'Diamonds Not Fur' Event in WeHo Well-Intentioned But Poorly Named

Photo by jurvetson via Flickr

At Voyeur in West Hollywood last night, a red-carpet benefit event was held to raise funds for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles and Fur Free West Hollywood. Founded by actress Katie Cleary, it was called "Diamonds Not Fur."

On the event's website, Cleary explains how the idea for the benefit came about. While on a photo shoot in 2010, she says, she was asked to pose wearing diamonds and fur. Being an animal lover, she told her employers that she would wear the diamonds but not the fur, and a benefit was born.

"Diamonds Not Fur" obviously has its heart in the right place, and no doubt raised lots of money for a wonderful cause. But we feel compelled to point out that the name of the event was perhaps a bit ill-conceived -- diamonds are no less controversial than fur, and the industry has come under intense scrutiny for its human rights violations just as fur, obviously, violates the rights of animals.

No doubt Cleary et al didn't mean to imply that wearing baubles that may have been mined under horrific working conditions or whose profits might have gone to fund brutal civil wars would be preferable to wearing the skin of animals -- obviously, neither is a good choice.

That said, might we suggest coming up with a different name? Maybe "Neither Conflict Diamonds Nor Fur," or "If You're Going To Wear Diamonds Instead Of Fur, Try To Make Sure They Are Conflict-Free," or even "The Mistreatment Of Animals And Of Humans Is Equally Reprehensible"?

You know, something that rolls easily off the tongue.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jessica Pauline Ogilvie in Arts & Events on August 28, 2011 1:00 PM

Comments [rss]

mchooksis

The article says that fur "obviously violates the rights of animals" Does it? What "rights of animals"? Do animals have a Bill of Animal Rights? If so why don't they practice it amongst themselves. Are rights inherent, or man made? If so which "man" made them and under whose authority? Is there even an inherent right to life? I don't think so. Millions of us die all the time, and countless millions of animals daily throughout the planet, by a multitude of actions. Are all these creature's "rights to life" being violated? I've been in the Wild many times, entirely dependent on my own resources, and believe me I do not have a "Right to Life". There are many creatures that would have been prepared to kill me without second thought, even for such a simple thing as accidently disturbing them or stepping foot in the wrong territory. There are even animals that would have been prepared just to start eating me alive just because they were hungry. Should they not do so because I have my "Rights" ? When back in human society I may have a right not to be killed by another human, but that is not the same as a right to life. The onus is on the would be murderer not to kill, not on me to stay alive because I have a right. It's easy to be glib with casual statements and thinking when the full picture is not included in the equation.

John Nixon

I agree to some extent with you, Mchooksis. However, diamonds have far more uses than "simple rich man's bling." They are used in drill bits, glass cutters, recording equipment, and many other products that have the need of an extremely hard, durable, and precise crystalline structure. In fact, over 80% of all diamonds mined are NOT used as gemstones functioning aesthetically. Just wanted to get some facts straight here.

mchooksis

It's not that clear at all,Esarby. Diamonds have only one purpose. They are used to display wealth, they are simple rich man's bling. Although fur might be used to display wealth by the rich of Hollywood etc, fur is in fact used by milliions all over the world as a warm, practical and efficient form of clothing. The production of diamonds creates a subculture of corruption, murder, slavery and human abuse. The use of fur entails the use and killing of animals alone. Most fur production follows good animal welfare guidelines. There are a few who cut corners and break the guideliones, but this is nothing like to the extent the animal rights organisations would have you believe. Most fur is produced as humanely as possible. It's a very sad reflection on individuals within human society when they class animal abuse on the same level as human suffering and abuse, or even put animals in fromt of our fellow humanm beings.