Top marks to Liverpool.com in its diatribe about Liverpool Rocks Fashion and its pathetic use and defence of fur.
And full marks to the organiser, a Ms Donna McCourt, who apparently defended the appearance of fur garments by claiming it is a ‘woman’s right to choose’ to wear fur, thereby (perhaps unwittingly) conflating the issue with abortion.
I’d argue the right of a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy is a little more valued by women around the world, but what do I know?
“I think people have should make up their own mind about it and it should be a woman’s right to choose,” blurted the event’s organizer.
“Faux fur is everywhere these days which is only doing more to fuel the real fur trade because people don’t want to wear the fake stuff. However controversial it may be, it’s…really on trend.”
Unfortunately in our post-modern media-saturated world, doing something that runs contrary to general opinion is often seen as daring and provocative rather than simply stupid.
It’s also a surefire way of generating some cheap publicity, so it’s to be hoped that the flood of negative attention will make organisers think twice in the future.
There’s a pseudo-intellectual defence that’s employed by proponents of the fur trade that plumbs the depths of moral relativism and basically amounts to ‘Who are you to say what’s right or wrong?” It’s the last refuge of the clueless.
When even The Daily Mail and its readers reckon that fur is beyond the pale it’s time to give up.
• Finally, I’ll file this under ‘unfortunate juxtaposition’ as I’m aware of the control sites have over Adwords, but the Echo might want to take a look at this: