A tale of two charities — and their furs
Following an article published today in the Greenwich Times (Fur flies over charity fund-raiser”, Nov. 9), Missionaries on Call, Inc. cancelled a fundraiser involving the selling of fur coats at a posh seaside hotel. The charity had planned to sell furs from wholesaler P.K. Imports with the hopes of raising $10,000.
A second organization in the news for using furs as a charity draw is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). (Fur flies as animal-rights group gives used coats to Detroit homeless, Nov. 9)
Ironically, after PETA attracted women with full-length mink coats, fox jackets, and rabbit fur wraps, a PETA spokesperson rebuked Missionaries on Call, saying, “It’s pretty unfortunate that an organization that seems to want to reduce suffering in the world would seem to support the suffering of millions of animals in the fur trade.”
Although PETA’s furs may not come from wholesalers, fur is fur. Unfortunately, it is women that are being manipulated into wearing fur. “Fur has become fashionable again and women will wear anything that’s fashionable,” said Richard D. North, an economic expert who defends the global fur industry in an article that explains how new fur, fur dusted off from the attic, and even fake fur are part of the trend that signals a revival of fur.
6 Comments
On November 10, 2004, Bill Dollinger wrote:
I recall, years ago, the slogan was “There’s no excuse for wearing fur.” It is disturbing to see an animal welfare organization offer exemptions for those who can make fur appear undesirable. We need to send a clear, consistent message. Shunning fur is an ethical decision, and there are many ways to keep warm without relying on dead animals. I refer readers to “People for the Exploitative Treatment of Arabs?”, written by Lee Hall.
On November 10, 2004, Joe Miele wrote:
I wonder if PeTA would give away donated circus tickets or donated meat? Clearly, the group has forgotten (if it ever knew in the first place) what the philosophy of animal rights is about.
On November 11, 2004, Ellie wrote:
Giving fur coats to homeless persons is another PeTA publicity stunt. Judging from the tension over who would receive a coat, I’d say the group didn’t come close to getting the anti-fur message.
And who could blame them? PeTA gave the coats to homeless women who were staying off drugs, and paying rent. Clearly, the furs were a reward for being “good homeless people”, a prize which also elevates the status of wearing fur. How is that different from the rest of the population?
At least Missionaries On Call cancelled their fur sale.
On November 15, 2004, Ellie wrote:
I’ve also been reading that some of the celebrities who came out for PeTA against fur are now wearing furs. The change has been noticed by
a number of journalists. Why the turn-about? So much for fickle, publicity seeking celebrities!
On December 9, 2004, Claudia wrote:
I think the key to the issue is what’s in fashion. In the past it was “in fashion” to be against furs and for animal rights. Now, apathy has become abundant in our country and the majority seems not willing to stand for what’s right (on more than just the animal rights issue). Now its “in fashion” to go along with the crowd. That’s why its more important for those who still DO have strong convictions to stand their ground and defend animals - and what’s right.
On December 9, 2004, lisa wrote:
Peta’s use of homeless people to further their own ends is reprehensible. The point, which Peta seems to have missed, is that nobody (rich or poor) should wear fur. Used furs should be cut up and given to wildlife rehabbers who specialize in mammals. This gives the baby animals a sense of comfort and familiarity, and is the only use for used fur I have ever seen that makes any sense at all.