It came to my attention a couple of weeks ago that designer Alannah Hill has stopped using fur in her clothing, after protests by PETA.

I’ve always been in favour of PETA, I’ve always liked how they’ve stood up for the rights of creatures who can’t communicate in a language we understand. However, I recently changed my mind: I don’t like PETA anymore.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m still in 100% support of animal rights, and I don’t like fur as fashion – but that doesn’t mean I can condone the involvement of innocent small children where so called ‘anti-fur protests’ are involved.

It has been alleged, by some pretty reliable sources in my opinion, that PETA has taken it one step too far in harassing Alannah Hill’s young son in an attempt to scare her out of using fur in her clothing line.

Children are NOT responsible for their parents actions. And should not be punished for it. So why do PETA allegedly feel the need to involve someone who, in the eyes of the law, cannot be held liable for most of his own actions, let alone his adult mother’s?

If the above is true (and there is more than one source suggesting so), then PETA are no doubt headed for some serious lawsuits – and ones they well deserve. Scaring children! Seriously!

Now, I’m not suggesting ALL members of PETA feel this way, nor am I suggesting that they need a ‘taste of their own medicine’, however I am concerned here with the issue of extremeism.

As mentioned above, I don’t condone the use of fur in fashion and I never will. But we live in the 20st century man, do we really need to resort to such caveman approaches? Let’s try something a little more civilised – and perhaps legal? Make all the noise you like, but don’t threaten death upon a small child, or anyone else for that matter! Death threats are more than illegal, they cause freaking phsychiatric torture on anyone who receives them.

Obviously, as a result of all this, Alannah Hill has taken the safest, most intelligent option in removing animal fur from her line. But I reckon this particular decision was done due to fear of possible repercussions if she didn’t, rather than what SHOULD’VE been a decision based on a realisation that animal fur isn’t fair.

So PETA/scary extremeist sect of PETA, please be more creative and less fucking terrifying next time you have an issue with someone using fur…

SPEAKING of which: the fur they were protesting was bloody rabbit fur. Yes, I love bunnies and no, I’d never wear bunnies, but this appears to be a case of double standards. Rabbits, like cows, are used for their meat and they are in no short supply. If you’re going to fight for the bunnies, why the hell aren’t you out there standing infront of shoe shops? Because how different is common cow leather to common rabbit fur? Why aren’t they paying more attention to those poor endangered minks like they should be? Just saying… (Cos it’s fun to play devil’s advocate šŸ˜› and cos I do feel especially sorry for those little minks.)

And just to play devil’s advocate a little more: why don’t you go tell the lions and the sharks to stop eating the deer and the fishies? You can’t deny what’s natural – if the bunny (poor bunny) is going to be eaten, unfortunately you might as well not waste it and use every part – it’s the traditional way.

Animal rights are right up there in my top ten most important things in the world – but let’s put this into perspective please – we don’t need to sacrifice our morals and threaten little children in the process of saving animals.

So there’s my rant. Hope it makes sense. It probably doesn’t. Oh well.