ricky gervais

Ricky Gervais Calls Fur Farmers ‘Disgusting C&#%@’

9
by Ali Berman January 1, 2012
Categories: Animals, Causes, Fashion
Tags: .
Photo: Flickr/djtomdog

Ricky Gervais isn’t known for his self-censorship. Whether it’s the Golden Globes or his twitter account, the comedian tells the truth, even when it’s not the most popular opinion.

Thankfully for animals, Gervais recently tweeted his thoughts on fur. As you might imagine, the animal advocate isn’t a fan of skinning animals for fashion.

It starts out pretty innocent with a ‘please’ but it becomes obvious what Gervais thinks of those who make money off of selling fur.

He tweeted, “Please don’t buy fur. And let anyone who does know they’re supporting the disgusting c&#%@ who torture beautiful helpless creatures to death.”

He of course wrote out the word, but I’ll just leave it as see you next tuesday…

This insult came right after @P4Animals and @StopFurTrade asked him to sign a petition against dogs being skinned alive in China for fake Ugg boots. Gervais retweeted and responded, “Petition? I want to fucking kill someone.”

It’s always great to have a powerful and fearless voice on the side of an important issue. And with winter here, it’s the perfect time to get the word out on why fur is for the dogs. Or the minks. Or the chinchillas. Basically, not for humans.

About Ali Berman

Ali Berman is a writer, teacher and activist. She works as a humane educator for HEART teaching kids about issues affecting people, animals and the environment. Ali is also a fiction writer. Her published work can be found on her website at aliberman.com. In early 2012 Ali co-founded flipmeover, a production company with the mission to use media to raise awareness of social issues.

View all posts by Ali Berman →
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Heather-Pearce/100002822000577 Heather Pearce

    I really don’t get this obsession with fur. A lot of it seems to do with getting snippets of information and putting it together to create a story that is totally misleading. Vis. AR groups get hold of some evidence that SOME people around the world skin dogs alive for their fur. This was in China, and it is just as likely that they were also being skinned for eating, but that is not mentioned.) They then get info that SOME fajke Ugg boots are being made with dog skin? (I doubt it, but for the sake of argument I will believe it). But they then put it together and say that ALL animals for fur are tortured first and skinned alive, be it in the West or East), and that most gfake Ugg boots are made with tortured dog fur. It just doesn’t add up.

    We would ALL like to murder the f*****s that torture animals for their fur, but these idots represent a tiny percentage of those in the fur farms, and certainly don’t represent the majority practice of animal welfare on fur farms.

    To extrapolate individual pieces of information to represent a status quo is a very dangerous direction to go in, and leads eventually to mob rule and vigilanty behaviour. Something that would harm us all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Heather-Pearce/100002822000577 Heather Pearce

    And just another point, Ecorazzi does a good job in focusing on important environmental issues. That being said why this anti fur obsession. The killing of animals for fur does not even register on the scale when it comes to what we do to create the other types of clothing we wear. Surely Ecorazzi should obsess with the destruction of environment for cotton growing. The huge pollution of land, rivers and oceans by chemical run off from pesticides and herbicides. (which kills thousands of millions of animals without us even thinking about it.

    Then there is the totally immoral and unethical practice of taking limited resources out of the ground, creating totally man made chemicals from them, most of them never found naturally in the environment, producing man made fibre from them, pouring the chemical residue, (by now toxic and man created) back into the air, land and water, and using the fibre to create faux fur and polyester clothing which once made takes thousands of years to break down, and even then NEVER breaks down again into it’s natural components.

    The harm to the environment and the suffering and death imposed on animals is beyond measure, but we hardly give it a second thought when we go off each Saturday to buy our next tee shirt simply because it has a cool design on it, or someones flashy name like Gucci. We hardly give it a second thought when we dispose of our faux fur jacket because it has begun to look scruffy and is out of fashion after just five years. We hardly give it a second thought when we buy a polyester mix party frock and use it for one party and then it just sits in a cupboard forever and a day after that because we can easily go out and buy a “better” one.

    And yet to get all this stuff, somewhere in the world, wildlife, animals and habitat have been destroyed in order to get the raw materials and the production plants and the resources to make all these cloth items which fill our shops to the brim, just for our pleasure. Like I said, fur production, fur fashion, and fur wearing does not even register on the scale when compared to all this.

    Yes the animals used for fur should be bred and killed humanely, most are, but to try and wipe out the use of a natural sustainable resource just because some idiots abuse animals is insane and illogical. Most fur wearers wear fur not for fashionable vanity, but because it is warm and comfortable to wear, they only have to buy it once, and it is more likely than not to have been produced humanely, and above all it is a natural material. There may be an anti green footprint associated with it as with the production of all things. But this anti green footprint is small enough to be cleaned up by the ecosystem in a relatively short time. You cannot say the same for most of the rest of the clothing we wear if it contains any man made fibre in it.

  • Whoever…

    Either you have no clue about what you’re talking about or you work for the barbaric fur industry!!

    Before you post this type of comments I strongly suggest you watch the following documentary:
    - http://www.earthlings.com/
    It’s free so you can watch it without worrying about that.

    “Yes the animals used for fur should be bred and killed humanely, most are, but to try and wipe out the use of a natural sustainable resource just because some idiots abuse animals is insane and illogical.”

    There is no such thing as ‘killed humanely’!!!
    And no, most aren’t killed ‘humanely’; instead most suffer unimaginable pain!
    “natural sustainable resource”!? You’re kidding right? What if everyone started wearing fur? Do you even know what sustainable means?

    “and it is more likely than not to have been produced humanely, and above all it is a natural material. There may be an anti green footprint associated with it as with the production of all things. But this anti green footprint is small enough to be cleaned up by the ecosystem in a relatively short time.”

    And you believe fur isn’t treated with chemicals?
    Have you any idea what organic material is!?
    Fur would rotten in no time if it wasn’t treated with ‘loads’ of chemicals and therefore your argument isn’t valid whatsoever…

    Please educate yourself before posting ridiculous comments like these…

    Oh and by the way I’m vegan so don’t even bother to go into the ‘eating animals’ issue!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Heather-Pearce/100002822000577 Heather Pearce

      ” Either you have no clue about what you’re talking about or you work for the barbaric fur industry!!” Neither is true, sorry. Are these the only two raesons you use to validate another person’s thoughts? That surely limits your perspectives. Are you saying that unless someone agrees with you, they don;t know what they are talking about? I hope not, that’s a pretty poor form of debate. I HAVE however spent 50 or so years of my life studying the biosphere, and looking at the interaction of life and death on our amazing Planet. Some of my conclusions may indeed not agree with yours, but that doesn’t make them wrong. Just as your conclusions and perception of life and death don’t make you right either.

      God how I hate it when people just read what they want to believe and not what is there. I wasn’t arguing and therefore there is no intended validation for or against what I was saying, I was merely pointing out that the impact of fur production does not register on the world compared to the impact of other forms of clothing, and that other methods of clothing production create far more animal suffering around the world than the total number of fur farms.

      Did I say fur is not treated with chemicals? I don’t think soOf course there are chemicals used on the leather to make it less susceptible to rotting. But which do you prefer, the chemicals used for tanning? or the chemicals used to make synthetic clothing (including faux fur). Look them ALL up, (AND the quantities, AND their respective effects on the environment,) then tell me the answer.

      By the way, fur is not treated with “loads of chemicals”, just a few, some of which are totally incocuous. And it is not the chemicals that stop it rotting, it is the fact that they change the nature of the collagen and othe proteins in the skin to make them less susceptible. Fur will always rot as soon as it is wet and bacteria and moulds get a grip and do their work, just as Nature intended, but I am sure you know that, but just don’t want to believe it. This by the way is NEVER the case with acryllics and polyester derivatives that will stay in the environment not just for your grandchildren, but 50 generations in the future. And if you don’t think that’s bad then look at what is happening in the Pacific right now with man made “plastics”.

      Of course there is such a thing as “killed humanely”. It means killing something with the least amount of pain or suffering. Pretty well ALL animals in the world, ourselves included will die suffering, in most cases quite horrifically, it is a fact of life. It is humane to make that death as painless as possible. Again you don’t seem to want to believe this but most animals killed for fur are killed humanely. You can watch your videos as much as you like, (and yes, we’ve all seen them, so don’t keep telling me to watch them) why do you insist in interpreting these pics as meaning that ALL fur is produced this way. It isn’t, and there are just as many vids and papers to that effect.

  • http://www.facebook.com/steve.ollington Steve Ollington

    Good man Ricky!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/steve.ollington Steve Ollington

    Heather, if there were two islands, one having 100 people per day murdered on, and the other having one person per day murdered on… do you suggest that we ignore what happens on the latter island because it’s less murder than the former one? No… more resources should go towards stopping the higher murder rate island I agree, but that doesn’t mean forgetting about the other, that must still factor in.

    So regardless of how the fur industry is less in numbers of animals that suffer, that doesn’t mean it should be ignored!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Heather-Pearce/100002822000577 Heather Pearce

      Quite agree with you Steve, that is exactly what I was saying, nowhere did I say that we should ignore some of the atrocities associated with the fur trade where they are found. However to extrapolate a few atrocities to represent the SOP’s of a whole industry is totally unjustified, and often has unintended consequences. Why for example is the anti fur movement so determined to wipe out fur farming in the West (where we have good animal welfare laws, and animals are treated as humanely as possible). This only sends the trade to China where there are at present far less controls, and therefore hugely increases the suffering of animals for the fur trade.

      Would not the sensible action be to ensure, and put pressure on fur farming in the West to be a beacon of humane animal husbandry and production of quality fur so that China realises that it will not get the trade unless it follows the example.

      Better to stamp out the trade entirely you say. The reality is that this is never going to happen. People have been wearing fur since clothing began because it is comfortable, practical, warm and long lasting. Despite what Peta would have us believe, the fact is that fur sales continue to rise world wide, and fur is seen, in abundance worn by young and old in cities all over the world. It is not going to go away, so the best we can do is to make sure that worlwide it is produces as humanely as possible.

      And if fur WAS stamped out, what then? It doesn’t alter the fact that we need clothing. It would be great if we could all wear 100% sustainable environment neutral clothing, but this is a pipe dream. With a population of 7bn, rising to a projected 9,10,11bn it just wont happen.

      As I tried to point out, the real protest should be aimed at the cotton and synthetic clothing industry. These between them kill not millions, but BILLIONS of animals. Why do people get so emotional and react with such vitriolic hatred when they see videos of animals suffering at the hands of some ignorant idiotic Chinese peasants, and yet react with such inaction and mildness at the actions of other industries.

      Why do we see crowds of protesters outside a department store protesting at the fact that they sell garments with a fur ruff to their hoods, but never protest about the rest of the garment which in all probability will be completely man made, and will have caused untold suffering to wildlife and destruction in the long path it took from the oil being taken out of the ground to the finished garment on the peg. and the even longer path it will take when we finish with it. The fur will have long disapeared, but at some future date some poor animal is going to die of starvation becaiuse it has ingested a fragment of polyester floating around in some ocean somewhere. It just does not make sense.

      Peta and other animal rights groups waste huge amounts of time, and millions upon millions of dollars against the fur trade. Why? Do fur farms destroy the planet? ……No! Why don’t they get upset and use their millions producing videos showing the Arral Sea, The Pacific garbage giro, The Nile Delta, The Gulf of Mexico, and the huge suffering and death of animals that man has caused and continues to cause by perpetuating these disasters. Fur farming is a mere atom compared to these, and the rhetoric against fur is TOTALLY out of balance compared to the real suffering we inflict.

      Why is there this inbalance? The only reason I can think of (there are probably more) is that fur animals are furry and have cute eyes. People don’t care as much about jellyfish, fish, turtles. all the millions of little animals running around the planet that we slaughter indiscriminatly. Who cares about the millilns of rats and mice killed by pest control so that we have rodent free kitchens. We don’t get emotional about them because they are not cute, and besides we never see them. How ethical is that?

  • Anonymous

    Heather, I don’t get the obsession with fur either. I live in LA and I rarely ever see anyone wearing it. It’s a marginal issue. It seems common sense that manufacturing standards are different for each fur farm. Maybe more effort should be put into standardizing animal slaughter laws rather than the FUR IS EVIL campaign which just seems so facile and broad stroked.

  • lana

    Just don’t wear any fur…..it’s as simple as that.

« PREVIOUS POST
Eva Longoria
NEXT POST »