Forum - Stowarzyszenie Empatia

“This is a tiny city, so it’s mostly symbolic,” said Councilman John D’Amico, who sponsored the fur ban. “I think the impact will be heard from here to Fifth Avenue. People will talk about what a fur ban means in a new way.”

But Mr. D’Amico hopes other governments around the country will take notice. After the city banned the sale of cheap handguns, in 1996, many other municipalities followed suit, and eventually the entire state of California cracked down on such guns .

The New York Times asked six writers their opinions on whether it’s hypocritical for West Hollywood to have banned fur but not leather. The poorly chosen panel offers a disappointing set of responses, with little in the way of pragmatism on either side. About the closest thing to a useful response is from Guardian editor Kate Carter, who calls the ban, “…a small step in the right direction.”

Anyone who frets that backing a fur ban is hypocritical has succumbed to all-or-nothing thinking, and is not representing the animals’ best interests. The table of existing animal cruelty is extravagantly set, and can only be cleared one plate at a time. Any opportunity to remove a plate should always be immediately taken.

The New York Times today featured a “debate” on issues surrounding the recent ban on fur in West Hollywood, CA, entitled “Ban Fur? Then Why Not Leather?“

Is there a meaningful distinction, or are these battles just “the politics of the possible”? – NYT

I tend to agree with the latter part of the question posed above. What laws are not the politics of the possible? Nothing impossible gets enacted into law, right

Fur bans are winnable – as opposed to leather bans – because fur, within the context of popular culture, is a distinct symbol that carries a very specific and exclusive meaning, from a social sciences perspective. Fur, in most cases, is intended represent wealth, power, sexuality, luxury, and protection from harsh conditions. Leather, on the other hand, is so common, so insidious that it becomes practically invisible as a distinct value-based symbol, save for a leather trench or a motorcycle jacket. This does not justify what happens to animals in the leather trade (which is much more than a by-product), but it does draw a distinct boarder or meaning around fur; fur is often intended to be noticed. In addition to making it a clear target for animal advocates, this visual loudness isolates it from something common (but no less unethical) like leather shoes or car seats.

SKÓRA, W KTÓREJ ŻYJĘ
Gruba skóra. Niekiedy kojarzy się atawistycznie, bo przypomina okrycia najstarszych przodków jak z „Walki o ogień” i wzbudza myśli nieuczesane. Bywa jak łach buntowników z wyboru. .. Dziś traci część swojej chropowatości dzięki technologii, która pozwala na wytwarzanie skóry niezwykle miękkiej, w stopniu zarezerwowanym dotychczas dla kaszmirów i jedwabiu.