Anti Fur protest in Grafton Street

by a Mon Dec 19, 2005 01:48

direct action gets the goods!

by Rob Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:40

Why are there always people who feel the need to tell others what they should and should not wear? Its none of your business. I myself dont like fur, but despise the bullying hectoring actions of people who take it upon themselves to lecture others.

It is none of your business, if you dont like fur then dont wear it, want to hand out leaflets, then do so, but that should be the end of it. Shouting and sloganeering only winds people up, theses pictures dont show the utter contempt of the pasers by, towards the protesters which I saw for myself.

by pat c Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:02

while i would be sympathetic to the animal rights activists i am not involved in their activities. as i often wear a lether jacket i dont think i would have been welcome on this demo if i was wearing it.

i have however been at anti racist and a nti war stalls and protests on numerous occasions in close proximity to animal rights protesters. usually they get a good reception, i have never seen them treated with contempt.

maybe it had something to do with the class of those who were throwing the abuse, the rich out to buy their furs or farmers up for a days shopping.

by rob Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:38

The passers by were not the ones giving abuse, besides is this an anti fur thing or an outdated class/ anti farmer thing?

by pat c Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:54

i dont think class struggle is outdated. the irish ferries dispute has proven that. if you think not then take it up with the 150,000 people who took time off to attend the demos. as for farmers this is a class thing as well, i'm knocking the big farmers who get rich from the CAP while small farmers get a pittance.

anyway its their protest, i was making the point i never saw them treated with contempt in the past.

by SABWATCH Mon Dec 19, 2005 13:16

Your CAFT.ORG link is out of action.
Of course it is a class thing.The Sabs proved that in the UK with the fox hunting.A labour kickback at the tories for the eighties.

by mayoman Mon Dec 19, 2005 13:31

There are very few farmers who are in the position to be buying fur coats!

They also have little time for the fur farms that are around, mainly because of the history of mink escaping or being let go and the consequences that has.

As for those protesting, I have to take my (synthetic) hat off to them. It is an unnessecary and cruel trade in which wild animals are forced to live in appalling conditions in order to cater to the fetishes of spoiled rich people.

by sidhbhra Mon Dec 19, 2005 13:39

...as is leather from whatever the animal, you really think they are slaughtered for the meat then their hides are used? Think also about the food you eat, where did it come from,how did it die and in what conditions? We also need to look at the majority of cosmetics that contain animal biproducts, placenta etc hence the vivisectionists. The people who boycott the sale of fur must boycott all of the aforementioned, while not subscribing to any of it themselves. We all have a cause, let it not be hypocracy. Every little bit counts, just make it Kosher.

by penguin lover Wed Dec 21, 2005 21:13

"The people who boycott the sale of fur must boycott all of the aforementioned, while not subscribing to any of it themselves."

Surely it's not necesssary to change everything before you can change one thing? Just because you object to fur farming for instance, does that really mean you have to be a vegan dressed in paper towel before you can open your mouth?

by mos Fri Dec 23, 2005 18:50

where's a good place to start interms of getting involved with hunt sabbing etc. i'd love to get involved but dont know where to start is there an irish website?

by too lazy for anarchy Mon Dec 26, 2005 22:51

dog and cat fur from the far east is much more common than expensive fox, rabbit, mink etc. fur. a campaign to make people aware of this sort of fur would be more productive because it is cheap and is widely used in inexpensive clothing. many people simply don't realise that own a jacket that has real fur in it's hood. if they did they would be horrified.
if something looks like fur then you don't know whether it is or not as there is no EU labeling requirement.

by Núria Tue Jan 03, 2006 00:55

We do not believe in lecturing but in educating people about what lies behind fur. Nobody who has seent the video at www.furtrim.com could support fur or not be against. Indiference always benefits the weak, and it is our moral duty to speak for those who can't (animals, children, battered women,etc.) Of course there is freedom of choice about what to wear, but animals have the right to be free of pain.

by Lynne66 Mon Jan 09, 2006 17:33

Some people are completely unaware of what is actually involved in the "making" of a fur coat .These protestor's are simply making people fully aware of the brutal realities of the fur trading business because no one else will!

by Dumby Mon Jan 09, 2006 21:34

By destroying their personal property and lecturing and hectoring them isnt going to make anyone receptive to your arguements.
People dont work well with being forced to do things.

by Cherry - www.gan.ca Fri Jan 13, 2006 18:55

We must speak up for those with no voices, thus why protesting must continue.

by Activist_dec17 - CAFT Ireland Sat Feb 04, 2006 16:57 newspaperwriter at voila dot fr 0877930573

I was one of the protesters at this protest and I can easily say that it was not a battle of the classes. It happens to be a fact that fur is expensive, and the upper classes are far more likely to buy it but I know that the protestors in CAFT are from different educational backgrounds and economic classes themselves and all are either vegetarian or vegan.

The problem with money is that it often gives decision making power. Buying fur is not a decision that people with little money have the choice to make. It could as easily be said that people in the 'rich countries' are only able to make the choice to buy fair trade as it is unavailable in other countries or they dont consume 'luxuries' like coffee.

by SABWATCH Sat Feb 04, 2006 21:46

Just fur,I was referring to the entire "animal rights"farrago.It is a class war in the sense that hunters and shooters are always portrayed as upper class chinless wonders.Despite the fact that there as many working class particpiating in fieldsports than ever before. Actually the "working classes "are buying fur nowadays as well be it fake,or real.Also you are veery right about buying fair trade coffee as being a rich persons choice.I couldnt afford it.either.

by appletree Sat Mar 11, 2006 02:19

these are just "my two cents"...
how anyone can wear fur after watching that clip is beyond me. I do believe that everyone has a right to live their life and do what they want to do...like for example the issue in Ireland at the moment about gay marriage and those sort of issues where people are being denied a right to choose something, but when its something like going along with the fur trade its completly different,people shouldnt have a choice on that because its murder. it was different decades ago when the information about the truth of this wasnt there but no i feel there is no excuse. when you see how realistic they can make synthetic furs now adays what is the need in cruely killing an animal for one that appears the same?
I noticed a site about jennifer lopez and it makes me so angry that someone so in the limelight and such a role model to young girls,who says shes still just "jenny from the block" promotes so much fur,not just wearing it herself but creating a whole clothing line of it...

i was interested to know more about the irish side of things. Iv heard alot about puppy farming and such going on but what sort of things are going on here?
how can i find out about protests in dublin?

by cat lover Sat Mar 18, 2006 15:33

Appletree

CAFT Ireland posted a topic on Indymeda called End the fur trade, it can be found at the following link
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73265
You will find their contact details here and also a good article about cat and dog fur.

Cat lover

by John Wed Mar 29, 2006 15:50

A lot of young vulnerable girls are encouraged to wear skimpy clothes by irresponsible clothing manufacturers, behave like whores by the trashy magazines they read, drink heavily by the drinks industry and be sexually available to their randy irresponsible boyfriends who are told that women are objects - this is called "love". They are told that if they wear a condom or use other contraceptives they will be safe from pregnancy or sexually transmitted disase -but they are too drunk to use them properly so our rate of teenage pregnancy and stds rise enormously.
Women are left with screaming kids to raise on their own without a father and without a career to support themselves because they had not time to get an education - the cycle of ignorance repeats itself in the next generation of unmarried mothers.
The other option is to get abortions - kill their own children and damage themselves psychologically for the rest of their lives.
I think that our young people are being exploited by trashy industries - encouraged to live soulless irresponsible lives - which ends in kids brought up by alcoholic mothers unable to teach them the values they never learn themselves and fathers who cannot get access to their children killing themselves with alcohol or by suicide.

by Roswell75 - The Froggies Fri Mar 31, 2006 21:55 Roswell75 at yahoo dot co dot uk 24 , rue campo-formio 75013 Paris 087 456 18 23

A girl have to be protected, she has to behave right, to wear acceptable clothes, avoid alcohol to become one day a respectable mother ..... what about guys ?
The problem here isn't the need to protect girls from the "randy irresponsible boyrfriends", it's the need to provide a proper education to these randy irresponsible boyfriends.

Because if you take the problem this way, you'll remove the right for freedom of these girls to protect them and to force them to become what you believe a girl should become.

If each family were rising their boys and girls the exact same way and not only restricting the freedom of their girls, nearly proud when their boy had an adventure with the girl next door, these sort of post would not be necessary.

girls perfection isn't necessary the mother of jesus...

by Sarah - None Sat Sep 09, 2006 15:29 elfee03 at yahoo dot com

How dare these anti fur protestors tell people what to do. i was outraged yesterday when out shopping in dublin and passed a fur shop covered in Blood- it was on the pavement and the glass of the shop, it was disturbing. How dare these people go so far as to do this all in the name of clothing- people will continue to buy fur and sell fur, and kill animals for fur! Its like leather bags, and eating meat. so cop yourselves on whoever you are and protest some other way rather than disturb people with your intentions. Good Day

by maggot Sat Sep 09, 2006 17:54

Does anybody else see similarities between the animal rights campaigners and the anti-abortionists -all those lurid photos and the high moral tones ? I have friends who are very much into animal rights issues - they're dead-on people in other ways , but ,as soon as the animal rights business comes up, this sort of glazed -over look comes into their eyes. I've got a leather jacket too ,and like to wear leather shoes. Anytime I go out for a drink with these people I wonder if they think that I'm some kind of a murderer.
There is something rotten and perverse about killing an animal just for its fur ,or worse still just for the pleasure of killing it. But there are many animal lovers like myself who are not at all comfortable with the vegan/vegetarian vanguard of the animal welfare movement. We are reluctant to offer support on cutting-edge issues like opposition to the fur trade because we fear that animal rightists would take such support as an endorsement of their wider agenda .
The anti-abortionist crowd outside the GPO never advertise that they are also anti-contraception ,oppose sex before marriage and gay rights.They know that ,if they did , they would be thought of as mad anachronisms(which they are) and nobody would join them . I don't think animal rightists are mad or anachronisms - they've got their hearts in the right places. But they do have the same problem of getting a wider message across that has little popular support - thus perhaps their resort to the same style of over- the-top propaganda posters as Youth Defence and SPUC .

by AR Supporter Sun Oct 29, 2006 15:50

Maybe I can provide some insight into some of the issues raised in the posts above.....

I believe that all animals have the right to life, that they have a right to live that life and that they belong to themselves and not to humans. To take away the most important needs of one species (ie life, freedom, freedom from pain and suffering) to fulfil the most futile needs of another species (food and clothes and entertainment) is in my opinion morally wrong. All around the world, right now, somebodys son or daughter is being forcefed bleach, skinned alive, having their throat slit, being anally electrocuted, being imprisoned, being beaten to death, having chemicals poured into their eyes, being burned, being thrown into vats of boiling water alive, the list of ways in which living, feeling, sentient souls are being, much much more than just disturbed goes on and on and all for the sole purpose of serving humans and fulfilling their most whimsical needs. Breeding animals for any of these purposes does not make it acceptable. Cats and dogs and rabbits (along with many more) are bred for vivisection, yet most people have or at some time have had a cat or dog or rabbit at home.

There is a moral and ethical question here - why is this acceptable to some people? Why do some people complain when they are told about it? Why is it that some people think they are quite entitled to be part of these acts of tremendous cruelty (buy eating and wearing animals for example) and yet they should not be interefered with by being told about it? Perhaps they might feel differently if it was their cat or dog being skinned alive in china for their fur or being forcefed bleach for profits. Maybe its just guilt because they don't want to be told that their lifestyle is causing all this suffering and that if they changed their lifestyle (like going vegan) then they would no longer be part of the problem and instead be part of the solution. Maybe its just down to a lack of empathy for a species other than ones own.

Of course, there are many many people who Do want to know and who Do want to make a difference and change their ways because they are caring, compassionate people who won't see this on the news, who won't read it on that coat or bottle of shampoo.

Anybody who wants to know more about AR and why people advocate it and change their lives for it should check out the following links (these are only the tip of the iceberg).......

http://www.caft.org.uk/
http://www.viva.org.uk/
http://www.shac.net
http://www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk/index
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/AA/HOME/xf.html
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/
http://www.captiveanimals.org/

by hedgehog Sun Oct 29, 2006 22:43

Thanks for your efforts. Keep up the good work.

There is still a lot of money to be made in exploiting animals so such campaigns are always difficult and you will at times be harassed the garda or wardens who tend to protect these vested interests,

If the issue manages to get on the news, the media will rather predictably, wheel out that ten year old piece of footage of someone in a balaclava to smear the campaign.

In the US, terrorist legislation is being used against animal rights activists to enable harsher sentencing because they are seen as anti business. This is a good article on the subject
http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2006/03/09/coverstory.html

The same patterns are appearing in the UK and It's evident where the government here stand on protests of any sort. Witness the behaviour of the gardai in Erris. And this is a cause with more popular support than most animal rights issues.

On one "go vegetarian" "shop conscientiously" "don't support factory farming" "buy local" type information stand I attended, a warden had the gall to cite the road traffic act to me (in a pedestrianised area) in an effort to get us to "move along".

We were just quietly distributing some information and leaflets. just across the road, there were three sandwich board people on less than minimum wage advertising places to eat and other businesses. They were never approached by the wardens.

In this wonderful society we have built, business has carte blanche to exploit immigrants in full view but advocating ethical awareness when shopping, endeavouring to inform people or protesting peacefully (as is ones democratic right) is somehow not ok.

Some more fur related links here for those interested in learning more.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~furfreegalway/furinfo.html

http://homepage.eircom.net/~furfreegalway/links.html

the site has not been updated for while but the links should still be ok.

BTW I really hate that illogical argument that any person standing up for an animal rights issue has to be perfect in every way otherwise nothing they have to say is valid. Surely any effort in the right direction is an improvement on no effort at all? And just because the messenger is flawed, that doesn't invalidate the message itself.

by Ciara R Mon Oct 30, 2006 00:42

Well said Hedgehog!

It is tiresome to see the same old rants whenever Animal Welfare/Rights activists do or say their stuff.

Topshop have announced that they are now against fur - somebody said on a separate post that this in some way constituted an example of animal rights activists having a moralistic agenda - this person did not seem to welcome the news that Topshop are now going anti fur and said that because Topshop wanted a photo oh his friend before she was employed, animal rights people were wrong to welcome the new no-fur policy....?!? At least this is what I think was being said, the only definite thing I got was the sheer hostility to the issue of Animal Welfare/Rights.

These are not real arguments. As Hedgehog says, those striving for the betterment of conditions for animals do not have to be perfect in every way for their arguments to have cogency. Also, some seem to think that as long as there is injustice against human animals, how dare anyone strive for the non human animal rights??

As said by Hedgehog, surely any effort in the right direction is an improvement on no effort at all?

by LuLu Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:36 louisealiciab at hotmail dot com

I just want to say that I was in town yesterday & found the protestors very polite & helpful!

There's no need for them nearly being arrested! What a joke!!"!!

They were just handing out their leaflets & not pressuring people!

Outside I saw them @ the top of Grafton Street when I was going to LUSH! They should ask people coming out of LUSH especcially to take some info or support them because LUSH is completely against animal testing & all their stuff if veggie so its very animal friendly so those people would really care! If anyone hasn't been to LUSH you have to go! I love it!

Im on bebo & I set up an anti-animal cruelty band! It was one of the 1st on bebo I think! I never saw one before mine & I thought there was a serious lack of information on animal cruelty on bebo! People my age are the ones that should grow up to know better!!! My group has had pretty much nothing but positive reactions & interest =]

Heres the link if anyone wants to take a peak:

http://www.bebo.com/-Help-The-Animals-

Keep up the good work!

LuLu x x x x x x x x x x x

by Linda Mon Dec 17, 2007 18:56

I have to say that all you people should stop moaning about the furs at the stores , the stores do not make the coats
the are their to sell them . if you want to protest why don't you go to the fur farms .

I personally enjoy furs and have quite a collection from Barnado furriers , but protesting at their shop is stupid , as if they are going to shut down their main source of income . If you don't like furs then you don't have to go moaning about it , just leave the people alone who enjoy them, they have not done anything wrong.
I was attacked a few times on Grafton street by some anti fur fan saying that its wrong to wear furs according to him.
why should i live with people running up to me and trying to rid me of my expensive furs ?

if you want to see more about the widespread fur communities i suggest you should check out the inserted website.

by Clementina Cubberley Sat Mar 13, 2010 22:57 cubberlt at tcd dot ie Trinity hall, Dartry rd, Rathmines ,Dublin 087 995 2155

How can people even think of trying to defend themselves on this topic ? How can they say " mind your own business " and " its a matter of opinion " an all that crap ???! There is simply no way round the fact that killing just so we can look good is WRONG ! if you wear fur you are wearing a dead body . You have added to the profits ( blood money ) of that animals murderers . You are encouraging the slaughter of thousands more . This is not sentiment or fanaticism it is TRUTH ! if we dont speak for the animals who will speak for them ? people just like to dismis activists an call us fanatics an abuse us so they dont hav to listen an feel guilty . They think if they claim fur is a personal choice that makes it alrite . Is killing people a personal choice ? Why dont murderers simply tell the guards to mind their own business, since who you kill is aparently up to yourself these days ?!! To all the above sick animal abusers, i say - chew on that !!!