|
 At the recent Audi Joburg Fashion Week Heni presented a collection that had real and faux fur accessories and details.
On most of the seats was a brochure created by Heni, detailing the inspiration behind his range. In it he had written: "The fur used in this collection is 'recycled' vintage fur, being used for these once off garments that will not be reproduced as the Heni label does not condone the cruelty inflicted on any animals for their pelts".
But is it okay to produce a collection using 'vintage' fur? The common logic is that no animals were harmed in the making of the collection and only 5% of the fur used was real. The rest was faux.
The addition of 5% real fur into the collection is exactly where I have to question Heni's disclaimer. If 95% of the collection managed just fine with faux fur, why add the 5%? I sent Heni an email asking him for his response but I never got one so I honestly cannot comment on his motivations*. Perhaps there was something different about the real fur that inspired Heni to use it and perhaps if he could afford it (and if he could find it), he would have used 100% real fur throughout. But it once again begs the question: is it okay to use second hand fur in a fashion collection?
I would argue that it isn't.
Once that fur has been turned into a garment of clothing there is no way of knowing whether it was killed last week or last millenium. No-one walks around with a sign that says "This is second hand fur". When a designer creates a range of clothes, they create a vacuum of desire that needs to be filled either by their collection or the rip offs the rest can afford. When you create a collection that is bound to punted by the local fashion media and you put real fur into it, you continue to create a sense that fur is a desirable and luxurious commodity to have. Where do you draw the line?
Many would argue that if the fur industry did not inflict cruelty on the animals when acquiring the fur, then they would be willing to wear fur. So there is no harm in continuing to make fur a desirable item. Maybe one day we will come up with this 'humane way' of removing the pelts from the animals. In the meantime we can indulge in our second hand fur.
I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there is no humane way of acquiring fur and as long as we continue to harbour this secret love for fur, we will continue to drive an industry built on the suffering of other creatures.
The Facts on 'Humane' Fur
Fur animals are either trapped or bred for their pelts. From the time they are trapped or born at the farm, they are kept in a small cage until they are killed. For both the wild animal and bred animal this is an especially distressing time and often these creatures will go insane, pacing their cages and mutilating themselves. Depending on how much the fur farm wants to spend on the killing of each animal, there are a number of methodologies used:
1) Animals may have clamps attached to or rods forced into their mouths and their anuses, and are then painfully electrocuted.
2) Others are poisoned with strychnine, which suffocates them by paralyzing their muscles with painful, rigid cramps.
3) Gassing and neck-breaking are other common slaughter methods in fur factory farms.
Do any of these methods sound humane to you? Would you like to die like this? Would you like your dog or cat to die like this?
The globalisation of the fur trade makes it almost impossible to know where the animals were slaughtered. And in a supply chain that is as driven by profits as any other, a cost saving on the price of the slaughtered animal's pelt is converted into a greater profit for the design house. In most cases a blind eye is turned to the practices of the more heinous fur farms and only if the public becomes aware of it do they change suppliers.
And how do you think that second hand fur stole was produced? That animal did not die in any less inhumane circumstances. So what makes it okay to use in a collection? Someone else wore it first? They have the blood of the animal on their credit card and now Heni's collection is guilt free? Such ethical sidestepping is akin the flood of green washing we have seen filling our advertising spaces.
I don't expect many people to agree with me, especially not in this industry where desirable, luxurious goods are sacred objects devoid of any earthly roots. And fur is such an item - made even more tantalizing because of the 'danger' of wearing something many won't approve of. Those that choose to wear fur are forced to adopt a 'superior' attitude - looking down at those, like me, who disapprove. They make a commitment to wear fur and not be concerned with how it was created. They can't afford to be iffy because even one chink in their fur armour makes them a hypocrite.
You are either 100% a fur person or you are not. There is no 95%.
*On the 8th of February 2010 I received an email from the PR company Total Exposure with the following comment by Heni: "The fur was inherited from my grandmother and my collection is inspired by, and pays homage to, her. After using the second hand fur, which is more than 60 years old, on some of the garments I decided to incorporate faux fur in the rest of the collection. The pieces in the collection are one off unique garments, and will not be reproduced with real fur."
 |
What's new 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
