Interesting commentary on wearing fur

[Guest guest]

Israel is technically part of Asia, so submitting this item. It is

intriguing and relevant anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/05/israel-fur-ban-orthod\

ox-jews

Religion

is no excuse for wearing fur

 

Ultra-orthodox Jews opposed to Israel's planned ban on the sale of fur are

wrong to call for tradition to supersede ethics

 

*Seth Freedman* <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sethfreedman>

 

-

- guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>, Monday 5 April 2010

09.00 BST

- Article

history<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/05/israel-fur-ba\

n-orthodox-jews#history-link-box>

 

Plans to outlaw the sale of

fur<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7079509.ece>i\

n

Israel would provide the country a much-needed PR boost, according to

pro-ban campaigners. Given the international opprobrium levelled at the

country over the last year, those proposing the bill believe that any

opportunity to redress the state's image should be seized with both hands.

 

However, their motivation is far from being simply a marketing exercise on

behalf of the Israeli people. Instead, environmental groups both inside and

outside Israel have singled the state out as being a potential trailblazer

when it comes to imposing a nationwide ban on the sale of fur.

 

No other country has yet managed to entirely proscribe the sale of fur

within its borders and, given the relatively small size of the Israeli fur

market – worth around $1m per year – the country is seen as a comparatively

easy target for animal rights groups.

 

Much has also been made of the fact that Israel's almost perennially hot

weather negates the necessity to wear fur, which sets the state apart from

places such as Russia and Canada, where pro-fur advocates claim the material

is an essential item of clothing. However, the bulk of the fur sold in

Israel is seen as equally indispensable by those wearing it, who hail from

ultra-orthodox communities and have been using fur for their headgear for

hundreds of years.

 

Incongruous as they may seem in the baking heat of Jerusalem and Bnei Brak,

shtreimels <http://www.wernercohn.com/hats.html#shtreimel> are worn by

thousands of Israeli men every Sabbath and religious festival of the year.

Made of velvet-lined rings of sable, the hats are as much a part of many

haredi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism> sects' uniforms as

their bekishes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekishe> or gartels. The call

to end the production of such headgear is reminiscent of the drive to ban

the Queen's Guards' bearskin

helmets<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/2655421/Buckin\

gham-Palace-Guards-may-lose-bearskin-hats.html>–

although in the case of the shtreimel, religious considerations are

proving a far harder obstacle to traverse.

 

Those pushing for a ban on fur say they would exempt shtreimels and other

religious hats from the proscription on the grounds of supporting religious

freedom, but those against the ban are sceptical of such promises. Since the

shtreimel market accounts for 90% of the Israeli fur trade, MK Chaim

Amsellem asserts " there's no logic in legislating a bill that doesn't do

what it's supposed to " .

 

He believes that a ban on fur would be the opening salvo in a wider war on

religious practices such as shechita <http://www.shechitauk.org/>, the

traditional Jewish method of slaughtering animals for meat which has been

the subject of intense

criticism<http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131258>around

the world in recent years.

 

However, Jewish teaching expressly forbids causing undue suffering to

animals, and properly administered shechita has been shown to be one of the

most painless forms of slaughter, a fact which should allay the fears of

Amsellem and his peers in terms of the possible ramifications of a fur ban.

But when it comes to a ban on fur itself, they may find they have little to

support their arguments, other than an anachronistic cleaving to a tradition

in great need of updating.

 

As a lifelong

vegetarian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/19/vegetarianism>who

has suffered no ill-effects from abstention from meat or fish, I am

sceptical even of those who claim that eating animals is an essential part

of one's diet, yet in that case at least the argument is centred around

health grounds. But when it comes to items of ceremonial clothing, whether

the shtreimel or the bearskin, there is far less weight behind the call for

ethics to be superseded by tradition, especially in an age when synthetic

fabrics are available as viable fur replacements.

 

There is much to be made of the hypocrisy displayed by those for whom the

mass slaughter of one type of animal passes without comment, yet for whom

the killing of their cuter counterparts evokes untold horror and anguish.

But the two-faced approach of certain animal rights groups does not diminish

the responsibility of end-users to restrict their consumption to only the

most essential of circumstances.

 

Shtreimels and bearskins quite clearly fall outside such a description, and

as such should garner no support among anyone with an interest in basic

morality and kindness to animals. In many areas, religious and military

statutes have evolved to keep pace with advances in the wider world, and

taking a similarly progressive stance over fur can't do either institution

any harm in the long term.