Why a Campaign against Fur?
It is in fact irrelevant,
...for what economic or other interest animal individuals are deprived of their freedom and lives,...
...which objectives are behind taking possession of their bodies: Profit, luxury, social recognition,...
...whether it is a cage on a "fur farm" which confines their bodies, or a box in an animal testing laboratory or an agricultural pen,...
...whether a gassing box, a lethal injection or a shot from a bolt apparatus ends their lives,...
...whether their commercialised corpses are being sold as fur, as testing material or as meat,...
It is in fact irrelevant, whether a campaign is conducted against fur or any other product of animal exploitation.
Not irrelevant are the reasons which speak in favour of ending the animal exploitation industry and along with it the fur industry: Countless animal victims, injured, tormented, mutilated, constrained, dominated, caged, humiliated, ridiculed, exploited, enslaved, destroyed - destroyed for "animal products" like fur.
Fur is therefore not to be rejected, because it symbolises "luxury", nor because it "makes an ugly face" or "not keeping with the times," "a relic from the stone ages", as some argue; these are but subjective viewpoints.
Rather, fur is to be criticized, because it objectively destroys and erases life, because it produces actual violence and casualties: on "fur farms" and by hunting with traps. This violence can never be emblematic of aesthetics and neither can the commodity fur.