No to fur

Posts Tagged ‘video’

Pink and Ricky Gervais: best anti-fur clip ever

Posted by oneandonlyhypnos on March 10, 2009

As I have said before, I don’t always agree with PETA, but this new video released by the animal rights group is well done! Thumbs up on this one. Check it out for yourself:

This is the way to do activism. It’s short, funny and to the point. It gets your message out there and hopefully will help people reconsider what they put in their wardrobe.

If anyone reading this thinks he or she can defend the international fur industry: go ahead. Try me! As far as I can see it’s gross, unethical, wrong and cleary unnecessary. There, I’ve said it.

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Go naked or wear fur

Posted by oneandonlyhypnos on March 6, 2009

A funny youtube clip…I couldn’t resist. Apparently they want to step into the footsteps of Christy Turlington and others in the PETA campaign: I’d rather go naked than wear fur.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Official: Madonna is the worst dressed celeb

Posted by oneandonlyhypnos on March 5, 2009

…according to PETA. I can’t say I don’t agree. Recently PETA announced the ‘winner’ of the ‘worst dressed celebrity 2009 contest’.

The contest is being organized yearly by animal rights organization PETA via their website, where visitors get to choose who’s made the worst fashion statements.

I don’t necessarily agree with PETA all the time, but this contest is great. It sends out a nice signal that fur is wrong and wearing it promotes clear and totally unnecessary suffering.

The release on their website is accompanied by this interesting video by Tim Gunn on fur:

Now on to the celeb bashing *evil grin*

PETA on madonna:

When you see Madonna in fur, you realize why nobody has copied her style since 1984. We know that she’s on the prowl for a young cub, but someone needs to tell Madge that wearing fur doesn’t make you a cougar.

The very familiar Olsen twins are in the spotlights again:

Since fur adds 20 years and 20 pounds, maybe Mary Kate and Ashley think their matronly wardrobe will deflect the gossip about bulimia. Somewhere, someone is missing a matching pair of Bigfoot bobble head dolls.

You can find the rest on their site peta.com

I’m note going to bother with posting my own view on fur again. For those interested, here is my previous post that should explain my view: fur

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

the animal friendly battlestar

Posted by oneandonlyhypnos on March 4, 2009

I have a confession to make. I’m addicted to science-fiction. I loved it all my life and I never can get enough of it. Like many, I’m a fan of Battlestar Galactica. It’s not only a great story with theological and philosophical questions being raised throughout the whopping story line. The cast seems also attentive of the plight of animals.

Recently Jamie Bamber posed in a PETA campaign against bear fur: Bare skin, not bear skin

Jamie Bamber

PETA states on it’s furisdead.com website:

he series has been so full of exciting plot twists and surprises that it’s anybody’s guess right up until the last minute, but fans can always count on Jamie Bamber’s character, Lee “Apollo” Adama, to fight for justice and help those in need—and always look really good doing it! It didn’t surprise us that Jamie is like that in real life too. That’s why he bared his skin in PETA’s newest ad to help save black bears killed for their fur.

Each year, countless black bears in Canada are shot and killed, often in front of their cubs, using a cruel practice called “bait and shoot,” which is banned in British Columbia and many U.S. states. Their fur is then sent to the U.K. to be used to make caps for the Queen’s guards.

Jambie Bamber is not the only one on the cast who cares about animals. Tricia Helfer is a huge animal lover and has lended her face to several campaigns, including this PETA campaign:

Besides the PETA campaign, she has made donations to the Richmond Animal Protection Society (R.A.P.S.).

You can find more information on her blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Liz Hurley loves her fur

Posted by oneandonlyhypnos on March 3, 2009

I’ve heard and read some weird and wacked out statements before in order to defend the fur trade. But this is absolutely insane. Elizabeth Hurley has recently become the new face for Blackglama. In an ad she poses in mink fur coats. During the last couple of months, this attracted some media attention. This article is the paramount of fur madness that I have ever seen. You can read this nice pice of prose here.

After nearly suffering a heart attack, caused by the rethoric and flawed logic in these statements and crazy reasoning, I decided to write of my frustrations in this little rant…

Here it comes

In Iceland, parts of the shore where the seals congregate were sold as agricultural assets. Farmers would facilitate the natural seal colonies, protecting them from predators, and once a year they’d cull them. But since the seal market has collapsed, so have the care and value of the shoreline, and so have the seals. All over the North Sea, their populations are fluctuating. They’re caught in fishing nets, shot by fishermen. They hang around ports and fish farms like water foxes. The seals have gone from being valuable, protected and plentiful, to being waterborne vermin and endangered, because we have removed their value thanks to ignorant squeamishness and class politics.

sealing is however still happening in Iceland! And yes, the number of seals in the entire North Sea is declining. But the reasons are not the ‘evil’ ethical consumers who refuse to wear fur. The BBC reported in 2002 that seals are succoumbing to a disease called the phocine distemper virus (PDV). This isn’t the first time either:

On 11 July, the scientists reported on the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat’s website that more than 1,400 dead animals had been recorded in Scandinavia and nearly 60 on the Dutch coast.

They wrote then: “The mortality of harbour seals during the 1988 outbreak in the above areas was estimated at 40 to 60 % of the population.

“It is hard to predict how many seals will die during the current PDV epidemic and this will depend on different factors, including acquired immunity, pollutant load, and general health status.”

Indeed, the number of seals has continued to decline the last couple of years, but not just the seals. As the Telegraph
reported the number of sea birds has dropped as well. Is that because we don’t turn them into coats? Or could it be that the causes of these problems are somewhat more complex than what you and certain furriers would claim? Seals are being shot, that is correct. Far to often even and totally legal (so far for sqeamishness. But it is clearly not the only problem. As we can also read here: link

There have always been people who are funny about their relationship with animals — vegetarians who got religion, a few people who swept the street in front of them so as not to hurt a flightless fly — but the majority of us, the vast, vast majority, have gone on eating anything dumb enough to taste good with chips, and squashing cockroaches wherever possible. But that odd prejudice, the fatwa on fur, has become automatic and universal in our select and ethically compromised bit of the First World. The virulence and viciousness of fur vigilantes mean that few of us now bother to brave the spittle-flecked venom of that nylon Taliban of self-righteous pressure groups and dim, new-age absolutists. The argument against fur has always been more about class and money than dumb critters.

Aside from the fact that this entire piece of prose is full of contempt for just about anyone who is against fur (which is the majority of the british, dutch, belgian, german, austrian public (and many other countries). It show the clear lacking – or unwillingness – of understanding why the public feels making animals suffer for a piece of luxury fabric is wrong.

With this remark about eating dumb animals the writer tries to defend wearing fur by comparing it to something else…eating meat. This is typical and fundamentally flawed. I refuted this sort of wacked out thinking in my previous blogpost. You can find it here: is fur the same as leather?. I don’t need to go into it further here.

The writer also seems to claim that only people in ‘the first world’ are opposed to wearing fur. This is not true either. Fur farming has been made illegal in Croatia: link. Croatia is as you well know a former member of the USSR and a so called Second world country. The majority of the population is also against fur, just like many ‘evil’ western folks. This country has also outlawed seal products of the inhumane canadian seal hunt. source. Mexico isn’t that found of seal fur either, but they aren’t the ‘First world’. source

Opposition to the fur industry seems to be more of a world wide phenomena. It’s not about being poor or rich. That’s just pure nonsense and rethoric. It’s not about class and money. This shows a clear lack of understanding of the WHY. This is the why:

What is the WHY of wearing fur. Vanity as far as I am concerned.

Now…on with the provocative statements:

Of all the animals that we kill for our personal use, mink have by far and away the easiest passing: well fed and unstressed, they’re gently gassed.

Yes, absolutely right. As we could all see in the clip above! I guess free range chickens should envy mink and foxes.

Many furriers and fur fashionista’s claim that the animals have a good life and are ‘put to sleep’ by CO or CO2 gas. They are not put to sleep, but slaughtered…putting to sleep is what the vet does. There is virtually no scientific evidence by the way that proves that these animals die a ‘humane’ death.

Cotton is an ecological nightmare. Our demands for a cheap, inexhaustible T-shirt supply cause more damage than oil wells. Cotton has to be grown as a mono-crop, so you can’t have cotton in your allotment, or sell it in the farmers’ market

Have you ever heard of organic cotton? Of Hemp clothing or other ecological alternatives? Eco-fashion is a hype these days, and it seems the fur industry is trying to ‘green up’ their image.

What about fur trim stiched to cotton or polyester clothing by the way? Or what about jeans? What’s the idea really? Jeans made from mink as the green alternative?

And if you’re still not convinced, then would you for a moment consider your own cushions, your pillow. The feathers inside, the bird fur, where do you imagine that came from?

You mean my synthetic pillow? Or the one in the store with bird feathers from animals killed for meat, who actually were able to walk around and interact and live a somewhat normal life? Yes, I now about intensive farming…an other wrong doesn’t make the other right. And not all farming is the same: free range, bio-labels,…

I could go on like this…The ‘fur warriors’ always come up with the most ridiculous excuses to wear fur. At some times it is tiresome. It is as if any logical argument that has ever been made against these insane practices just evaporates. These people are impervious to logic…or compassion.

And since so many people like the ‘I rather go naked than wear fur campaign’… Here is another clip. This time: Amanda Beard speaking out against fur.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Is fur the same as leather?

Posted by oneandonlyhypnos on March 2, 2009

I’m fed up with hearing that fur is the same as leather. Why you might ask? Because it is an all or nothing approach to the problem. It’s black and white. Either the wearing and using of ALL animal products is bad, or it isn’t. That is simply not logical, contrary to what some people believe. You must have heard it many times during discussions on internet boards or in real life: You eat meat don’t you? Well, fur or leather is the same…and other such logical fallacies.

Actually this sort of argument is easily refuted. Most fur comes from animals that were killed specifically for their fur, contrary to leather. For leather they are normally killed primarily for food. Off course you could say that killing animals for food is not necessary and that you either most become a vegan or shut up and buy fur coats and kill even more animals (yes, that seems very ethical and quite logical).

This does not make sense, since you can justify just about anything being done to animals this way. Are you against bull fighting? You can’t, because you eat meat. And meat is cruel too! You are against cock fights? Dog fights?

We can go even a bit further and explore how logical this argument really is. By the same reasoning used to defend killing animals for luxury fur items, we could could come to some mind boggling conclusions. What would happen if we applied this way of thinking to…lets say the environment.

Are you against dumping oil into the sea? Why would you? You drive a car don’t you, that pollutes the environment too? It must be ok!!!

I don’t now what you are thinking, but there seems te be a fatal flaw in this all or nothing type of reasoning. You can use it to justify anything that you like. Perhaps it is nothing more than a self serving argument? Think about it.

Some fur fashionista’s could state that the fur industry is cruel, but less cruel than the meat industry. Again, logical errors are being made. You can’t defend the cruelties of one type of industry, by simply pointing the finger at another industry. You could do exactly the same with bull fighting or cock fighting. And some supporters of these practices actually do this (no kidding). Also, I haven’t seen any free range mink or foxes out there on these fur farms where these – essentially – wild animals are being kept in small cages.

This is free range chicken:

free range

This is a caged fox bred for fur:

fox

I don’t know about you, but I do see a significant difference.

Other people will defend fur by pointing the finger at evil animal right activists. This is also not correct. What about traditional animal welfare organizations like the RSPCA? They are also against fur. So are many other organizations. The world is bigger than PETA and their naked anti fur furisdead.com ads. But yes, animal rightists are also against fur. And indeed, I am myself also a vegetarian. But even when I was a meat eater, I was against fur. I always have been, as are many others. I can understand why people eat meat, I can respect that and I will not deny that a vegan diet has some setbacks. When you are a vegan, you have to take B12 supplements for example…because you can only get that particular vitamin from animal products (such as eggs, actually this entire matter is a difficult debate in itself). Do you have to take pills because you don’t wear fur? NO! Do we have to wear fur in order to survive? NO. Is fur humane? NO. Let’s ditch it.

The reality behind the glamour?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

Norwegian fur documentary

Posted by oneandonlyhypnos on March 1, 2009

Here is a small norwegian made documentary about fur ‘farming’. It is fascinating to notice the difference in the way the animals are kept, that are shown to the public (as you can see at the beginning of the documentary), and how they really live on those fur farms.

And don’t worry, they speak english! No need to learn norwegian.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is fur green? part 1

Posted by oneandonlyhypnos on February 28, 2009

If I have to believe what fur traders are claiming, fur is back in the market. People apparently get their kicks again from fur and it’s OK ‘again’. I have my doubts about that, but it does not even matter to me if fur is ‘in fashion’ or out of fashion. What I care about is sound ethical arguments. What I care about is: Is it just what is being done to these animals for a bit of fur trim or other fashion items?

I am not the only person that asks himself this question, and I guess the fur industry knows it. Organizations like PETA, HSUS and other animal right groups have been campainging heavily against the fur trade, which they claim is unethical. Likewise animal welfare organizations such as the british RSPCA, are not too keen about fur: don’t be fooled by fur

Lately, people have been bombarded with fur ads by the fur industry. They almost throw the fur-bearing anorexic models in our face and celebs dress up in it.

But this was not enough, these days you can easily come across a campaign of the fur council claiming that fur is green. Fur is apparently the new sort of eco fashion. The environmental activist according to the campaign: activist So I guess, we will soon run into Greenpeace activists dressed up in mink and sable? NOT so fast!

Let’s take a good look at this campaign. First and foremost, let us delve into the ecological argument. On this part of the website we can read the following statement: ecological

up to one gallon of petroleum – a non-renewable resource – is needed to produce three synthetic jackets. The production of synthetic fibers also involves chemical reactions at high temperatures, producing potentially harmful substances.

Here they are attacking synthetic clothing. clothing is often made from polyesters these days. But what they are saying seems to be somewhat misleading. To asses if their statement is correct, we must delve into the wonderful world of polyesters. The website of the Australian government has some very interesting information to share with us on this issue. I will quote the most important paraghraps on my blog. you can read the original text here.

Polyesters play a predominant role as biodegradable plastics due to their potentially hydrolysable ester bonds. As shown in Figure 3.1 below, the polyester family is made of two major groups – aliphatic (linear) polyesters and aromatic (aromatic rings) polyesters.

Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are aliphatic polyesters naturally produced via a microbial process on sugar-based medium, where they act as carbon and energy storage material in bacteria. They were the first biodegradable polyesters to be utilised in plastics. The two main members of the PHA family are polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and polyhydroxyvalerate (PHV).

Aliphatic polyesters such as PHAs, and more specifically homopolymers and copolymers of hydroxybutyric acid and hydroxyvaleric acid, have been proven to be readily biodegradable. Such polymers are actually synthesised by microbes, with the polymer accumulating in the microbes’ cells during growth.

Off course synthetics entail more than polyesters. On wikipedia you can find a lot of usefull information on this topic. For those that are interested: synthetic fiber

If you take the time to look into their argument against synthetics, it just does not make sense. There are biodegradable synthetic fibers. It can be environmentally sound. And it should too! We all wear t-shirts…what do you think they were made from? What do we have to do? Produce T-shirts made from mink? How if fur going to solve environmental problems? How is fur trim helping the environment? After all, it is stiched to a synthetic piece of fabric, isn’t it? So how is fur making it any better?

There are some other…quite interesting remarks being made on their website:

Fur tanning (“dressing”) and coloring, however, are relatively benign, as they must be, to preserve fur hairs and follicles. (By contrast, in leather tanning the hair is intentionally removed from the hide.)

The main chemicals used to “dress” fur pelts are table salt, water, alum salts, soda ash, sawdust, cornstarch, lanolin and other natural ingredients. Small quantities of formaldehyde can be used to protect fur follicles during dressing or dyeing, and gentle acids (e.g., acetic acid, which is vinegar) activate the tanning process, but local environmental protection controls ensure that there are no harmful effluents. Excess fats are skimmed and even PH levels must be neutralized before wastewater is released. And because furs are available in an extraordinary range of natural colours, only a small proportion are dyed.

On first glance, the word formaldehyde jumps out as far as I am concerned. Why you might ask? Because formaldehyde is a dangerous substance. On wikipedia we can find the following:

Formaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that there is “sufficient evidence” that occupational exposure to formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal cancer in humans.

That does not seem very green to me…What do you think about this?

Off course they state that it is sometimes used and they only use ‘a little’. But what exactly is sometimes? What exactly is a little? And we will have to take their word on it, since they just state their ‘facts’ and hardly back anything up with solid hard evidence.

What is even more shocking to me, is that they use so-called ‘gentle acids’. They just happen to mention acetic acid. That is not so gentle as they may want you to believe…On wikipedia we can read the following:

Concentrated acetic acid is corrosive and must therefore be handled with appropriate care, since it can cause skin burns, permanent eye damage, and irritation to the mucous membranes. These burns or blisters may not appear until hours after exposure. Latex gloves offer no protection, so specially resistant gloves, such as those made of nitrile rubber, should be worn when handling the compound. Concentrated acetic acid can be ignited with difficulty in the laboratory. It becomes a flammable risk if the ambient temperature exceeds 39 °C (102 °F), and can form explosive mixtures with air above this temperature (explosive limits: 5.4%–16%). The hazards of solutions of acetic acid depend on the concentration.

They also state that acetic acid is vinegar, apparently…but that totally correct. On wikipedia we can find the following: “Acetic acid, also known as ethanoic acid, is an organic acid, giving vinegar its sour taste and pungent smell” It is not vinegar itself. It is the main ingredient.

The ‘fur is green’ site also mentions soda ash and labels it natural, BUT they forget to mention that most soda ash is being produced synthetically via the ‘Solvay process’. If it is synthetic, it’s not a natural ingredient…

I can go on like this for quite some time and this way I will most likely bore you all to death… But I’m just trying to show that it’s not that simple and clear cut as the makers of this website (the furcouncil) will have you believe.

You can find more information on the fur is green campaign on the blog of Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States of America: link

You can also find more information here: cruelty is not green

Keep an eye on this blog, I will write part 2 on the ‘fur is green’ website soon. And feel free to comment if you have something to add…

Now, on a lighter note…here is a video that actually mentions the campaign ‘fur is green’.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »