill. Rees Mogg and two other MPs have put the proposed legislation in jeopardy with their comments, as the government is reportedly now likely to drop the bans.

Brandon Lewis, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has said he is worried about differing trade rules being applied to Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, while Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has voiced his concern that a ban on importing fur could impact the use of bear fur for making hats worn by the Queen’s Guard at Buckingham Palace. The fur comes from black bears who are hunted in Canada and sometimes suffer agonising deaths if they are shot but manage to flee while wounded. 

PETA and a French faux fur company have offered to provide replacement hats made with artificial bear fur to the Ministry of Defence free of charge until 2030, but Boris Johnson has declined to accept. Wallace claims that the bear fur is responsibly sourced through a government-run cull, but evidence of any such culls is non-existent, according to PETA.

• PETA: Let’s demand a changing of the Guard’s caps

Wallace and Johnson’s position on the Guards’ hats is bad enough, but Rees Mogg’s argument that consumer choice should trump animal welfare concerns is truly unconscionable. For one thing, it is never only a “personal choice” when it comes to using or consuming animals since they get no say in the matter. Choice is also a dangerous excuse for allowing harmful activities to continue unchecked. As Connor Jackson, CEO of Open Cages, wrote in the Independent yesterday, “Thanks to [ministers] protecting our “personal choice”, we’ll soon be justifying pretty much any animal cruelty you can imagine. It’s a great result for those who long to do whatever they want regardless of the harm they cause.” 

Jackson also pointed out that Rees Mogg’s position is likely to be part of “an anti-woke agenda”. Indeed, Rees Mogg has expressed his disdain for what he calls the “woke brigade” before on the issue of how statues glorify Britain’s imperialist past, and has been linked to the alt-right on several occasions.

Never miss an article

Stay up-to-date with the weekly Surge newsletter to never miss an article, media production or investigation. We respect your privacy.

Rees Mogg’s disregard for animal life is also unsurprising. In 2019 he hosted the Mendip Farmers fox hunt at his Somerset home, where a badger sett was allegedly blocked by members of the hunt, according to hunt saboteurs, and he has said he would like the fox hunting ban to be overturned. Last year, the Times reported that he was “privately sceptical” about the Animal welfare (Sentience) Bill, which recognises that all vertebrates are sentient and feel pain, fearing that the bill would be “hijacked to block infrastructure projects and country sports”, i.e. shooting.

Rees Mogg’s wealth no doubt also plays a role in what he considers justifiable to inflict upon animals for the sake of “personal choice”. Born into money, he profits from investments in businesses including a Russian fossil fuel company and a Chinese pharmaceutical company and may profit further from his new ministerial role. Foie gras and fur clothes are typical ‘luxury’ items enjoyed by the rich, and presumably Rees Mogg and the circles he moves in want to keep indulging themselves no matter the cost to the animals. The choice he claims to be defending isn’t even for everyone (not that that would make it okay) but for the wealthy elite.

But Rees Mogg and Wallace may yet be defeated. Other Tory MPs who are in favour of the foie gras and fur bans are now planning a revolt against a government U-turn, according to the Guardian. Animal welfare campaigner Lorrain Platt, who is organising a group of MPs to lobby Johnson to keep the bans, said: “We can’t let Boris be swayed off course by a minority of dissenters. We’ve known for some time there’s been a small minority of MPs who are against any ban on foie gras and fur imports.”

And as Claire Bass, executive director of Humane Society International UK, pointed out, the public supports actions on animal welfare, and “won’t stand for” a minority “of influential Conservatives who perhaps want to be eating foie gras while wearing fur and going hunting, who apparently sway the government's decision-making."

Banning the import of products made using the cruellest practices is essential for a country that claims to have the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. Allowing products like foie gras to continue to be imported is a tacit endorsement of how they were made. The UK can’t stop farmers in other countries from force-feeding ducks and geese or hunting or farming animals for their skins, but we can say that we will not participate in supporting these practices by denying them a lucrative export market.

Claire Hamlett is a freelance journalist, writer and regular contributor at Surge. Based in Oxford, UK, Claire tells stories that challenge systemic exploitation of and disregard for animals and the environment and that point to a better way of doing things.

Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.

LATEST ARTICLES