The Kingston and Elmbridge Lifestyle Magazines - Readers' Letters

Covering Kingston, Elmbridge and surrounding areas

Letters

To view letters click on the links below, you can leave comments and express your opinion

To write a letter click on the button above or click here

Finty Williams	29 January 2010
We have become accustomed, over the years, to some amusing howlers in The Richmond Magazine, however, the publication excelled itself in your article on the actress, Finty Williams. Ms. Williams could be forgiven for feeling 'flinty' after you had referred to her as such no less than nine times (including on the front cover, in the list of contents, the sub-title and on the photograph). She might be even less delighted to read that she "chirps" and "squeals" and "exclaims gleefully" within a forest of exclamation marks. Continued... Letter by Heather Hacking

Fur Better or Worse	29 January 2010
The January article Fur Better or Worse was misleading to your readers in many ways. Fashion Editor Han Na did not examine the controversial issue in depth at all, as she failed to explore the other shocking side of the fur industry. The photographs of the models wearing fur incorrectly portrayed fur coats as a symbol of elegance. But your pictures failed to show how the original owners of these coats met their gruesome deaths. Millions of fur-bearing animals including foxes, raccoons, mink, coyotes, bobcats, lynxes, opossums, nutria, beavers, muskrats, otters and others are killed each year on fur farms by electrocution, or being skinned alive, and in the wild by drowning, trapping or beating. I strongly advise Han Na to explore alternative fashion trends that do not involve the unnecessary suffering of innocent animals. Han Na claims that fur is more environmentally friendly than cotton and polyester. But there is nothing 'natural' about clothing made from animals’ skin or fur. In addition to causing the suffering and deaths of millions of animals each year, the production of wool, fur and leather contributes to global warming, land devastation, pollution and water contamination. Eighty-five percent of the fur industry's skins comes from animals on fur factory farms. These farms can house thousands of animals and, as with other factory farms, they are designed to maximize profits – with little regard for the environment or animals’ wellbeing. Each mink skinned by fur farmers produces about 44 pounds of faeces in his or her lifetime. That adds up to 1 million pounds of faeces produced annually by US mink farms alone. One dangerous component of this waste is nearly 1,000 tons of phosphorus, which wreaks havoc on rivers and streams. For instance, when a Washington State mink farm was charged with polluting a nearby creek, the faecal coliform levels measured in the water were as much as 5,000 times in excess of the legal limit. According to Sandy Parker Reports, a fur industry publication: “Tougher anti-pollution rules and stricter enforcement by government agencies are causing increasing problems for fur farmers in parts of the US…. Nitrates, phosphates and other substances running off with rainwater or seeping into aquifers and polluting local water supplies are increasingly coming to the attention of environmental protection agencies, and they are clamping down hard.” Raising animals for their fur also pollutes the air. In Denmark, where more than 2 million mink each year are killed for their fur, more than 8,000 pounds of ammonia is released annually into the atmosphere. Fur is only natural when it’s on the animal born with it. Once an animal has been slaughtered and skinned, his or her fur is treated with a soup of toxic chemicals to convert the putrefactive raw skin into a durable material (ie to keep it from rotting in the buyer’s closet). Various salts – along with ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide and other chromates and bleaching agents – are used to preserve and dye fur. Much of the world's fur is processed in China, where environmental regulations are often ignored. According to Professor Cheng Fengxia of Shaanxi University of Science and Technology: “Pollution caused by inappropriate processing, especially colouring the fur, has become a headache.” Fur farm pollution is further compounded when all aspects of farmed-fur production are considered. Fur processing requires transporting feed to animals; removing animals’ waste; providing electricity for housing facilities, the slaughter process and other operations; using pesticides, vaccines and antibiotics; transporting carcasses; transporting pelts to auction; transporting them to a fur tannery, which involves sorting, soaking, fleshing, tanning, wringing, drying, cleaning, trimming, buffing and finishing; and transporting tanned pelts to a garment maker, a wholesaler and so on. When all these processes are taken into account, a fur garment takes more than 15 times more energy to produce than a faux-fur equivalent. No federal humane slaughter law protects animals on fur factory farms, and killing methods are gruesome. For more information on the intolerable suffering that animals are subjected to, please visit: <i>ShedYourSkin.com</i> and see the factsheets on the fur-farming and trapping industries. Han Na further claims that, as individuals, we have <i>"different preferences and tolerances and the right to live thereby"</i>. The key consideration, however, is whether an animal is sentient and can therefore suffer pain or experience pleasure. This point was emphasized by the founder of modern utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, who wrote of animals: “The question is not: 'Can they reason?'. Nor is it: 'Can they talk?' It is: 'Can they suffer?'” Given that animals <i>can</i> suffer, argues the philosopher Peter Singer, humans have a moral obligation to minimize or avoid causing such suffering, just as they have an obligation to minimize or avoid causing suffering to other humans. Animals have basic moral rights because they possess the same advanced cognitive abilities that justify the attribution of basic moral rights to humans. By virtue of these abilities, these animals have not just instrumental, but <i>inherent</i> value. In the words of another philosopher, Tom Regan, they are <i>“the subject of a life”</i>. Continued... Letter by Rebecca Hubbard

Fur Better or Worse	29 January 2010
I enjoy reading your magazine when it comes through the door every month, but following the January fashion column I now feel reluctant to look at any future issues, in case there are more upsetting/offensive articles. I really think that the writer should have considered his/her readers' feelings/opinions on such a controversial subject before writing such a piece. What I was most upset by was that the pictures for this article were purely fashion and thus could influence people to buy fur products. I feel very strongly that, as the article had references to native people in their countries wearing fur, there should have been pictures of this, rather than purely fashion ones!! No serious fashionista these days would wear such horrifically offensive garments. I think it would have made the article easier to digest if there had been native Canadians wearing their fur, as it would have made people think a bit more and actually take in what they were reading, rather than be grossly repulsed by the picture content. I understand that the magazine does not censor articles, but on such a strongly divided subject, more care could have been taken to get the balance right. These pictures make your magazine look as if it does not take the killing of defenceless animals for fashion purposes seriously at all!! There was also the titling for this article – it was on the FRONT COVER of your magazine and was billed ‘Fur in Fashion’. I am completely speechless that that would be the title of this article, rather than something more articulate, and I am shocked that it was put on the front cover. Does your magazine not see how influential these things can be ? Continued... Letter by Alex Merryweather

Fur In Fashion	29 January 2010
I was shocked to read your article Fur in fashion in the January edition. The fact that you give cover space to this writer, as well as featuring her article, suggests that your magazine is in agreement with her views. I myself would not wear fur because of the cruelty involved for the animals in its mass production. However, I think there is a difference between people in very cold countries wearing fur to keep warm and the frivolous use of fur as a fashion item. It seems to me that the writer is trying to be provocative when she talks about people having the right to “different preferences and tolerances”, when her own tolerance seems not to take into account the unnecessary suffering of animals. Continued... Letter by Patricia Gracey

'Soul purchase' (Aug. edition)	23 July 2008
Dear Sarah, Just had to ask......are you prepared for the flack which your article will draw in this Francophobic land?!! "Wash yourself down, even if they don't" will be a typical response! Tricolourful indeed.....but I wouldn't dissent from one word of it. A wider appreciation of the points made would help us over here to come closer to a real 'good life', avoiding the seeking of it aboard the materialistic juggernaut. And I can say that — even with the emotional autism to which I'll admit! What I wouldn't admit is that there's any chance, let alone intention, of my becoming Colleen. More power to your pen. Kindest regards, Colin Continued... Letter by Colin Burn

Argentinian rhapsody	08 August 2007
Dear Ms Laurie, I should like to show my appreciation for your article in The Richmond Magazine on Argentina. My wife and I visited Argentina in 2004 on a private trip for one month and covered the whole of the country. Your piece captures the spirit of the country and the people perfectly and reminds us of the wonderful time we spent there - you have made us wish to go back. Other articles on the subject give the impression that they were written from Press releases, which certainly don't capture the atmosphere. Continued... Letter by Bruce and Susan Duff

Commuting Blues	04 July 2007
It's all very well banning smoking on stations but I am dissapointed that the rail authorities did not take advantage of the times to introduce other restrictions. Eating and drinking on trains is disgusting and offensive to other passengers. Special noise restrictions should apply in most carridges to include mps players, telephones and usless information from the train operator reminding us that we are in danger of being blown up at any second. Large back packs and bikes should be banned for the security and comfort of other passengers ...... the 8.32 to Waterloo is so crowded that it would affect the sanity of a judge. Continued... Letter by anonymous

Page 1 of 1

advertise in this space

© 2010 Sheengate Publishing Ltd