Today Thu Fri
It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 23, 2012
Chance of Rain
18°/15°		 It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
19°/14°		 It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of Rain
22°/13°

87 Comments

news

Fashionista Alert: Anti-Fur Protest in Yorkville

By Sarah Nicole Prickett

2008_01_04fur.jpg 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.

Comments

  • Ryan L

    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.

  • WannaBinToranna

    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.

  • Julie Reitsma

    love it, sarah. absolutely love it. i’d laugh harder but my gorilla chest vest is just so restrictive. *high five*

  • Ben

    recyclable and biodegradable—what could be eco-friendlier?

    Using animals as a source for anything is always a lot less eco-friendly than using a plant.
    Was this post meant to be a troll, or sarcastic?

  • paigesix

    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”)

  • james a

    “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.

  • Sarah Prickett

    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.

  • Sarah Prickett

    oh.
    wait.

  • WannaBinToranna

    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.

  • Jonathan Goldsbie

    You, Sarah, are Torontoist’s Royson James.

  • spacejack

    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.

  • spacejack

    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.

  • rek

    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.

  • Ryan L

    I don’t even know which is sarcasm anymore.

  • RealityCheck

    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.

  • Svend

    “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.

  • WannaBinToranna

    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.

  • David Topping

    Ignore RealityCheck. He (or she) just comes around here about once a week or so and tries to get people riled up about stuff.

  • rek

    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?

  • mila

    This is the shittiest post i have ever seen on torontoist. Thanks Sarah!

  • Jonathan Goldsbie

    “…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?

  • antiboy

    I think mila is just bitter that she didn’t get the beaver joke.

  • Jaz8

    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.

  • girlxriot

    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.

  • David Topping

    “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.

  • veganbiotch

    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

  • FurFreeNProud

    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.

  • izjustagirl

    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.

  • AndreInglis

    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

  • paigesix

    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.

  • furygrrl

    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

  • areklein

    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.

  • barberella

    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.

  • barberella

    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.

  • x_the_x

    foie gras is delicious.

  • mishkalee

    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

    I don’t understand why people feel that they have to choose to care about humans or chose to care about animals. It is entirely possible to care about both – and many, many animal rights activists do. It’s not a matter of caring about suffering animals over suffering humans – it’s about just trying to lessen suffering. Period.

  • dirtymonroe

    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.

  • just_the_news

    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.

  • Marc Lostracco

    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.”

  • av

    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.

  • literazzi

    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.

  • furygrrl

    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

  • Marc Lostracco

    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 borderline kooky, in context.
    As with any sort of fundamentalism, it’s the few that ruin it for the many, and like I said, some of the people here that were drawn from the Facebook call to action that spurred these comments aren’t doing the cause any favours. I don’t think anyone is painting anti-fur activists with the same brush like, say, the author is being painted with.
    As for you never having seen fur-wearers be assaulted or harrassed: neither have I, but we all still know it happens, unfortunately. It’s easier to convert people to a cause without the piss and vinegar, or without making strangers think one is scary or mentally unstable.

  • andrew

    i side with the “fur is a bad idea” philosophically, but in practice hanging around with animal rights activists is frustrating. too often they respond with lectures, accuse people of doing bad things knowingly, call people names, and then act indignant and put upon. you know what? yes, in general as a species we are very cruel to animals. we use our resources poorly. i think most people in toronto are either aware of that or are becoming aware of it. but your message is lost because you are far too strident, way too confrontational, and tactically you couldn’t organize your way out of a paper bag. cogent, reasonable demonstrations of the links between cruelty to animals and other locally-felt problems would go a long way towards gathering sympathy and allies. perhaps demonstrating how a lifestyle less cruel to animals is better for your personal health and helps to eliminate racism and sexism [i know, i know...sexual politics of meat. i too have a consolidated cassette at home] would garner more positive attention. in addition, i’d like to add that “[Apt name, that]” is the kind of comment that a Director of a non-profit group should really know better than to make public. your years of experience haven’t taught you how to practice due care carrying out your duties.
    and besides, the original post was funny. c’mon, that beaver joke was awesome.

  • barberella

    Your vintage fur coat is NOT biodegradable. Half the coat is made of synthetic fibers. I highly doubt the lining is a natural fiber.
    What people fail to realize is all the chemicals which go in to fur production from the animals and the production process itself.
    Therefor, more chemicals are not used in synthetic clothing, it’s probably about the same. Only the life of several animals were spared.
    Fur is not just one skinned animal’s pelt. All the fur is attached together without the face, legs etc and then it is all dyed and painted to look exactly as if it came from the same animal.
    Any way you look at it, fur is neither ethical nor environmentally friendly. Stop fooling yourselves.

  • torontoistnot

    Re Ms. Prickett’s comments about Wild @ Heart:
    I have not used my heat except once this year or last to keep my system working. I put on a sweater or scarf or two and wool socks, and haven’t found the need to have the heat on at all. I find that strenuous exercise, a vegan diet, supplements, plenty of fluids, and enough sleep all contribute to excellent health and good circulation, so perhaps if Ms. Prickett is seeing her breath indoors she should consult her doctor or ask her landlord to turn her hovel into a home.
    Fur may be recyclable in the sense that the musty moth-eaten skins with hair (you might want to vacuum to get into the crevices) can be passed down from generation to generation; but there is a cost. That cost is clear in Japan, for example, where little children watch as live animals are tossed to a herd of wildcats, all in the name of entertainment. Talk about child abuse and the creation of the next unfeeling generation with no compassion or sense of boundaries or normalcy. No wonder there is so much violence with the gratuitous kind exploding all over the world. Killing animals with as much right to live as we have is one kind.
    Would Ms. Prickett like to be anally electrocuted so as not to damage her hide or skinned alive? I don’t think so. It is important to teach little ones and young people that killing other humans (and we are animals too, if we can finally admit it – so what?) and other sentient beings who suffer, cry, and have been shown to mourn, the way we do, is wrong. We are not voyageurs, we are not living in such harsh conditions as in those days, in which we had to learn how to survive from First Nations people (among my ancestors were such Europeans), and animals are not here for our exploitation. That was then; this is now. As someone has already quoted, we are only as civilized a society as our treatment of animals (the inclusion of humans understood). So Ms. Prickett’s advice that we should all prance proudly around pretentious Yorkville in the remains of the original pelt owners to show we are, in fact, insensitive to anyone but ourselves, is most offensive to this person who cares for the welfare of other beings. Does she not have anything better to do than play in her clothes and admire her fake hair colour? Heather Mills is a successful fashion model who overcame the barriers of missing a leg in that industry–incredible enough–and finds time to support important causes when she could sit around polishing her nails. She was a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. I don’t think she could be called fashion illiterate or “fashion-clueless”, as Ms. Prickett somewhat less elegantly phrases it. Ms. Mills is a woman of substance, a leader. Does an animal have to be endangered, Ms. Prickett, to deserve compassion?
    I inherited a Persian lamb coat like so many others and dumped it instantly. It wouldn’t give me any shape or panache but, worse, it would give me looks of disdain from those with a conscience if I were to bother “showing it off” anywhere in our fair city. Come now, anyone can own fur and it is certainly not regarded these days as a status symbol. Just the opposite among even the non-cognoscente.
    I will not buy Armani, one of my favourite designers aesthetically, as he uses fur. Or Michael Kors. I am quite fashion-conscious as a designer myself, but will not blindly follow the unthinking masses, who are duped by the fashion and beauty industries into believing that they can’t be “fierce” without fur or other silly products with unhealthy ingredients. Fur and leather are heavily treated chemically. Not in a healthy way. Check out ewg.org if you want to know about THAT.
    The reference to egg-throwing is unfair. I don’t throw things, nor has any activist I’ve ever known. For someone who, to my knowledge, hasn’t even interviewed this group, this is almost a joke, as well as one-eyed “journalism”. In fact, I pick up garbage to help the litter problem and hope that perhaps someone with a heart and a brain will copy me.
    Can we graduate from elementary-school jokes about beaver…is that the standard to which journalism students are held today? I also saw a reference to Ms. Prickett’s not “giving a shit” in her written work. I was hoping for a professional commentary, but I have to say I have lost all interest in checking out torontoist.
    An advocate for the voiceless.
    I will not disclose my name because I demonstrate for various causes and I hope that by not divulging this information it will decrease my chances of being assaulted by an out-of-control member of the public.

  • iamnotdynamite

    “we use our resources poorly [...] cogent, reasonable demonstrations of the links between cruelty to animals and other locally-felt problems would go a long way towards gathering sympathy and allies. perhaps demonstrating how a lifestyle less cruel to animals is better for your personal health and helps to eliminate racism and sexism.”
    i just wanted to chime in admidst the hoopla this post has generated and say that i think that this is exactly the sort of problem with most people’s attitudes towards animal rights and environmental issues- it’s always about how not being cruel to animals can help HUMANS, how cutting down vs. not cutting down trees can help HUMANS. i think a serious consideration of the issues needs to move beyond this. of course, doing so is actually very difficult, and i do understand that showing how a person would personally benefit from, say, not wearing fur, is a fine first step, but unfortunately it seems like with most people the discourse never goes beyond this first step. as long as we regard animals and the environment as resources to be exploited whenever it benefits us, i don’t think we’ll see the degree of change that most animal rights activists and environmentalists want.
    and that’s just one of many things stated in this post and some of it’s subsequent comments that has irked me, but i’ll leave it at this, as it touched directly on the sorts of things i’ve been thinking about recently :-) .

  • FashionShmasion

    To Ms. Fenton,
    If, as you say, “Wearing fur – ANY fur – sets a precedent, creates demand, and kills far more animals, far more cruelly, than you could ever imagine” than perhaps PETA should reconsider its relationship with designer Stella McCartney, who, while at the helm of Chloe, designed opulent faux fur jackets?
    I understand you may not be affiliated with PETA or Stella McCartney. I also understand there are differences between your group and PETA. I find it difficult to believe, however, that an anti-fur group such as PETA, no matter how dissimilar it may be from yours, would go to the point of “killing far more animals…than you could ever imagine” by aligning itself with Ms. McCartney.
    If you meant ANY fur EXCEPT faux, I suggest you amend or retract your statement.
    -ac

  • furygrrl

    FashionShmasion:
    Faux fur is not fur, therefore my statement is accurate.

  • FashionShmasion

    ^ to above
    “ANY fur” would include the faux kind.
    Besides, faux fur perpetuates the fur trend anyway, so my argument is still accurate.
    - ac

  • shiva

    I FEEL SORRY FOR ALL YOU IGNORANT PEOPLE.
    YOU DON’T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT WHERE YOUR FOOD AND CLOTHING COME FROM.
    YOU EAT YOUR HAMBURGERS AND WEAR FUR COATS,YOU RIDICULE ANIMAL ACTIVISTS,NOT KNOWING THAT ALL THE SUFFERING YOU INFLICT UPON OTHERS,WILL COME BACK TO YOU IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
    EDUCATE YOURSELVES,THEN MAYBE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.
    IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
    GO TO veganTHIS.ORG OR http://www.myspace.com/give_love_wings AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES.

  • barberella

    Faux fur is NOT fur. It goes by many other names in a fabric store.
    Fake fur is also one thing that can help turn these “fashionistas” on to cruelty-free fashion. It has to exist as another option.

  • suzybella

    This is a travesty! You think only of your selves shame on you could you wear your cat or dog as a fur
    I ask you?? There are so many fake and other fibers
    that keep you warmer these days, fur is nothing but a status thing.So stop being so VAIN!!! And get with the live and let live. Sickos

  • x_the_x

    Clearly everyone but the dogmatists have left the room, but one of the thing that irks me about certain activists of all stripes is the guiding assumption that people who think differently than they do about their pet issue are reasoning from incomplete or misleading facts, instead of, say, having weighed the arguments/facts and reached a different conclusion.
    The refrain of “spread awareness/provide information/inform people of the facts” is not based on any democratic to-ing and fro-ing (in other words, on the belief that reasonable people can have differences in opinion on the issue) but instead based on the implication that there is no other logical stance for one to take once all the facts are known, other than the activists’ stance. I think another commentator called it fundamentalism.
    To the assembled outraged, can you accept that someone could digest all of your large-capped screeds and visited all of the vegan.org websites you have suggested and still come to the conclusion that wearing fur is an ethical and reasonably held position? Because if the answer is no, you might begin to understand why people don’t really want to listen you (i.e., because you are not willing to listen to them).

  • shiva

    Most psychopats and serial killers started out by torturing innocent animals.
    If you eat meat or wear fur,you may as well be slitting cow’s throats,ripping chicken’s heads off,electrocuting foxes or skinning them alive yourself.
    “It is lack of love for ourselves that inhibits our compassion toward others. If we make friends with ourselves, then there is no obstacle to opening our hearts and minds to others.”

  • shiva

    Here,in case anyone wanted to see where fur coats really come from. Watch this video and tell me if you still think it’s ok to wear fur.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oR9k25z-6E

  • reichkrusher

    Maybe there are better tactics to promote animal rights than some of the current practices, but I am going to be direct rather than pragmatic right now. I’ll speak from the heart. The fact is that it is bad enough that we partake in this massive exploitation of innocent lives, but taking it to the next level by attacking people who try to lessen the suffering seems to me an indication of being the lowest form of human life. I haven’t been to the Wild At Heart demos yet, but I admire what they do. These are people who are fighting for justice and compassion. History will vindicate such individuals, the way is has done for those who fought for the rights of women or against slavery. Is it really that bad to have some compassion for animals who are needlessly suffering? Sarah, you’re a pathetic writer. But more importantly, you are a failure as a fully developed human being. I wish I could legally put you through the same ordeals fur animals face. You’d be more useful as a skin jacket for my dog than as an author of moronic articles.

  • sophia dalle

    Many erudite comments have been made point by point. i thank the activists and sincere and thoughtful people who have contributed . There fore i will not reiterate I will cut right to the chase.The abysmally flagrant arrogant ignorance potryaed with utter stupidity by the writer Sarah P is only more so highlighted by her utter lack of empathy and has shown us instead one of the prevailing diseases of humanity. the ability to not care or dnial of anothers pain. and suffering. itis this central and essential necessary civilized awareness that seperates us from stone. We can go on and on for years having discourse about so very many issues and reasons for and against . but there is a bottom line. and the bottom line is simple . indeed most simple.suffering and pain . yes read my lips pain and suffering. if you dont get it by now you will get it sooner or later in one of your incarnations. until then if Miss Sarah P wishes to continue to prove to us she has an excruciating spiritual void that is her business. It would be elegant id she were eductaed about the subjects she chooses to write on . let me leave you with this bit of wisdom to be truly chic to have great style , class one must be spiritually chic as well. and that my dear would have to mean one would not be responsible in any way for having caused another life to suffer.and yes that would include leather .The delusion of vanity at the expense of anothers life is ;aighable , unfortunately torture is not funny and the animals feeling the pain arent laughing.go to an abattoir, a slaughterhouse. go to the fur farms in china when they bash the heads in of the animals, go to india where they mercilessly drive those poor calves and older cows across india starving bleeding an dthen slit their throats. in short grow up.

  • Gloria

    “Spiritually chic” is my first favourite term of the year.

  • rek

    shiva – And Hitler started out being an artist, so does that put all artists on the road to being new Hitlers, or does it just make you an idiot? C’mon.
    You lot may be against fur and eating meat and using feather dusters, but it doesn’t give you license to be assholes to anyone who disagrees. Being assholes also won’t sway anyone’s opinion in your favour, so you might want to stop for that reason alone.

  • andrew

    “…and that my dear would have to mean one would not be responsible in any way for having caused another life to suffer.”
    Hey you, stop using the internet. Wastes too much power. Causes suffering. Using “my dear” in the way you have, causes me to suffer. Lastly, your astonishing punctuation hurts me deeply and profoundly; I think that all you animal-rights activists need to take some deep breaths before writing. I hope it is because you are generally so furious you disregard your typographical errors, and not that you are all wickedly illiterate.
    Did none of you get it? Regardless of Ms. Prickett’s intent in writing what she has, the outcome has been a more widespread awareness that this protest is actually taking place, and a discussion on the philosophy of using animals as food and clothing. Some of the responses posted here are ridiculous and none have the wit or verve Ms. Prickett threw vicariously in our direction. What was that above, “skin jacket for my dog”? Are you even trying?
    Ms. Prickett wrote that she cares more about humans’ cruelty to other humans more than our cruelty to animals. Would you, animal rights activists at large, care to say to your comrades who struggle for affordable housing or First Nations sovereignty or fair trade laws that they need to “grow up” because they care more about people than animals, wear leather, and eat meat? Please, provide some verifiable examples of where and when you’ve chosen to air your grievances in this manner off-line. I’d dearly love to see it.

  • Sarah Prickett

    LAST week, when I wrote this post, I believed that most animal rights activists were well-meaning, compassionate, active citizens. I also felt that their evident dedication and hard work would be better put to use in the name of, oh, just about any other cause. When Torontoist received an email from Wild@Heart informing us of their upcoming anti-fur protest, I went to their website and read it over. Then I read the newspaper headlines: war, poverty, AIDS, climate disaster, Britney. The more I thought about all that human suffering, the less room I had in my Grinch-like heart for the plight of lesser creatures.
    So instead of writing a listing for the protest, I took the information and gave it a facetious twist, posting it as a tongue-in-cheek warning to fur-wearers. I’m not claiming to be the 21st century Jonathan Swift, but I thought it was maybe kind of funny–not entirely sarcastic, but certainly not meant to be taken seriously. My editor agreed. My friends agreed.
    (Then again, both my editor and my friends know me personally. My new internet enemies do not–but that’s not stopping them from attacking me as such.)
    THIS week, after wading through a flood of reactionary, sanctimonious, and often vituperative comments, emails and (swear to god) Facebook messages (!), I believe most animal rights activists are certifiably insane.
    Of the people who emailed me privately, exactly one (1) man had the mental wherewithal to surmise that I was writing with my tongue in my cheek, not my head in my ass, as has been so eloquently suggested by some commenters. That said, he still found it irresponsible for me to make light of a cause that is clearly near and dear to his heart, and asked me respectfully to reconsider my stance. When I read that email, I was thisclose to coming out and apologizing to those whom I may have offended with my flippancy.
    Then I kept reading. And reading. And reading. While a few of the comments and emails were well-written and relatively reasonable, most were… well… let’s just say I’ve heard more rational arguments from CAMH outpatients at the Ossington bus stop.
    Over the past few days, I have been accused of lacking a brain, a conscience, a single humanitarian impulse, even–in all seriousness–a soul. I’ve been told to grow up, get anally electrocuted and find a new career path (presumably not in that order). I’ve been called a litany of names ranging from the confusingly spelled (what, pray tell, is a “looser”?) to the completely unprintable. And for what? Expressing my opinion? Yes, for those of you too dense to notice, that’s what this post is, and that’s how it should be judged. It’s not an news report on the fur issue, not an investigative piece on an anti-fur protest, and certainly not an article about Wild@Heart. It’s opinion and humour. You don’t agree with my opinion? Fine. My goal was to entertain and provoke discussion. Check and check. You don’t think it’s funny? Also fine. I understand that you don’t appreciate my sardonic undermining of your cherished beliefs. I won’t apologize, but I can empathize.
    Just don’t ever, ever accuse a journalist (even an “amateur” one) of being ignorant or ill-informed when you’re too blinded by your alleged enlightenment to understand what or why they’re writing.
    In conclusion, dear wild hearts, I’d like to congratulate you on the success of your collaborative efforts to, as that Facebook call to action said, “set me straight”. You’ve succeeded in validating every out-there stereotype that could possibly be applied to your group–stereotypes I previously would have considered unfair–while doing approximately nothing to sway me to your cause.
    I’d also like to thank those of you who graciously informed that ducks can indeed fly. I was aware. My earlier comment was a j…oh, never mind. You still won’t get it.
    So go ahead. Attack my intelligence, education, writing talent, “excruciating spiritual void,” hair colour, presumed living conditions and family name.
    It’s all water off a dead duck’s back, really.

  • Sarah Prickett

    P.S. I’ve never even worn fur.

  • james a

    Ultimately and unfortunately, you’re right. I think this thread has totally demonstrated why so many people are openly hostile towards animal rights activists. Quite a few of the posts have been as hateful and openly hostile as the practices they were railing against.
    That said, I really don’t get why Torontoist would get someone who doesn’t care about a given issue to cover that issue. Can other people submitting story ideas or looking for publicity for their own causes expect similar treatment, or was this just a mistake?

  • Sarah Prickett

    James, if I hadn’t written about it, no one would have.

  • ghost122

    Some fur facts for the uninformed:
    Death for farm-raised animals is like something out of a horror movie. The most common method used for killing foxes is anal electrocution. Mink are usually gassed or violently injected with poison. Many animals have their necks broken.
    Watch these videos if you think it is all fun and games and oh-so-glamorous!
    http://www.animal-protection.net/furtrade/movie.htm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_EDP_m7iRs
    http://www.youtube.com/watchv=QKjX01MKb_g here is the source of that “Persian Lamb” coat you’re so damn proud of.
    Synthetic materials are cheaper and warmer. We no longer live in caveman times wherein there are no other choices for clothing.
    Everything in fur is NOT natural and not all biodegradable. It is NOT a “green” choice. That is the new hype by the fur industry. The caustic and toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde and chromium used in fur processing are an extreme threat to the environment. In 1991, the EPA fined 2 fur processing plants $1.6 million as a result of pollution they caused. The EPA claimed the waste from fur processing plants “may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens.”
    Various chemicals used in the fur industry are potential skin irritants. These include alkalis, acids, alum, chromates, bleaching agents, oils, salt and the compounds involved in the dyeing process, which comprise various types of dyes as well as mordants (a substance used to fix dye in a pelt).
    Additionally, the corpses of the murdered animals are dumped into pits where their decaying bodies pollute ground water. Additionally, intensive farming produces ammonia which causes respiratory problems.
    While Ms. Prickett may have been speaking tongue in cheek, it is the ignorance of the other respondents that set off the ire of those who care about the animals. Truly, the life of ALL sentient beings should have value.
    So, I challenge all of you who think fur is such a great idea to watch the videos in their entirety. It is the callous disregard for the sanctity of life displayed in these videos that condemns the human population to its ever-increasing spiritual decay as manifested by rampant crime, abuse, war and destruction of the environment.

  • shiva

    tyrannosaurus_rek,
    if i were you,i’d keep my mouth shut.
    You obviously dont have the courage to face the truth about the fur industry, yet you have no problem running your mouth,acting like you know what you’re talking about.
    When you decide to stop being a little BITCH,you may wanna watch this video ,then come back and tell us how you feel about wearing fur.
    Thanks.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THmJgWcU04Y

  • furygrrl

    A final word…
    Ms. Prickett said: “…Yes, for those of you too dense to notice, that’s what this post is, and that’s how it should be judged. It’s not an news report on the fur issue, not an investigative piece on an anti-fur protest, and certainly not an article about Wild@Heart. It’s opinion and humour.”
    I still don’t understand how you can use the term ‘opinion’ in conjunction with this piece. You may have an opinion on fur, worthy causes, or activists in general, but *not* Wild At Heart Canada, which was specifically named in your post. The behaviour you attributed to us – meant to be tongue-in-cheek or otherwise – is not flattering, and certainly not accurate. Is it any wonder we failed to see the “humour” in it?
    Perhaps therein lies the disconnect – to us, there isn’t anything funny about our efforts being mocked, or animals being killed for their skins. By expressing this to you, we are simply voicing *our* opinion.
    You also mention that you received the event listing from Wild At Heart directly, and that you *chose* to alter it. That is nothing short of reprehensible. Do all community group notices get twisted into slanderous jokes for the sake of “entertainment”, or just the ones with causes you have an admitted personal bias towards?
    As to the various and yes, somewhat colourful responses you’ve managed to collect, I can only speak for myself. If you were offended by my remark about your name, to clarify: it translated to “prick it”, as in to wound or sting. Still fitting, in my mind, though I realize another meaning could have been derived from my comment, which was not my intent.
    Since we apparently haven’t managed to “set you straight” yet, I feel it appropriate to include a truly sage quote you might already be familiar with:
    “Don’t let the interconnectedness of the internet fool you, you don’t know shit about me.”
    Ain’t that the truth?
    If only this kind of consideration had been given to Wild At Heart prior to the “witty” mangling of our listing, then perhaps the “discussion provoked” might actually have progressed into constructive territory, rather than devolving into an exercise in mud-slinging.
    Finally, Ms. Prickett said: “Just don’t ever, ever accuse a journalist (even an “amateur” one) of being ignorant or ill-informed when you’re too blinded by your alleged enlightenment to understand what or why they’re writing.”
    Sucks to be misunderstood, don’t it?
    N. Fenton

  • dirtymonroe

    Sarah:
    The majority of comments from activists on this site have NOT been vitriolic. Many have been written in support of the inaccurate statements you made against W@H and have simply tried to point out what a grim industry the fur trade is. Instead, the activists have been attacked, told to “kill themselves”, and been called names. Did you happen to point that out in your most recent post? Nope. You are sorely mistaken if you believe W@H’s events have not been covered by the media or caused such furors before. W@H has received heavy media coverage from sources that are credible, unlike your ‘opinion piece’ above. Your own words have been the noose around your neck here as you continue to display petulance and immaturity and an inability to look beyond your own nose and your own bias. As Ms. Fenton said, sucks to be misunderstood, don’t it…

  • claire

    REAL WOMEN DON’T NEED TO WEAR DEAD ANIMALS SKINNED ALIVE TO FEEL SEXY – THAT’S WHAT MEN ARE FOR SO BE A BABE AND NOT A BITCH AND WEAR YOU’RE OWN SKIN UNLESS YOU LACK BOTH THE DECENCY AND TRUE FASHIONSITA KNOWLEDGE TO KNOW THAT FUR IS PASSE.
    MORE THAN 50 MILLION ANIMALS ARE KILLED WORLDWIDE, 20 MILLION IN THE WILD AND YES DEAR ALOT ARE ENDANGERED WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU HAD AN EDUCATION INSTEAD OF A BUBBLEGUM HEAD FOR A BRAIN. PLS DON’T CONTINUE TO EMBARRASS US WOMEN BY SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE. THEY ONLY MAKE YOU LOOK STUPID AND YOU’RE NOT ARE YOU?

  • pieceofheaven

    Ms. Prickett,
    To animal rights supporters, your article was about as amusing as if you had tried to make light of child abuse or cancer patients.
    I’m actually surprised that in your response you say you didn’t expect to be taken seriously because as a reader I found your words quite biting and even cruel. I wish you had instead used your influential position and writing talents to do some good for the movement rather than poke fun at it. Just as you would hope someone else would do, for a cause you felt passionately about.
    I would suggest that the reason the responses sent to you came off sounding offensive was because they were coming from a place of being offended.

  • antiboy

    I found the article funny.
    Wait, wait. I mean: I FOUND THE ARTICLE FUNNY. YOU GUYS ARE GONNA BELIEVE ME NOW RIGHT?!!

  • barberella

    Yes, we are all insane for standing up for what we believe in. It’s the internet – you can’t expect people to read your article the way you intended it.
    Regardless of your opinions about fur, you still wrote about Wild @ Heart in a condescending and inaccurate fashion. Why did you feel the need to do that?

  • pieceofheaven

    antiboy: well, since you’ve written in capitals i guess it must be true! just because YOU found it funny, doesn’t make it so everyone. whether we believe you or not is irrelevant.
    I get that Ms. P. thinks she was trying to funny…we all watch Seinfeld and have laughed at taboo subjects. It’s very different to be a comedian where everyone knows “it’s meant to be a joke”, than writing articles that may be taken seriously and used to perpetuate beliefs. beliefs, such as, “wearing animal skins is fashionable and it’s okay that animals are abused”.
    I also get that if you found this article funny you probably don’t think animal issues are all that important and AR supporters are “extremists”. But try to think of instances where you may come of as an extremist because of how passionately you feel about an injustice that’s going on. A belief is only considered extreme if the majority don’t believe it (and human nature is to maintain the status quo as long as we’re advantaged by it). I wonder if people who fought slavery or for women’s rights were thought of as “extremists or fringe activists”.

  • Skippy the Magical Racegoat

    Can we at least all agree that FURRIES ought to be electrocuted anally? You know who I’m talking about.

  • Gloria

    Pieceofheaven, I believe Antiboy was satirizing Claire, who, before him, wrote her defense of animal rights in screaming capitals.
    Also, Seinfeld is the most “taboo” comedy we can think of?

  • rek

    Shiva – You aren’t me, so I won’t be shutting my mouth. Showing gory footage of animals being kicked in the balls and then skinned alive doesn’t make for a cogent argument; it is in fact a logical fallacy known as appeal to emotion. I’m sure you don’t care about that though, since you don’t care that your argumenta ad hominem don’t make you look sane either.
    I’m not pro-fur; I don’t wear fur. I have my own reasons for not buying fur or supporting the fur industry, but that’s not what you wackos care about really.
    Perhaps if you lot put as much effort into stopping the fur trade as you put into name-calling people who don’t cry when you cry, you might make some progress.

  • rek

    Oh and I’ll throw my support behind Sarah; first because I got it, and second because she’s not backing down now.

  • rek

    Oh and I’ll throw my support behind Sarah; first because I got it, and second because she’s not backing down now.

  • Jonathan Goldsbie

    “Would Ms. Prickett like to be anally electrocuted…?”
    That’s actually how the bad guy in the Takashi Miike movie Gozu is finally killed. If I remember correctly, though, in that context it’s kinky-sex-gone-wrong.

  • andrew

    Pieceofheaven: Your logic is flawed. If it is “…very different to be a comedian where everyone knows “it’s meant to be a joke”, than writing articles that may be taken seriously and used to perpetuate beliefs” then Michael Richards would not have caused the ire he did, and Jonathan Swift should have caused the widespread adoption of baby-eating as a method of birth control. You and many others posting here have completely missed the satirical aspect of Ms. Prickett’s post. In what way does “Olsen fan club members” not alert you to satire? Is your sense of delight, not to mention appreciation of irony, so dulled by horror that you cannot appreciate that whilst animals rights activists in general, and Wild At Heart specifically, were being teased, the real recipients of a smart lashing were those who wear fur? What you have done, collectively, is frustrating. You have bullied a writer capable of fine wit into taking a stance opposed to you by sheer dint of not wanting to associate with the crowd of humourless, unfun, angry, unstable, threatening animal lovers that you are. Shame on you.
    T Rek: so nice, he said it twice.

  • rek

    I blame the server!

  • andrew

    i’ll bet the server eats meat and has a lambskin coat.

  • antiboy

    Thanks Gloria!

  • pieceofheaven

    Andrew: after reading your post, I re-read the original article to see maybe I really had the missed the humor?! But no, even the 3rd or 4th time around, I do not see how this could be construed as being humorous (to me).
    You’re right that I should not have said it is completely different to make offensive remarks as a comedian than a writer. What I should have said is that comedians often have a lot more free rein when providing satirical viewpoints than journals who are expected to state impartial and balanced viewpoints (the exception of course being writers who are solely known for writing humor columns). But even then, are there not certain topics that are considered off limits even for the most loved comedians? Eg. The Michael Richards fiasco.
    For animal rights activists, joking about animal torture is equivalent to joking about human torture (as crazy as that might sound to you, that’s just the way it is).
    I honestly do think that this article could be taken as pro-leather/fur for some people. I’m not talking in anger right now…I believe that’s true. Just read some of the responses. Sarah herself said:
    “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.”
    Was that meant to be a joke as well?! (now I’m being sarcastic).
    You said we are a: “crowd of humourless, unfun, angry, unstable, threatening animal lovers”
    So, we’re humorless because we don’t see the “funny” in animal torture. We’re angry because we were offended by what came off as a tasteless article. We’re unstable because we’re not apathetic to treatment to helpless animals. And we’re threatened because there are cruel people in the world?
    If that’s what you were implying, then yeah…that’s what I am.
    Andrew, from your post it sounds like you don’t believe in animal abuse (and if that’s the case, kudos to you). If yourself and Ms. P. really do believe, as you state that wearing fur is wrong I ask Ms. P. to write a pro-animal rights (or at least anti-fur) article to show her compassion and sincerity. She doesn’t have to be an animal rights supporter herself – just state the other side of the coin as journalists have the ability to do. She has obviously pissed off a lot of people who care about animals (the “lesser creatures” as she called them). She can either leave it at that or realize that she has a responsibility as a writer to care about what opinions and beliefs of her potential readers.

  • rek

    I missed the part where Sarah tortured animals and asked you to find it funny.
    I also missed where she endorsed cruelty to animals and asked you to find it funny.

  • pieceofheaven

    Trek: I did not say Sarah herself tortures animals. If you think it’s a fine line between doing it yourself or approving of other people doing it, I would not disagree. If you haven’t been reading the past posts, there have been many people who have outlined, or provided resources to show the process it takes to make fur (the torture part).
    as for the “funny” part…this is the whole defense we’ve been arguing about thus far. The allegation has been that we are a bunch of humorless, angry people for not being able to appreciate the wit of the article.
    Here’s what Sarah herself has said:
    “[I was] posting it as a tongue-in-cheek warning to fur-wearers. I’m not claiming to be the 21st century Jonathan Swift, but I thought it was maybe kind of funny–not entirely sarcastic, but certainly not meant to be taken seriously.”
    “It’s opinion and humour”
    I get that Sarah is (or may be?) claiming that she really meant for it to be an anti-fur/animal rights article, but obviously it has not come off that way (at least to people who care about the issue and therefore those that are most affected by it).
    I also get the potential aspect of “satire”. But it’s complicated to provide satire for a subject that is already so marginalized that it may indeed be taken as being serious. eg. if you write a satirical article about discrimation against new immigrants, it’s not so impossible to conceive that people out there could take it seriously because discrimination indeed exists.
    Just the same, while I’m happy to read some people naturally assumed the article was so absurd it could not have meant to be taken seriously, the unfortunate reality is that there are people who do wear fur and would think this to be a reinforcement of their beliefs. I wonder if it would have been different had there been a tagline provided or a note at the end clearly stating that Sarah is against animal cruelty? it may have taken away from the whole satire, but perhaps could have been integrated in a fitting way.
    sorry for the huge posts…wish I could be more concise!