Animal Rights Protests Essay, Research Paper

Over the past fifteen years a powerfully charged drama has

unfolded in New York’s Broadway venues and spread to the opera houses

and ballet productions of major cities across the country. Its

characters include angry college students, aging rock stars,

flamboyant B-movie queens, society matrons, and sophisticated fashion

designers. You can’t buy tickets for this production, but you might

catch a glimpse of it while driving in Bethesda on particular Saturday

afternoons. If you’re lucky, Compassion Over Killing (COK), an animal

rights civil disobedience group, will be picketing Miller’s Furs,

their enemy in the fight against fur. These impassioned activists see

the fur trade as nothing less than wholesale, commercialized murder,

and will go to great lengths to get their point across. Such

enthusiasm may do them in, as COK’s often divisive rhetoric and tacit

endorsement of vandalism threaten to alienate the very people it needs

to reach in order to be successful.

The animal rights idealogy crystallized with the publication

of philosophy professor’s exploration of the way humans use and abuse

other animals. Animal Liberation argued that animals have an intrinsic

worth in themselves and deserve to exist on their own terms, not just

as means to human ends. By 1985, ten years after Peter Singer’s

watershed treatise was first published, dozens of animal rights groups

had sprung up and were starting to savor their first successes. In

1994 Paul Shapiro, then a student at Georgetown Day School, didn’t

feel these non-profits were agitating aggressively enough for the

cause. He founded Compassion Over Killing to mobilize animal rights

activists in the Washington metropolitan area and “throw animal

exploiters out of business.” Since then, COK has expanded to over 300

members with chapters across the country, including one at American

University, which formed in the fall of 1996. COK organizes protests

as a primary activity of the group, although some chapters may choose

to expand into other areas if they wish.

COK’s focus on direct-action protests and demonstrations is

just one way that the animal rights movement has mobilized to end the

fur trade. The larger animal rights organizations have conducted

attention grabbing media blitzes with the help of stars like Paul

McCartney, Melissa Etheridge, Rikki Lake, Naomi Campbell and Christy

Turlington. Lobbying efforts by animal advocacy groups have resulted

in trapping restrictions in numerous states and an end to federal fur

industry subsidies. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

has persuaded several fashion designers including Calvin Klein and

Donna Karan to stop using fur in their clothing lines. In addition,

anti-fur concerts, videos, compact discs, t-shirts, drag revues and

award ceremonies have been used by animal rights groups to advance

their cause.

Each side of the conflict over fur coats has an entirely

different way of conceptualizing and talking about the issue. Animal

rights groups bluntly describe fur as “dead…animal parts” and

emphasize that animals are killed to produce a fur garment. Those

involved in the fur industry consistently use agricultural metaphors

and talk of a yearly “crop of fur” that must be “harvested.” Manny

Miller, the owner of Miller’s Furs, refused to describe his business

in terms of the individual animals; “I don’t sell animals. I sell

finished products. I sell fur coats.” These linguistic differences

extend to the manner in which both sides frame the debate over fur.

COK refers to the industry in criminal terms; fur is directly equated

with murder and those involved in the industry are labeled killers.

Industry groups like the Fur Information Council of America (FICA)

always describes fur garments as objects and clothing; it is “the

ultimate cold weather fabric” that is “your fashion choice.”

On Saturday, April 12th, Compassion Over Killing demonstrated

outside the White House, protesting the Clinton administration’s

opposition to a European Community ban on the importation of fur coats

made from animals caught in the wild. In addition, the demonstration

called for the release of several Animal Liberation Front (ALF)

members imprisoned for vandalizing property and liberating animals

from research labs and factory farms. Several dozen high school and

college students turned out for the event, but the protest attracted a

handful of thirtysomethings and an elderly woman as well. Most of the

young people there seemed to dress in a similar style; baggy pants,

piercings and t-shirts advertising obscure “hard-core” rock bands

adorned most of the activists. The organizers of the protest provided

more than enough signs for everyone to carry. Each sign had a slogan

stenciled on the cardboard in boxy black letters, including “Abolish

the Fur Trade,” “Fur is Murder,” “Stop Promoting Vanity and Death,”

and “Fur is Dead- Get It In Your Head.” Some of the signs displayed

graphic photographs of skinned animal carcasses. In contrast to the

dramatic messages they carried, most of the activists were subdued as

they slowly trudged in a circle.

The inclement weather seemed to dampen their spirits a bit, as

for most of the three hour protest it alternated between drizzle and

half-hearted rain showers. The few passersby seemed intent on getting

through the rain, and quickly walked past while giving the protesters

wide berth. In periods when the precipitation was less intense, the

majority of people passed by with expressions of studied indifference

or disgust and seemed to have a visceral reaction to the bloody,

explicit posters. It is not necessarily bad to show people what you

are against; no one in COK likes to look at those photographs. At the

same time, it’s important to try to reach people at a level where your

message can resonate. Using words like “murder” may attract attention,

but it has just as much potential to turn people off. The fur industry

is trying its hardest to paint groups like COK as a radical fringe;

one FICA press release said, “the more bizarre the activists look, the

better we look — and what they had outside were freaks.” COK’s choice

of words might just be playing right into the other side’s hands.

Environmentalists would appear to be natural allies of animal

rights groups; after all, they both profess concern for the Earth’s

varied inhabitants and passionately organize to protect

ther-than-human species. But while animal advocates generally call

themselves environmentalists, the reverse is not true. Jim Motavalli

writes that “environmentalists tend to see the animal movement as

hysterical, shrill and ?one note.’ They’re often embarrassed by the

lab raids, the emotional picketing and the high-pitched hyperbole.” If

the rhetoric of groups like COK alienates groups with a natural

affinity for animal issues, how can it change the mind of a 55 year

old wealthy white woman who’s always loved the look and feel of a fur

coat?

Although the White House simply stood silently in response to

COK’s sidewalk activities, the scene was quite different when

Compassion Over Killing picketed Miller’s Furs in early April.

Slightly less people turned out, but the makeup of the crowd was

similar to the one at the Pennsylvania Avenue protest; many of the

faces were the same at both events. However, a certain contrast was

clear; this protest was targeting a finite business operation, while

the White House demonstration seemed to address the entire United

States legal system as well as foreign policy. COK’s call for the

release of ALF members convicted of various felonies had an air of

futility about it, as the activists claimed the right to break all

sorts of U.S. laws in the name of their cause. The Miller’s Fur

protest was more of an even fight. This time the activists seemed more

powerful, as if they were in reach of their goal to close down the

Bethesda fur salon. Their signs had a few more incendiary phrases than

those at the presidential protest; “Boycott Murder- Don’t Buy Fur” and

“Stop the Killers Boycott Miller’s” appeared in addition to those used

at the White House protest. The activists excitedly talked about a

recent ALF action; the underground group had recently spray painted

animal right slogans over Miller’s windows and canopy. As they circled

the group broke into chants directed by COK leaders, which seemed to

add energy to the protester’s message. Passing cars beeped their horns

as their drivers waved in support, in contrast to the tepid response

from the pedestrian traffic at the protest downtown.

However, with one or two exceptions those who passed by the

fur protest on foot in Bethesda seemed to be just as hostile as those

in D.C. Some speculate that the entire concept of a fur salon picket

is faulty, that COK just angers “people when [they] say, ?don’t buy

fur!’and makes them want to go and do it.”

The women that dared to cross Miller’s threshold attracted

every protester’s attention, as they shouted “Shame! Shame! Shame!” in

unison. As one customer left the store loud voices yelled out, “That’s

Disgusting!”, “Shame!”, “How’d They Get The Blood Out Of Your Coat?”

and other slogans which were drowned out by others’ hissing and boos.

The effect was very much like that of an angry mob; tension and

vitriolic energy filled the air. This atmosphere may release pent up

emotion, and discourage people from buying fur in the short term,

although in the long term it runs the risk of damaging the animal

rights cause. A recent survey revealed that an overwhelming majority

of Americans strongly disapprove “of protesting fur coats in a

harassing manner.” Animal advocates certainly don’t need their tactics

compared to radical pro-life groups that make abortion clinics

warzones.

As all the activity unfolded outside their door Miller’s Furs

taped a small sign to their window that read “Medical Research Saves

Lives.” This seemed off-topic at first glance, but after visiting the

FICA web site and reading other pro-fur literature, it was apparent

that the sign was part of a pattern. The fur industry initially

ignored criticism from animal rights groups and relied on their

product’s glamorous image to state their case. As the column inches

devoted to the animal rights movement’s allegations of cruelty began

to accumulate and sales began to drop; the industry’s strategy

shifted. Fur companies began to try to draw attention away from

themselves by pointing out the most controversial parts of the animal

rights agenda to the mainstream society. Arguably the animal rights

issue with the least amount of public support is medical animal

testing. Although this topic divides the animal rights community, many

of the movement’s leaders favor total abolition of any testing on

animals. The fur industry is only too happy to point this out to

anyone who’ll listen.

Compassion Over Killing and other animal rights groups are

actively trying to change the social “rules” that prevail in this

country. While in the short term they may not be advocating a ban on

fur coats, COK’s protests are aimed at making it socially unacceptable

to wear fur. This effort has shown signs of succeeding, as fur sales

have fallen almost 50% below their peak volume in 1987. However, they

have begun to creep upwards again in recent quarters. As with every

social movement, animal advocacy groups need to pause and reevaluate

their public relations strategies. Perhaps it’s time for organizations

like Compassion Over Killing to cut back on their use of emotionally

charged phrases and tacit endorsement of felonious acts a la ALF.

Without considering these issues, COK runs the risk of marginalizing

the group and losing its battle against fur.

—

Works Cited

Cowit, Steve. “Hollywood Hypocrites.” Fur Age 04/06/97 11:35:32.

Feitelberg, Rosemary. “Surge in Luxe Business, Designer Participation

Bode Well for Fur Week.” Women’s Wear Daily 14 May 1996: 1+.

“Freak Show Protest Falls on Deaf Ears.” Fur Age

http://www.furs.com/FUR/FurAge76.html> 04/06/97 11:41:16.

Fur Information Council of America. “Fur, Your Fashion Choice.”

Motavalli, Jim. “Our Agony Over Animals.” E Magazine Oct 1995: 28-37.

People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “Annual Report.” 1994.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “The PETA Guide to

Animals and the Clothing Trade.”

Responsive Management. “Americans’ Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare,

Animal Rights and Use of Animals.”

Riechmann, Deb. “A Harvest of Fox Fur And Anger.” Washington Post 5

Jan 1995: M2.

Shapiro, Paul. “An Interview With the Owner of Miller’s Furs.” The

Abolitionist Summer 1996: 3-4.

Shapiro, Paul. Personal Communication. Bethesda, MD. 5 April 1997.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics For Our Treatment of

Animals New York: Avon, 1975.

Stern, Jared Paul. “Are You Fur Real?” Fashion Reporter June/July

1996: 5-6.