Gwynith Paltrow Endorses Company that Uses The Skins of Animals: Predictably, the Fur Flies
No, the people who are responsible for Darfur lack human decency and compassion. Those who block a solution politically should be ashamedThe Hollywood star has been signed up by Italian designer Tod's and is pictured draped in fox fur and wearing fur-lined boots feature in the company's latest advertising campaign.
Miss Paltrow, 35, who is married to the Coldplay singer and vegetarian Chris Martin has won praise for her impeccable green credentials and is a fan of holistic practices and yoga. The decision to endorse Tod's, a luxury goods company which also uses ostrich and snakeskin in its products, and describes itself as "refined, understated luxury, impeccable taste and enviable quality", has come as a shock to animal rights campaigners.
Mark Glover, director of Respect for Animals, said: "Gwyneth Paltrow should be ashamed. I can only assume that Paltrow either is ignorant of the facts or lacks human decency and compassion."
What one wears hardly rises to that level of importance. Assuming the clothing is not made of endangered species, I don't see the problem. We have been wearing animal skins as long as we have been human. Indeed, wearing fur or ostrich hide is no more immoral in my view than wearing leather shoes made from the cattle we eat as steak.
Besides, fur is green. It is all natural. There are no petroleum or synthetics involved in its manufacture. Negligible carbon footprint. It is biodegradable. Heck, fur fits right in to the new global paradigm!
I certainly respect those who disagree, and laud them for living out their ethics--which is an aspect of human exceptionalism since only we refrain from or take actions based on purely ethical concerns.
So leave the poor, I mean rich, woman alone and find something more worthy of complaining about than a big time movie star being overpaid to permit her name to be associated with a line of ludicrously priced prestige clothing.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:54 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
"Regrettably, not everyone understands the difference between animal welfare, which has the full commitment of our sector, and animal rights, which seeks to ban every animal use by man, whether for food, medical or scientific research, clothing or companionship."
The British Fur Trade Association have it spot on.
*spends a good two minutes flinching over the high, high, high heels*
The problem with the ARA promoters is their desire to destroy all and control the economic values of animals to mankind and they are not worried about green plans. They are out to destroy all interfacing between humans and domesticated or wild animals, not for concern of animals but as a control mechanism over humanity. Paltrow is a person that is making her GREEN choices as she sees fit. Good for her. It is good that she lives by her ethics and refuses to be bullied by linear thinking ARA mouth pieces who refuse to weigh the green factor that Paltrow endorses.
An example of how malignant ARA thinking can become is found in the Netherlands. They MUST trap muskrats to keep the critters from undermining the dike systems with their tunnels. The ARA thinkers convinced the Government to stop selling fur in the Netherlands. Their goal to end economic value from the sale of muskrats fur achieved they don't care about the fall out from the end of the selling of such fur which can sell for as much as $14 a pelt. Now 500,000 muskrats are killed each year and thrown into garbage piles because the dikes must be protected but the government had to hire people to trap and kill those muskrats that used to be sold to the fur market. Net result is the ARA goal was achieved as it was economic spin off they wanted ended, not the actual killing of the muskrats.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home