Through the diligent efforts of a group of people and PETA, the city of West Hollywood has made preliminary steps to ban the sale of fur within its city limits. People are beside themselves in anger stating that more important issues should have been addressed. This is a subjective statement. But I have to ask, were you at the public meeting to address what you believe to be more pressing issues? Probably not.
Los Angeles Times blog reports, “West Hollywood moved a step closer to being fur-free Tuesday when the City Council tentatively approved an ordinance that would ban the sale of apparel made in whole or part from the pelt or skin of an animal with hair, wool or fur. More than 200 people and a Shih Tzu named Zach filled the West Hollywood Park Auditorium even though the first reading of the ordinance wasn’t done until 1:15 a.m.
Dozens of people made statements about the proposed ban, and 120 supporters gave their names to be recorded by the council. The crowd gave a standing ovation to the council after the vote.
‘This was very exciting, and it was unanimous by this brave and thoughtful City Council,’ said Councilmember John D’Amico, who promoted a ban on fur during his election campaign earlier this year.
The ordinance must be given a second reading before it can receive final approval. The council also would have to decide on a start date for the ban and whether it should apply to sales of used clothing. D’Amico proposed next June 30 as a start date.
City Council members indicated they would be speaking with business owners about the proposal before the next reading. The West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce opposes the ordinance. Genevieve Morrill, president of the business group, told the council that such actions by the city ‘are not doing anything to help animals; they are hurting stores in your community.'”
I have no idea how many businesses in West Hollywood will be adversely impacted by not being able to sell fur. I think the impact is likely negligible, which is why there is no way this would have ever been presented in the bordering city of Beverly Hills. Honestly though, how many people in Los Angeles actually wear fur? It’s either really hot, comfortable or raining.
Truth be told, this ordinance has not yet passed. It is only in its preliminary stages. If it negatively impacts the city and future revenues it will likely go no further. I predict a compromise with existing businesses that sell fur to be grandfathered in and allowed to continue to sell fur. This is only likely if fur sales are make or break for the businesses. The law will probably stipulate that no new businesses or existing businesses that do not currently sell fur shall be issued a business license permitting the sale of fur. A google search reveals that most of the businesses that sell fur are actually in Los Angeles City or Beverly Hills. Revolve Clothing in West Hollywood has already said it would provide faux fur as an alternative in its West Hollywood store but would continue to sell fur online. This would be permitted since it is headquartered elsewhere.
So, for all those people who are complaining that West Hollywood did not use this time to expand social services I ask these questions. Does West Hollywood have the money to expand these services? If so, then present a proposal, gather 200+ people to support it and patiently sit in the council meeting for over 12-hours waiting to be heard. Is this too much trouble for you? Then shut up. Those who take action get results.
Some say that this move by West Hollywood is nothing short of communism by removing choice from the people. This assertion is nothing short of stupid. It was the people who made this call to action. It was the people who fought for it. It was the people who argued it before the city council. If the people as a whole do not like the decision then it will go no further. People throw around words like “communism” and “nazi” which nearly always reveals that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Still others are throwing the bible at the situation stating that God created animals for man to dominate. Really? Do you think when Genesis 1:26 was written that it meant to create animal farms to mass reproduce the animals, force them into small cages and then drown or electrocute them, skin them and create fashion accessories for the wealthy? We can all throw scripture around as a weapon. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. So I decided I would like the freedom to buy a couple Canadians, maybe Justin Bieber. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? Religion evolves to fit culture, not the other way around. Eventually we have to decide what is right and what is wrong, make the change, and then religion will catch up.
Let’s face it, no one is buying a mink, fox, or chinchilla coat for survival. Fur is little else than a socially unconscious, conspicuous display of wealth. The wealthy want furs because most people cannot afford them. They’ll tell you otherwise, but if fur became commonplace the wealthy would no longer want it. Take note Missoni.
Anyway, if you want to make change you have to effect it. You cannot sit at home and complain that someone else made a difference that you do not support. You cannot miss presidential elections and then bitch about the job the president is doing. Stop bitching because you are not taking the initiative to accomplish anything. Either do something or get over it.