Police Intimidation Fails Against Dixie's Vintage Fur Protesters

Calling protesters 'terrorists' is an insult to the victims of real terrorism! Shame on PC Adams.

I'm not trying to be difficult, and I obviously object to the fur trade, but is it vintage, or new fur that this place is selling? If it is vintage fur, I can't really see the point of the protest, other than a tenuous point about fur never being acceptable (which sort of misses the context of the fur that is being sold here). Basically, if the sale of this fur provides income for current producers of fur products, then of course it should be challenged, if not, then maybe its not such a big deal.

I will never buy a thing from them again after this!

The problem is that Vintage fur perpetuates the fur industry as fur becomes more acceptable and fashionable thus designers use more new fur in there collections. Some new fur is even 'laundered' via Vintage fur shops to trick consumers.

It is not a matter of an old product that is no longer produced. Instead its about perpetuating a fashion trend that begins in Vintage retailers and then leads to the sale of new items of fur. As the Vintage items become 'acceptable and fashionable' the sale of new fur rises. Today's new fur is tomorrows Vintage and the circle continues. Many Vintage retailers up and down the UK recognise this and refuse to sell fur.

We are not asking for the fur to be destroyed, many positive uses can be put to it: donations to the homeless as done by groups like PETA (as this does not perpetuate the upmarket fashion trend of using fur), donations to animal shelters to keep animals warm (after all it was their kin the fur was taken from) or used in anti-fur stunts (helping repair some of the damage done by the 'acceptable' image Vintage gives the fur trade). All we ask is it is not paraded around as a middle class fashion statement as this leads directly to the sale of new fur items.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

We wouldn't use 'vintage' products made out of murdered humans, so why murdered animals? No fur, no compromise!

Even Eskimos use and and no one complains about them?

People should be left to do what they want without all this nanny state telling you what you can and can't wear.

The fact is we don't need fur in this day and age, fur in Britain is simply a middle class status symbol. Your freedom of choice ends when it effects another – including non-human animals. Wear whatever you want but don't expect not to be criticised for a choice that effects the lives of others.

Tradition is a particularly poor argument to use to justify something morally. Slavery was 'traditional', gender roles are 'traditional' and class privilege is 'traditional'. There's no reason to assume something is ethical just because it is traditional.

We are not talking about Eskimos or other subsistence communities. We are talking about fur in Britain in the 21st century where there is no necessity for its use. Overtly supporting unnecessary cruelty to animals will inevitably solicit objection. We can't stop you from wearing fur but we have a right to object on behalf of the animals that suffered totally unnecessarily for your 'fashion statement'.

...again will I buy anything from that stall, I used to like them. Nice to see people standing up against fur in our area.

>> The fact is we don't need fur in this day and age, fur in Britain is simply a middle class status symbol. Your freedom of choice ends when it effects another – including non-human animals. Wear whatever you want but don't expect not to be criticised for a choice that effects the lives of others.

You could say that about anything. Whatever you do in life, someone is always going to have an issue with it.


>> Tradition is a particularly poor argument to use to justify something morally. Slavery was 'traditional', gender roles are 'traditional' and class privilege is 'traditional'. There's no reason to assume something is ethical just because it is traditional.

Ethical is somebody elses opinions forced onto another. Paying taxes that are given to the long term unemployed is ethical because it continues to feed their problem of being dependent on the state, rather than looking after themselves. But I certainly wouldn't demand people to stop paying their taxes, or give someone grief if they did so.


>> We are not talking about Eskimos or other subsistence communities. We are talking about fur in Britain in the 21st century where there is no necessity for its use.

I think you will find that eskimos have access to all the latest guns, clothing and trucks that we have. They certainly don't have a need to use fur, but they still do - yet no one seems to have a go at them. I just think its a bit of a another pick on the middle class.


>> Overtly supporting unnecessary cruelty to animals will inevitably solicit objection. We can't stop you from wearing fur but we have a right to object on behalf of the animals that suffered totally unnecessarily for your 'fashion statement'.

What about if i used it for purely functional reasons? That way, I'm not doing it needlessly, I doing it naturally as we have done for 1000s of years. We didn't need to wear fur - ever. But we did. Why are those people allowed to and I'm not?

We don't condone any unnecessary cruelty to animals, where there is an alternative we believe it should be used. If there is a practical alternative using the product of abuse clearly and indisputably constitutes unnecessary cruelty. Are issue is with Cambridge and UK consumers because that is our sphere of influence given that we come from these areas. If we were elsewhere in the world we would focus our action there.

Ethical views are forced on you every day: don't kill people, don't keep human slaves, don't abuse children. Your freedom is conditional upon you not harming others.

It is a simple matter of deciding if you support unnecessary cruelty or not. We don't and we will continue to propagate our viewpoint.

Cant believe I ever got stuff from tht place I will be avoiding now. Thanks for the heads-up guys!