Hollywood Declares War Against Fur
Published in El Pais
(Spain ) on 25 November 2011
by Beatriz García (link to original)
(Spain ) on 25 November 2011
by Beatriz García (link to original)
Translated from
by Karen Posada.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
For the first time in the U.S., the City Council of West Hollywood approved a law that prohibits the sale of clothing and accessories made of animal fur.
The City Council of West Hollywood has approved a law that prohibits stores from selling any product that has animal fur. The law, which has created much controversy, will take effect starting in September 2013.
If everything goes as planned — as the City Council of one of the most popular areas of Los Angeles hopes — by this date businesses should have removed from their establishments not only coats, but any kind of accessory that has fur, no matter how small the quantity is. The news was received with outrage among the businesses in the area, which have some luxurious stores, such as Balenciaga or Dolce & Gabbana, and many vintage fashion stores and second-hand stores.
According to the City Council, which has also prohibited clipping cats’ nails or the sale of dogs in pet stores in order to promote adoption, this law is only their continuation with “their commitment to defend civil rights, human rights and animal rights.”*
The council voted in favor after reading some PETA reports, in which it was explained that 85 percent of the fur used to make clothes and accessories come from animals that live locked up in farms and are “killed in a cruel manner.”* The laws against products from animal origin are very strict in California, as Reese Witherspoon proved recently. The actress was criticized by this environmental organization for carrying an illegal python bag, which she finally gave up as this material is prohibited due to the cruel methods used to detach the animal’s skin from the body.
We spoke with Keith Kaplan, executive director of the Fur Information Council of America, about the impact this law can have on the businesses in the area. “We were the first to be surprised. It is ridiculous that they made efforts to bring business and to stimulate the economy of the area, and now tell them that they can’t sell their products. Just so you have an idea, 46 percent of the business in West Hollywood sell some product made of fur. This isn’t going to stay like this. We have almost two years to fight and avoid the law before it goes into effect. We have the residents and businesses on our side so they are going to have to retreat.”*
For Kaplan the law is nothing more than a bad political decision that can affect the economy of the area greatly. “We have proof that Alberta Ferretti and Balenciaga already said that if the law goes into effect, they will take their store to another area of Los Angeles. It would be harmful for West Hollywood that business of this prestige would have to leave for something like this.”*
On FICA’s web page the first thing you find is a message that says, “fashion not fascism” — they explain that wearing a fur coat is “more ecological” than what many people think. “Fur is an excellent example of ‘sustainable use of renewable resources.’ Wearing animal fur is a natural way of bundling up, and it is very regulated so that endangered species are not used for this purpose. There’s no reason for feeling bad for it.”*
*Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.
The City Council of West Hollywood has approved a law that prohibits stores from selling any product that has animal fur. The law, which has created much controversy, will take effect starting in September 2013.
If everything goes as planned — as the City Council of one of the most popular areas of Los Angeles hopes — by this date businesses should have removed from their establishments not only coats, but any kind of accessory that has fur, no matter how small the quantity is. The news was received with outrage among the businesses in the area, which have some luxurious stores, such as Balenciaga or Dolce & Gabbana, and many vintage fashion stores and second-hand stores.
According to the City Council, which has also prohibited clipping cats’ nails or the sale of dogs in pet stores in order to promote adoption, this law is only their continuation with “their commitment to defend civil rights, human rights and animal rights.”*
The council voted in favor after reading some PETA reports, in which it was explained that 85 percent of the fur used to make clothes and accessories come from animals that live locked up in farms and are “killed in a cruel manner.”* The laws against products from animal origin are very strict in California, as Reese Witherspoon proved recently. The actress was criticized by this environmental organization for carrying an illegal python bag, which she finally gave up as this material is prohibited due to the cruel methods used to detach the animal’s skin from the body.
We spoke with Keith Kaplan, executive director of the Fur Information Council of America, about the impact this law can have on the businesses in the area. “We were the first to be surprised. It is ridiculous that they made efforts to bring business and to stimulate the economy of the area, and now tell them that they can’t sell their products. Just so you have an idea, 46 percent of the business in West Hollywood sell some product made of fur. This isn’t going to stay like this. We have almost two years to fight and avoid the law before it goes into effect. We have the residents and businesses on our side so they are going to have to retreat.”*
For Kaplan the law is nothing more than a bad political decision that can affect the economy of the area greatly. “We have proof that Alberta Ferretti and Balenciaga already said that if the law goes into effect, they will take their store to another area of Los Angeles. It would be harmful for West Hollywood that business of this prestige would have to leave for something like this.”*
On FICA’s web page the first thing you find is a message that says, “fashion not fascism” — they explain that wearing a fur coat is “more ecological” than what many people think. “Fur is an excellent example of ‘sustainable use of renewable resources.’ Wearing animal fur is a natural way of bundling up, and it is very regulated so that endangered species are not used for this purpose. There’s no reason for feeling bad for it.”*
*Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Previous article![]( "Time to Participate in Democracy")
Next article![]( "Mitt Romney Is the Only One Who Can Overcome Obama")
