January 4, 2008
Fashionista Alert: Anti-Fur Protest in Yorkville
Attention Wintourites, Olsen fan club members, and other fabulously fur-clad denizens of our fair city:
It's January. It's freaking cold. Yes, the Weather Network says it's going to be unseasonably warm any day now, but we'll believe that when we stop seeing our breath—indoors.
So, when you arise to minus-whatever temperatures tomorrow, bundle up in those pelts. Put on your fuzzy bunny muffs, your silver fox stoles, your Muscovite mink hats. Chinchilla-cape your cold shoulders and drape yourselves in vintage skins (recyclable and biodegrable—what could be eco-friendlier?). You look warm. And hot. Seriously, we love it. We look at you and we want to be in that beaver. You know what we mean.
Just keep your stylish self out of Yorkville for a few hours tomorrow, mmkay? Specifically, between the hours of 3:00 and 4:30 p.m. at the southwest corner of Bay Street and Cumberland Avenue, where animal rights organization Wild at Heart Canada is holding their first anti-fur demonstration of the new year. This is the same Toronto-based grassroots group that recently protested the sale of foie gras at Pusateri's—because apparently, there are no more egregious global injustices to battle than "violence to ducks" (which, by the way, aren't exactly an endangered species in these parts).
Wild at Heart doesn't actually seem too wild, and we assume this protest is the non-violent kind. Still, for the safety of your favourite furs, we suggest erring on the side of caution... or, at the very least, the other side of Cumberland. We'd hate to see you egg-pelted in the name of fringe activism. Can you imagine, your grandmother's priceless Persian lamb coat ruined by these well-intentioned but fashion-clueless zealots? That's just inhumane.
Photo by ayndroid from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
|
I've always wondered how members of greenpeace and PETA get along. It is funny how often their ideals clash.
Which is worse, wearing a warm leather coat made from the skin of an animal, or a synthetic nylon and gortex (whatever that is) coat made with dozens of different pollutants?
Of course hemp is the answer for most of these people, that is, until plants' rights activists get their way.
I've always wondered at the hatred towards groups of people who want to stick up for animals.
OK, it's hard, if not almost impossible, to wear or eat something nowadays that doesn't harm animals...but do we have to be so obvious about it with fur?
I mean, what is the harm with at least having some kind of conscience when it comes to this as opposed to an obvious and almost vulgar display?
"I have too much money and I love to show it off with dead animals around my neck."
Is a little more compassion and a little less fashion too much to ask?
Interesting, you can be a "loving Christian" and stand for war, capitalism and endless expansion, while you're admired as a mover and a shaker, a "person who stands for their convictions, right or wrong". Yet, when anyone who stands by their convictions in the name of animals, the poor or the environment, they're called Socialist-Pinko-Nazis.
love it, sarah. absolutely love it. i'd laugh harder but my gorilla chest vest is just so restrictive. *high five*
Was this post meant to be a troll, or sarcastic?
WannaBin--have you watched the HBO doc about Peta "I am Animal"?
It might clear some insight--I'm all for sticking up for animals, but some people just don't know how to do it properly. (like, um, that bold PETA comparison that eating meat is like "a Holocaust on your dinner plate")
"which, by the way, aren't exactly an endangered species in these parts"
So cruelty is OK if the animal isn't endangered?
I'm no raving carnivore-hater, but I really don't see how people can view foie gras as anything other than gruesome torture.
i'm not saying it's ok, exactly. i'm saying i don't give a shit. i'm considerably more concerned with the cruelty humans inflict on each other every day than with the "torture" of a bunch of useless birds. seriously. they don't even fly.
oh.
wait.
Not saying I agree with all of their tactics, but I'll stand with the people protesting fur and protecting animals instead of the people wearing fur anyday.
You, Sarah, are Torontoist's Royson James.
What's the difference between wearing fur and wearing a pair of leather boots or a suede jacket? Or a down jacket for that matter.
Ryan L, that's a good point. People who wear petroleum products rather than domestically grown animal hides are responsible for the Iraq war and peak oil.
In theory I don't have a problem with fur and leather if the animals it comes from are raised for that purpose (rather that yanked from an ecosystem) and not tortured.
I don't even know which is sarcasm anymore.
If these people were really concerned about animals or the environment, they would do the easiest and best thing to reduce society's impact on the environment - kill themselves, at as young an age as possible. There really is no ethical reason to keep living if you are an environmentalist or animal rights activist.
Let's hope the protest gets dodgy and some hippie freaks get to spend a few months at the Don Jail.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”.
-Mahatma Gandhi
Killing an animal just for their hide is disgustingly sick, anyone flaunting their furs should be publicly shamed.
They aren't wearing it as an alternative to oil products, if they were they wouldn't drive a car.
Wow, RealityCheck, you are right...Well, everyone who is concerned about animals or the environment, you heard him, let's all kill ourselves. But first, let's all just go ahead and kill all the animals and get THAT over with, and then let's poison every river and lake..oh, and the ocean...We won't be needing THAT anymore...let's see...birds, blow them out of the sky. Um, what have a missed, insects...pesticides will do nicely. Sure Reality, we will all kill ourselves and leave you to your own wasteland, you can have it all to yourself. Wear your furcoats, drive your SUV...have a blast.
Ignore RealityCheck. He (or she) just comes around here about once a week or so and tries to get people riled up about stuff.
I thought for a second RealityCheck was about to advocate mainstream environmentalists killing people who pollute and whatnot. That would certainly liven things up, wouldn't it?
This is the shittiest post i have ever seen on torontoist. Thanks Sarah!
"...comes around here about once a week or so and tries to get people riled up about stuff."
Couldn't you say the same about Sarah? Or me, for that matter?
I think mila is just bitter that she didn't get the beaver joke.
Obviously you have no understanding about how much cruelty and suffering that goes on behind the fur trade. This is an absolutly horrific practice that is heartbreaking. There ARE other options. I am refraining frome saying to you what I REALLY think about your cavalier attitude. You should take a more responsible approach to your position. As a fellow writer, I am very disappointed in you. Are you aware that in China and other countries they are also using cats and dogs skins for fur. Do you have a pet or knows anyone that loves animals? Have you ever seen a video of what unspeakable crimes are done to those with no voice? I think not, or you would have chosen your words more carefully. Wild at Heart is a champion for animal righs and a hero!! Not a group to be made fun of because they care and have a purpose ( Unlike You).
I think you are very immature and ill informed.
Please re-consider your views and do some research about which topic you are responding to. Fluff Journalism and sarcastic comments do not make for a worthwhile read. It is fodder for the more intelligent to respond. Thanks for giving us animal activists an easy way to bite back. It's obvious you should put down your pen and keep your cryons to color your ignorant world.
Barb B.
Hm, this article should read more like "attention conscious-fearing fur hags, drape yourselves in dead carcasses and don't forget to double-layer to protect your ignorance from an incoming attack on your conscience - go ahead, you'll look disgusting and barbaric anyways!"
Personally, I would rather stand outside with a group of respectable people trying to educate the public in a peaceful manner, rather than listen to what some little bird sitting on her computer draped in the skin of her dead puppy trying to be clever has to say - you're clearly well off enough to keep up with the times and pay for a computer and internet connection, why not use your privilege to bring you out of the dark ages and realize YOU'RE the only fashion victim here? You should try it, education and awareness are free.
In fact, your species of bird does seem to be going extinct, as people enter the 21st century and realize how passe - not to mention, ugly and disgusting - real fur is. I wouldn't see it as an "egregious global injustice" to pelt you with eggs either, but to be quite honest I think it would be a waste of perfectly good eggs.
Try lifting your head out of your butt, take a deep breath (the lack of oxygen may be what's causing your poor fashion judgement and crankiness) and go choose a battle worth fighting - because face it, yuppy fur hags are the only creatures fearing extinction, and we wouldn't want you to miss out on that fashion alert.
"yuppy fur hags are the only creatures fearing extinction, and we wouldn't want you to miss out on that fashion alert."
...and that, in half a sentence, is why a lot of people disagree with the loudest voices in the anti-fur movement.
This article and the comments are revolting to me. Someone says it's okay to raise an animal for fur... so it's ok to keep an animal in a tiny cage in which it cane barely move and then skin it alive? What an animal at a fur farm doesn't feel pain, or that since it's not a wild animal its pain isn't real?
Women who wear fur are not fashionable, they are ugly uncaring unkind sickos who in my book rank up there with child molesters and rapists. How anyone wrapped in fur can think they are pretty, is just nauseating. How someone can have so little regard for the suffering of animals is revolting. Sarah Prinkett and her supporters are by far some of the ugliest people I've ever encountered in my life. Are you even human?
http://www.furisdead.com/facts.asp
I am a student activist and I'm appalled and almost (almost!) speechless at this post. Im not going to tell you how bad fur is, because i think you know and just don't care, I'm not going to tell you you are a horrible person because i hope that you will read my comments as my view points with an open mind as i have read yours. Here are my responses from my point of view on your article and a view of the responses. Also i am vegan, i recently went coat shopping and i do not have a coat with fur, down or leather (nor own anything with any of those).
"This is the same Toronto-based grassroots group that recently protested the sale of foie gras at Pusateri's—because apparently, there are no more egregious global injustices to battle than "violence to ducks" (which, by the way, aren't exactly an endangered species in these parts)."
Have you ever fed, taken care of a duck? They are extremely sweet and smart animals. They can learn you voice, follow you around and amazing animals! Are you really aware of what foie gras is? What happens to the duck? They are force fed usually resulting in deaths due to enlarged livers.
"Put on your fuzzy bunny muffs, your silver fox stoles, your Muscovite mink hats. Chinchilla-cape your cold shoulders and drape yourselves in vintage skins (recyclable and biodegrable—what could be eco-friendlier?). You look warm. And hot. Seriously, we love it. We look at you and we want to be in that beaver. You know what we mean."
I dont know why everyone is acting like fur is so eco-friendly. The land and water degradation associated with fur farms and the amount of corn/food it takes to feed these animals are NOT environmentally friendly. Dont forget about transportation of the fur, the food sources, etc. Veganism is environmentalism.
"Can you imagine, your grandmother's priceless Persian lamb coat ruined by these well-intentioned but fashion-clueless zealots?"
I see a little break with "well-intentioned" but how are we fashion-clueless? My fashion doesn't include fur, leather or down how does that equate that Im clueless? Does that mean you are totally-clueless for not realizing what it really means by wearing the fur coat?
Next the comments:
"In theory I don't have a problem with fur and leather if the animals it comes from are raised for that purpose (rather that yanked from an ecosystem) and not tortured."
Not tortured? I think that would eliminate all animals in the fur industry, anal electrocution, being skinned alive, stuck in a small cage....
"I've always wondered how members of greenpeace and PETA get along. It is funny how often their ideals clash."
With the EPA naming the beef industry as the #1 producer of methane in the U.S and according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport we do have a very large common ground.
"i'm not saying it's ok, exactly. i'm saying i don't give a shit. i'm considerably more concerned with the cruelty humans inflict on each other every day than with the "torture" of a bunch of useless birds. seriously. they don't even fly."
What actions are you currently taking to ease the suffering of other humans? Are you spending the same amount of money on your "fashion" as you are in donations to human-related organizations? And how is your post attacking and demeaning fur activists enforcing your "concern" for "the cruelty humans inflict on each other" ?
"What's the difference between wearing fur and wearing a pair of leather boots or a suede jacket? Or a down jacket for that matter."
I am vegan and i don't wear, use, eat anything from animals. Its a lot easier than most think and lessens my impact on the world.
"If these people were really concerned about animals or the environment, they would do the easiest and best thing to reduce society's impact on the environment - kill themselves, at as young an age as possible. There really is no ethical reason to keep living if you are an environmentalist or animal rights activist.
Let's hope the protest gets dodgy and some hippie freaks get to spend a few months at the Don Jail."
Wow, even more ignorant than the original post. I think everyone knows this is ridiculous.
""yuppy fur hags are the only creatures fearing extinction, and we wouldn't want you to miss out on that fashion alert."
...and that, in half a sentence, is why a lot of people disagree with the loudest voices in the anti-fur movement."
Loudest voices? The first anti-fur post that was well written, respectable did not even receive a response. Don't pick out one voice from many, call it the loudest and skew the real issue....fur is torture.
I'm sure that you must have thought that you had delivered a witty, even pithy, social commentary on the side of the "fur-clad denizens of our fair city" and congratulated yourself on no doubt what you saw as an intelligent strike against the group Wild at Heart. What I believe you delivered, however, is an article by a young, inexperienced, uninformed want to be writer who had nothing of substance to offer besides fluffy pop culture references and not so clever sarcasm.
What was the point of this blog anyhow? You didn't speak clearly on what your real subject was. Was is fur? Was it about Wild at Heart? Or lets face it, was it about you?
I find it interesting that it is necessary to warn the public at large to beware of non-violent demonstrators who may attack you with information. Maybe you should have showed up and became a little more informed yourself.
Saying that "Wild at Heart doesn't actually seem that wild" shows that you are missing the point entirely. It's about heart my dear, and us "fringe activism" types have loads of it. We have taken the time to inform ourselves about what we believe in before going out in the world to have a clever debate with the masses who for the most part would love to remain ignorant of where their dinner and their fashion choices are truly coming from.
People who stand up for animal rights are a special group. We will take all that you have to shovel our way and it will only further encourage us to do more research, produce more hard facts, and petition for change. It's called passion. We have found ours and maybe one day you too will find something that is truly important to you. Let's hope that you will not be met with the same type of immature mocking that you have put forward here.
Way to go Wild@Heart for standing up for those with no voice; the animals!
It's great to see citizens spreading awareness to the public about what goes on behind closed doors with in profiting industries. If you don't, who would?
I applaud you of protesting in the cold weather... People know that you are out there for a reason. I think the public is smart enough to know that this article is a biased article and quite an insensitive one at that.
The cold truth is that fur contributes to an extremely cruel and unnessary industry. An animal living in a space so small it can't even fully stretch, and all so someone can have fur trim on their collar or fur mitts? And when beautiful alternatives are available, even faux fur. It makes sense to me to spare these animals the cruelty.
Anyone wanting to know more information about what's involved in the process of fur can easily find information by searching any search engine. I warn you though, you may want to throw up. I would recommend you at the very least read the information, just so that you can make a more informed decision should you ever be tempted to buy fur. It is your choice.
I'm just sorry that you seem so misinformed about fur Sarah. Please take some time to educate yourself more on this issue. You may then understand why fur contributes to such cruelty.
And lastly, Sarah, I'm sending some hugs your way. I know that within you there is compassion. Maybe you just wrote this because of your job. I know you could never write such an article and truly mean it.
Take care Sarah
OH MY, amazing what an angry call to action on facebook can provoke...
Instead of losing your collective minds, perhaps consider that while you may disagree with the tone of the article it IS actually getting publicity and people's attention on the FUR-or-not issue!
I can guarantee you if this post read like all your other promotional materials it would be glossed over and buried under all other posts, and not start one ounce of discussion.
As a vegan, an animal rights activist, and one of the Directors for Wild At Heart, it was disheartening to stumble across your post today, Ms. Prickett. (Apt name, that.)
Wild At Heart Canada is a hard-working group of volunteers with only one goal: educating the public about animal exploitation. We do so via peaceful methods such as public demonstrations (we do not "protest", we educate with leaflets, posters, and calm, intelligent dialogue), tabling at events like the Toronto Vegetarian Food Fair, and arranging fun, festive socials.
We do all of this on our own time, our own dime, and for the sake of billions of animals that are tortured, skinned, and murdered every year - a couple million alone purely for the fur industry.
What do you find so objectionable about our actions? That we're not freezing our asses off for the sake of whatever charity/cause/issue du jour that YOU feel is most important?
How do you know that we don't?
Most activists are just that - active! - for many different causes, whether it be animal, human, or environmental. Just because we happen to be devoting one afternoon out of several to the horrors (yes, HORRORS) of foie gras or fur or vivisection, doesn't mean we're not "battling" all those other "egregious global injustices" you're presumably crusading against (but somehow forgot to mention?).
There is nothing fashionable about wearing the skins of abused and mutilated animals. There is nothing stylish about having a fox anally/vaginally electrocuted for the fifteen minutes it takes to die. There is nothing trendy about gassing or drowning or poisoning or trapping living creatures, just to carve the skin from their (often still-living) bodies.
There is also nothing "eco-friendly" about it, either - fur farms are hard on local water tables, they produce tonnes of waste, and the chemicals required to keep that "priceless, vintage" garment from rotting right off your back are highly toxic.
What surprises me the most is that you're a pet parent. In China, your kitten would be seen as nothing more than a bit of fur trim for a scarf, some gloves, or the hood of a jacket. Before you scoff or roll your eyes, understand that 60% of the world's fur now comes from China - a country with no animal welfare laws whatsoever - and where 5400 dogs and cats are killed for their fur every day. Any fashionista worth her salt would have heard about Macy's, Jay-Z's 'Rocawear', Tommy Hilfiger, and P. Diddy's 'Sean John' (among others - most recently Costco last month) pulling a variety of fur-trimmed jackets and accessories from store shelves last year after the fur tested positively as canine.
Wearing fur - ANY fur - sets a precedent, creates demand, and kills far more animals, far more cruelly, than you could ever imagine.
Compassion is the fashion, Ms. Prickett - anything else is just behind the times.
Regards,
Natalie Fenton
Director of Skins, Wild At Heart Canada
Does anyone else find it completely deranged to wear another creature's skin??? THAT'S SO FUCKING SICK. Imagine if people wore other people! Then we'd all be outraged. Come on. Fur, leather... same thing. It's killing something, TAKING ITS SKIN OFF, and WEARING it. Ugghh. Sarah Prickett and friends, you make me sick.
Before you write your next article, you should do some research and GET INFORMED!
Fur and leather are not as biodegradable as you think. There are just as many chemicals going in to these coats, and more. Formaldehyde is used to preserve these materials, and tanners and dyes are used for appearance. Not to mention all the environmental damage that goes in to mass producing animals used for fur.
You live in the city. How cold will you be running indoors from the subway, or from your car? Get real. What do skiers, mountain rangers or snow patrol wear? Definitely not fur.
Wild @ Heart, like most animal rights organizations protest peacefully. The goal is to get the attention of the public, and INFORM them with the truth. Not throw eggs at them! What would that accomplish?
You need to watch this video about foie gras, and re-think your tasteless statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KQxMv1a6Y
Fur is not fashionable. It doesn't look "hot" either. It makes the person wearing it look like a hooker and an a$$hole.
Moron Alert: Uninformed Fur Hag writes biased article because she thinks animals should die to warm her lame ass.
I wish the general public would realize that PETA is not the only animal rights organization! They don't represent all compassionate people or hold all the same ideals.
foie gras is delicious.
PAIGESIX SAID:
"
OH MY, amazing what an angry call to action on facebook can provoke...
Instead of losing your collective minds, perhaps consider that while you may disagree with the tone of the article it IS actually getting publicity and people's attention on the FUR-or-not issue!
I can guarantee you if this post read like all your other promotional materials it would be glossed over and buried under all other posts, and not start one ounce of discussion.
"
Wild at Heart Canada is heavily covered by the media, both Canadian and international, and receives plently of publicity whether or not they are mentioned on this blog. They have been on TV around the world, on major radio stations, had numerous articles written about them in major papers, and the list goes on. So publicity generating is not the issue.
The issue is irresponsible journalism--if you can call the above article 'journalism'. Even if the article was supposed to be tongue in cheek and a joke, it is never okay to put down a group of people and take cheap shots at them, especially when they work very, very hard to try and make this world a better place. What are either you or Sarah doing to make it better? And, NO, donating to some major organization once every few years does not count. What are either of you doing at the grassroots level to create positive change? From what we can all see, NOTHING. What are you doing in your own lives except living in your self-absorbed bubble?
The bottom line is this. If you write garbage like what you have written above, expect to be held accountable and to have to answer for your not-so-clever words.
In all fairness, Sarah has answered for her words and responded to the comments. She said it very clearly: she just doesn't give a shit. And I think it's great of Torontoist to give a voice to this attitude, because it represents a large number of people out there. See the people driving around the city in their Hummers? They don't give a shit either.
This is something that environmentalists and animal activists need to hear. Living in Toronto it can be easy to start thinking that everyone believes the same things as you and your friends: animals deserve protection, the environment is a critical issue, the homeless deserve our help -- but don't fool yourself.
Know what your fellow citizens are thinking, and pay attention to how they justify their actions (as fucked-up as their reasoning may sound to you). It's the only way we can ever hope to change some minds.
The problem with fundamentalism (which is beyond activism) is that it is counterproductive to the cause. It's good to be passionate, but attacking strangers in an aggressive, passive-aggressive, patronizing, unhinged way doesn't do the anti-fur cause any favours.
I hope you also reserve the same mass motivation and vitriol for protesting overseas sweatshops, petroleum products, inaccessibility to education, poverty, war, government corruption, exploitive corporations, fundamentalist religion, general bigotry and the like—because they're all just as bad as fur harvesting.
Educating people is a good thing, but so is tact. There comes a point (pretty early on) where a line gets crossed between passionate and extreme, and then the objective to inform gets lost.
Yesterday, I saw an old (gas-guzzling) clunker parked outside Rabba that was covered ubiquitously on all sides with anti-fur bumper stickers and signs. Now, I personally think the production of foie gras is revolting and I've never owned any fur and nothing in leather except shoes, but the very first thing I thought when I saw that car was, "ugh, that person must be a real fucking treat to be around."
i wear fur and i'm proud of it.
sure perhaps i don't support the mass production of new fur and fur farms... but vintage fur. hell it's good for the envrionment (biodegradable) and looks good.
so to all you who have wasted you precious protesting time: relax.
marc i am in total agreeance with you.
Well, Sarah, you have a long ways to go before you approach Leah McLaren; I suppose we all have to reach for something. Your sarcasm is muddled, wit unpolished, and point of your article seems more "let's say something contentious te get people to read my article" than anything else.
Fair play to you -- at least you found a place to practice. Keep it up, angry letters mean publicity, and that means readers (indignant or not). It worked for Howard Stern and McLaren, so it might work for you too if you can get better at it.
I appreciate your points, Mr. Lostracco, but comments like "attacking strangers" and "educating is good, but so is tact", in addition to labels such as "fundamentalism", "unhinged" and "extreme", are completely off-base - especially if applied to Wild At Heart Canada.
As mentioned in my above post, we are a peaceful group, an incredibly POLITE group - despite the rude, often threatening remarks tossed our way during events - and if our passion for what we do makes some uncomfortable, perhaps they should consider WHY, rather than immediately cosign us to the "Fundie Zealots R Us" category.
Your remarks - much like the author's - typify the kinds of sweeping generalizations we are so determinedly trying to distance ourselves from - which is exactly why this piece, and subsequent comments, struck a nerve:
You simply CANNOT base the actions (or over-stereotyped, over-exaggerated actions) of one group of people, and then ascribe them to every. single. other. group. who may or may not share the same goals/ideals/core beliefs.
As poster, barberella, correctly points out: PETA is not the only game in town.
In all my years of activism (and they have been many), I have *never* witnessed anyone assault a fur wearer - with paint, eggs, physical force, or anything else, for that matter.
By contrast, the amount of times fellow activists have been verbally threatened, punched, spit on, and pushed are too numerous to count - the most recent threats (2 of them) occurring during the very demonstration that sparked this conversation.
The bottom line is that Wild At Heart Canada has worked incredibly hard for the last 2+ years. Our volunteers are dedicated, intelligent individuals, and, thanks to them, we are one of the most active animal rights groups in Toronto, if not Canada. To have an opinion piece written where no opinion could possibly have been formed (the author has never, to our knowledge, spoken to us or attended one of our events) - and with a decidedly defamatory slant at that, is not only uncalled for, is not only offensive, it tarnishes our reputation and the efforts of our members.
You said it yourself, Mr. Lostracco - no one likes hanging around tactless, wild-eyed extremists. In Ms. Prickett's unfounded article, that is exactly what we're made out to be.
N. Fenton
I'm not talking about Wild At Heart, furygrrl, but about the comments here. The comment above yours is part of what I'm talking about—patronizing, insulting, passive-aggressive and tacky. Others have been pontificating, arrogant, and borde