Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

Sir Roger Moore Grants Theresa May – And The Public – 007 Status

Like us on Facebook:

Whether in Ian Flemming’s books or on the big screen, James Bond has always been a character with somewhat muddied morals. Yes, he is loyal to a tee and possesses a fierce love of country, but these convictions in many a story have been responsible for a certain level of moral blindness – perhaps even ignorance. Within the context of fiction, these internal conflicts are what help develop character and drive a compelling story; when applied in reality, we see that the issue is more black and white.

Sir Roger Moore was a great James Bond; it’s just unfortunate that those same muddied morals have been carried over into Moore’s reality.

He recently wrote a piece addressed to Theresa May – published in the Sunday People – calling for the Prime Minister to introduce legislation banning wild-animal circuses in the UK. He lamented that other countries have put an end to wild-animal circuses, while “ever-so-civilised, animal-loving Britain still allows these archaic exhibitions simply because of a lack of action on the part of Downing Street.” He continued saying that “[p]opular legislation to prohibit circuses from keeping tigers in see-through boxes called cages and carting them about the land has been dragging on for aeons, because the Prime Minister holds the key and won’t give it up.”

Moore believes that “wilfully allowing such cruelty is unforgivable.”

When referring to former Prime Minister David Cameron – who failed to prohibit wild-animal circuses in January 2015 – Moore quipped “no matter what else one may think of him, [he] proved himself no gentleman when he failed to act on his word to get wild animals out of circuses.”

So according Moore, a non-vegan Britain – where billions of animals are killed every year for unjustifiable and unnecessary purposes – is “civilised” and “animal-loving” and the standard for being a “gentleman” isn’t ceasing all exploitation of vulnerable beings, it’s “[getting] wild animals out of circuses” whilst promoting all other forms of animal exploitation. Oh, Roger. If only you’d left those muddied morals on the big screen. Killing vulnerable beings by the billions in the name love? Really? That surpasses the outlandish plots of even the most evil Bond villains. I can see you now, stroking a white cat in an underground lair with one hand whilst typing that letter to Theresa in the other.

Jokes aside, it’s remarkable that Moore thinks “wilfully allowing” wild-animal circuses is “unforgivable” while he himself participates in the exploitation of animals no different as a non-vegan. Indeed, he has been rather outspoken on numerous issues in recent years, leading to nothing but further confusion and speciesism through the condemnation of certain animal uses and the subsequent normative implication that all other animal exploitation is just fine. For example, in 2009 in he claimed he wouldn’t speak to anyone who ate foie gras and that he boycotted restaurants that served it. Last year when Cecil the Lion was killed, in reference to the hunter who killed him, he maintained “it’s detestable that anyone would choose to get thrills from killing others who ask for nothing from life but the chance to remain alive. The animals whose lives he has so cold-heartedly snuffed out have precisely the same capacity to feel pain and suffer as we do.”

Indeed they do, Mr. Moore. Indeed they do. But is not also “detestable” that anyone would “choose to get thrills from killing others” via engaging in the entirely unnecessary exploitation of animals for food, clothing and all other exploitation animals are subject to on account of non-veganism? It’s a pity you label hunting as a “coward’s pastime” yet seem unable recognise that there is no moral difference between hunting, using animals for entertainment, or foie gras and paying someone to kill the animals we use for food, clothing and experimentation. Animals who are viewed as nothing but things; as human property where their inherent value as sentient beings is denied and the only value they possess is a market value granted to them by a property owner – told when to live (although it’s not really living, is it) and told when to die.

Moore claimed in 2009 that as James Bond, he was “used to fanciful scripts about violence and intimidation.” There is no script as violent – not one that even scratches the surface – as the violence we sanction and give the green light for when we are not vegan.

With regards to Theresa May, Moore finished his recent letter with a ‘call-to-arms’ of sorts: “Madam Prime Minister, it’s time – past time – to do the right thing by animals and the public and finally bring in a ban on this outdated form of so-called ‘entertainment’. I will put a bottle of Dom Pérignon ’52 or Bollinger ’69 on ice for the occasion and gladly pop the cork with you.”

What an impoverished call-to-arms. No, Roger, doing “the right thing by animals” means veganism and nothing less. What you are doing in this in letter is drawing arbitrary lines between different forms of animal exploitation, promoting speciesism, and implicitly promoting all other forms of animal exploitation as better than circuses in a morally relevant way. That is nothing but a betrayal of the non-human victims subject to violent exploitation by the millions every single day on account of non-veganism. One thing you have right is the desire to “pop the cork” and celebrate some hollow “victory” – how very corporate welfarist of you.

To Roger and everyone else reading, doing right by animals means being vegan and promoting veganism. Anything less is to participate in violence that no scriptwriter could ever imagine.

Photo from 007.com

Like us on Facebook:

France’s ban of faux-meat branding won’t stop veganism

I’ll take “mycoproteinous food tube” over a tube of dead pig any day.

Concerned about endangered animals? Stop eating them

Methods of animal conservation that support the exploitation of animals don’t exist for the animals, they exist for human profit.

What you can do if live exports disturb you

The outcry should go further than importation and should be directed at the fact that the animals in question were on their way to slaughter in the first place.