Morrissey Calls for End to Ireland’s ‘Stale’ Fur Industry - PETA UK

Link mentioned by The Irish Hare in the Dublin post-show thread (original post):

Morrissey Calls for End to Ireland’s ‘Stale’ Fur Industry - PETA UK

MORRISSEY CALLS FOR END TO IRELAND’S ‘STALE’ FUR INDUSTRY

Ahead of Dublin Concert, Music Icon Asks Michael Creed to Ban Farms Where Minks Are Driven Insane Inside Tiny Cages

Dublin – Ahead of his concert on Tuesday at Dublin’s 3Arena, Morrissey has fired off a letter on behalf of PETA thanking Michael Creed, Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, for banning wild-animal circuses – and urging him to “continue on this progressive path by also outlawing fur farming”.

“Ireland has three fur farms, on which 200,000 minks are jammed into squalid cages and denied the opportunity to roam, swim, or care for their young,” writes Morrissey. “This confinement causes them such psychological distress that many go insane and mutilate themselves. They’re killed when they’re only about 6 months old – crammed by the dozens into a box and gassed to death. And for what? A stale ‘status symbol’ that nobody wants to wear any more.”

PETA – whose motto reads, in part, that “animals are not ours to wear” – notes that the UK, Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and the Netherlands have all banned fur farming and that Norway announced its own ban just last month.

Morrissey’s full letter to Mr Creed is available here. For more information, please visit PETA.org.uk.

42273_18.02.19-Morrissey-Irish-fur-farm-letter.jpg

Media coverage:
 
Last edited:

g23

Always crashing in the same car
we can't as of yet say that's true, just more speculation. :sleeping:
Whatever it is, I enjoyed the tone of this most recent letter. Free from hyperbole or sensationalism, very rational, kind in tone, and straight forward. I think that's a more sensible way of approaching the topic of animal cruelty than a blanket ban of a country.
 
T

Truth

Guest
The answer is very simple. He boycotts Canada because it's part of PETA's strategy to boycott Canada. If PETA boycotted Ireland I think he would.
Why does PETA boycott Canada but not Ireland? That is something that "we can't ever know unless they say" and it is "speculation" but why not speculate? The fur farms in Ireland are despicable and should merit some kind of reaction but they are not associated with Irish culture. Seal clubbing is associated with Canada and Canada has really offered nothing but excuses for it. We're supposed to believe that it's allowed because it's part of the culture of the First Peoples or Inuit culture and there is some truth to that but who really benefits from the fur trade?
In most cases where some disputed commodity is collected, trafficked, and marketed, those who do the dirty work make barely enough money to stay alive. If they were paid a fair portion of the final sale price they wouldn't have to go out there and slaughter so many seals year after year. We are supposed to feel sorry for them for living in poverty and I do in a way, but who keeps them in poverty? The traders and the dealers.

PETA and various people with deep pockets who are against the clubbing of seals should work to provide an alternative source of income to the native people of Canada. You do have to respect cultures to a degree but if native peoples are actually saying that the reason they do this is because they have no other source of income then looking into providing one should be a priority. I don't know how many of the seal clubbers are actually natives but if this economic need were not there to be used as an excuse it would at least force Canada to stop the seal clubbing or just admit that it's all about greed.

I wish Morrissey had been able to write this letter on his own without seeming like such a PETA shill. But it seems like a responsible and logical action with a clear goal.
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
The seal clubbing that led to Peta/ahem Morrissey boycotting Canada was definitely economical. There were 300,000 seals killed that year and it was to protect their fishing industry. Boycotting them on its own wasn't a terrible decision. Every man has to look at themselves in the mirror. What doesn't stack up is when you square that up to how pretty much every country behaves on Earth towards animals and why Canada was singled out. Either way, I like that he's at least said something on the Irish thing, better than doing nothing.
 
Last edited:

Oh my

Enough! or Too much
I wish Morrissey had been able to write this letter on his own without seeming like such a PETA shill. But it seems like a responsible and logical action with a clear goal.

It's easy to assume that PETA has by far more power than Morrissey as a pressure group.
The tone of the letter is quite nice, he begins with a congratulation to M. Creed for a recent decision and encourages him to go further in what he considers is the right direction.
 

destiny

New Member
There are no countries with zero animal abuse, but it seems that he is focusing on the industries that murder animals for aesthetic reasons.
Step by step is the way to go!

I love it when he plays Meat is Murder! Even if most people hates that song.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
i get it, it’s a disgusting trade and it needs to end, but unfortunately, until Morrissey can come up with answers for the atrocities that are his last 3 albums, Gustavo’s Speedway and Jesse Tobias still being in the band, Ireland shall not be moved.
 
F

Fanny-Anne

Guest
i get it, it’s a disgusting trade and it needs to end, but unfortunately, until Morrissey can come up with answers for the atrocities that are his last 3 albums, Gustavo’s Speedway and Jesse Tobias still being in the band, Ireland shall not be moved.
On swedish tv they slaughter animals a lot on a show called The Farm and I'm not talking about the scouse band best forgotten.

original.jpg


*Real animals were killed
 
T

Truth

Guest
The seal clubbing that led to Peta/ahem Morrissey boycotting Canada was definitely economical. There were 300,000 seals killed that year and it was to protect their fishing industry. Boycotting them on its own wasn't a terrible decision. Every man has to look at themselves in the mirror. What doesn't stack up is when you square that up to how pretty much every country behaves on Earth towards animals and why Canada was singled out. Either way, I like that he's at least said something on the Irish thing, better than doing nothing.

"11. Is it true seals are jeopardizing the Canadian cod fishery?There is no evidence to support this contention. Some fishing industry lobby groups try to claim that seals must be culled to protect fish stocks, but nothing could be further from the truth."

 
T

Truth

Guest
It's easy to assume that PETA has by far more power than Morrissey as a pressure group.
The tone of the letter is quite nice, he begins with a congratulation to M. Creed for a recent decision and encourages him to go further in what he considers is the right direction.

I don't disagree with his action and I think his tone is very positive and eventually I think mink farming will be seen as barbaric. My only problem about him acting as a PETA spokesperson in this way is that a lot of what they do is counterproductive and in my opinion he winds up looking like a puppet.
 

rifke

bodhisattva
Yes your government could do something about it. You are a democracy aren’t you?
They could make it illegal to Club seals to death. Make it an offence. Lock them up or fine them for doing it. Like other countries. Or yo could just do nothing and turn a blind eye....
Pilgrimupnorth
Yeah and while they're at it they could bring back residential schools. Forced integration has always worked well with canadas indigenous people:rolleyes:
 

Peppermint

Well-Known Member
The seal clubbing that led to Peta/ahem Morrissey boycotting Canada was definitely economical. There were 300,000 seals killed that year and it was to protect their fishing industry. Boycotting them on its own wasn't a terrible decision. Every man has to look at themselves in the mirror. What doesn't stack up is when you square that up to how pretty much every country behaves on Earth towards animals and why Canada was singled out. Either way, I like that he's at least said something on the Irish thing, better than doing nothing.
I sometimes wonder if it's a 'making an example' thing. You only need one to make an example. Hence Canada is singled out, Japan, Ireland et al are still toured. Not very logical in the circumstances, I grant you, but so much about Morrissey isn't.
 

Oh my

Enough! or Too much
I don't disagree with his action and I think his tone is very positive and eventually I think mink farming will be seen as barbaric. My only problem about him acting as a PETA spokesperson in this way is that a lot of what they do is counterproductive and in my opinion he winds up looking like a puppet.

I have mixed views about PETA. I think that a lot of their commercials are a disaster because they seem to ignore the basic laws of advertising.
However, the greatest achievement of PETA is probably having made fur become quite unpopular and unacceptable.

In other fields, they have the best intentions, but bad strategies.

I.e, The recent Super Bowl "Redemption" commercial would NEVER work. sadly, when it comes to commercials, everything is a "product" (even if the "product" is vegetarianism, a politician or a beer; it doesn't matter)... and no efficient commercial can work by directly selling the "product". The point is to sell a lifestyle or a feeling and make a somehow unconscious and irrational connection between this lifestyle or feeling and the "product"... as to make someone want the "product" as to reach that feeling or lifestyle.


I do not like beer, but that commercial works well. They simply showed a feeling (loyalty, unconditional friendship, love, how nice it is to spend time with someone you like, etc)... and it is weird, because they do not even need to show the "product" itself... and the connection between these feelings and a budweiser beer is absolutely irrational.

As opposed to this strategy, the "Redemption" commercial simply shows a grumpy priest who doesn't forgive someone who works selling meat. So they are simply establishing an unconscious connection between vegetarianism and someone who is grumpy, boring, not exciting... quite hard to convince ANYONE by associating vegetarianism with that "feeling" or "lifestyle" (because, honestly, it's not attractive).

Morrissey is certainly not acting like a puppet... but writing on behalf of PETA. If he hadn't mentioned PETA, the letter would be somehow absurd (even if he is a famous singer, he is simply a famous singer... so the message to a Minister of Agriculture and Food is by far stronger if it's backed up by an organization). Morrissey is not silly and politicians are not silly either, the not so super-secret message is "maybe if you dare to do what I suggest, you can get some free propaganda by being shown as a good example and a decent person, you may end up getting more popular". I think Morrissey knows very well what he is doing.


The only thing I ignore is if Swift Eclipse will rate this post as "troll" or "redundant", but my guess is that he'll choose "troll".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's no wonder people are speculating. It would be hard to accept his reasoning as being entirely moral because if it were the case he would have to stop touring. Every country under the sun is guilty of this barbarity in some form or other. Right now there is serious discussion in America about arming school teachers who are struggling to even teach their students! At the end of the day (and I don't think he cares) he comes off looking like a hypocrite. There's nothing consistent at all about his outrage. If I were Canadian I'd be bummed.
 

Peppermint

Well-Known Member
I have mixed views about PETA. I think that a lot of their commercials are a disaster because they seem to ignore the basic laws of advertising.
However, the greatest achievement of PETA is probably having made fur become quite unpopular and unacceptable.

In other fields, they have the best intentions, but bad strategies.

I.e, The recent Super Bowl "Redemption" commercial would NEVER work. sadly, when it comes to commercials, everything is a "product" (even if the "product" is vegetarianism, a politician or a beer; it doesn't matter)... and no efficient commercial can work by directly selling the "product". The point is to sell a lifestyle or a feeling and make a somehow unconscious and irrational connection between this lifestyle or feeling and the "product"... as to make someone want the "product" as to reach that feeling or lifestyle.


I do not like beer, but that commercial works well. They simply showed a feeling (loyalty, unconditional friendship, love, how nice it is to spend time with someone you like, etc)... and it is weird, because they do not even need to show the "product" itself... and the connection between these feelings and a budweiser beer is absolutely irrational.

As opposed to this strategy, the "Redemption" commercial simply shows a grumpy priest who doesn't forgive someone who works selling meat. So they are simply establishing an unconscious connection between vegetarianism and someone who is grumpy, boring, not exciting... quite hard to convince ANYONE by associating vegetarianism with that "feeling" or "lifestyle" (because, honestly, it's not attractive).

Morrissey is certainly not acting like a puppet... but writing on behalf of PETA. If he hadn't mentioned PETA, the letter would be somehow absurd (even if he is a famous singer, he is simply a famous singer... so the message to a Minister of Agriculture and Food is by far stronger if it's backed up by an organization). Morrissey is not silly and politicians are not silly either, the not so super-secret message is "maybe if you dare to do what I suggest, you can get some free propaganda by being shown as a good example and a decent person, you may end up getting more popular". I think Morrissey knows very well what he is doing.


The only thing I ignore is if Swift Eclipse will rate this post as "troll" or "redundant", but my guess is that he'll choose "troll".
Not sure I would agree entirely, Oh My. I worked as a copywriter in advertising for over 20 years. Some ads are about selling a lifestyle, if it's a lifestyle product. More broadly, though, it's about 'what's in in for me?', or 'why do I need this?' The Redemption ad failed in my view because it wasn't persuasive. Ads are supposed to persuade. You're not going to persuade anyone they need something if you hang your whole argument on criticising them. They tried to sell from the negatives, instead of the positives.

But I do agree he's probably better off siding with PETA, even with all their faults, for these campaigning letters as it gives him more perceived credibility.
 

Oh my

Enough! or Too much
Not sure I would agree entirely, Oh My. I worked as a copywriter in advertising for over 20 years. Some ads are about selling a lifestyle, if it's a lifestyle product. More broadly, though, it's about 'what's in in for me?', or 'why do I need this?' The Redemption ad failed in my view because it wasn't persuasive. Ads are supposed to persuade. You're not going to persuade anyone they need something if you hang your whole argument on criticising them. They tried to sell from the negatives, instead of the positives.

But I do agree he's probably better off siding with PETA, even with all their faults, for these campaigning letters as it gives him more perceived credibility.

Yes, I SADLY worked for an advertising company when I was very young (I have even more respect for people who work selling drugs than for people who work for advertising companies, but it's not a criticism of you, because I have done it too, though only for 2 years, but that's not an excuse, I can't cast a stone).
I worked behind the cameras and not in the legal department... and we would often receive a package with 3 things: the script, the desired aesthetics (and clarifications about some issues which were relevant for each brand, specially some colours that HAD to be used because they were associated with the brand... or details that were important for the brand -i.e, Gatorade will often show a green area in the middle of a urban context, etc)... and finally a psychological explanation of the intentions, which was something that was even more sinister than reading a medical report by Mengele. I resigned after reading one by Crystal Light that was willingly and explicitly inducing pathological behaviours (anorexia). It was as simple as saying: "OK... I won't do this shit. it's sick".

The ONLY advantage of having done such a horrible thing is that I can watch a commercial and perfectly get what they are really doing (though I am sure that you know it too).

This documentary is a bit boring, but very informative:


Anyway, going back to the original topic: of course it's a good idea to side with PETA... otherwise the Minister of Agriculture and Food would simply receive a letter from Morrissey and probably think: "O.K... Morrissey doesn't like fur farms... no big deal". By bringing PETA, the message is the same, but the meaning changes absolutely (as a politician, the last thing he wants is an organization with some economical power harassing him or becoming a burden in his political career... but it also opens the chance of receiving a good publicity for free)... and that's how politics work.
 
T

Truth

Guest
I have mixed views about PETA. I think that a lot of their commercials are a disaster because they seem to ignore the basic laws of advertising.
However, the greatest achievement of PETA is probably having made fur become quite unpopular and unacceptable.

In other fields, they have the best intentions, but bad strategies.

I.e, The recent Super Bowl "Redemption" commercial would NEVER work. sadly, when it comes to commercials, everything is a "product" (even if the "product" is vegetarianism, a politician or a beer; it doesn't matter)... and no efficient commercial can work by directly selling the "product". The point is to sell a lifestyle or a feeling and make a somehow unconscious and irrational connection between this lifestyle or feeling and the "product"... as to make someone want the "product" as to reach that feeling or lifestyle.


I do not like beer, but that commercial works well. They simply showed a feeling (loyalty, unconditional friendship, love, how nice it is to spend time with someone you like, etc)... and it is weird, because they do not even need to show the "product" itself... and the connection between these feelings and a budweiser beer is absolutely irrational.

As opposed to this strategy, the "Redemption" commercial simply shows a grumpy priest who doesn't forgive someone who works selling meat. So they are simply establishing an unconscious connection between vegetarianism and someone who is grumpy, boring, not exciting... quite hard to convince ANYONE by associating vegetarianism with that "feeling" or "lifestyle" (because, honestly, it's not attractive).

Morrissey is certainly not acting like a puppet... but writing on behalf of PETA. If he hadn't mentioned PETA, the letter would be somehow absurd (even if he is a famous singer, he is simply a famous singer... so the message to a Minister of Agriculture and Food is by far stronger if it's backed up by an organization). Morrissey is not silly and politicians are not silly either, the not so super-secret message is "maybe if you dare to do what I suggest, you can get some free propaganda by being shown as a good example and a decent person, you may end up getting more popular". I think Morrissey knows very well what he is doing.


The only thing I ignore is if Swift Eclipse will rate this post as "troll" or "redundant", but my guess is that he'll choose "troll".

About PETA, I really disagree that associating yourself with an organization like that, as opposed to the Humane Society, is helpful. I think Morrissey is acting like a puppet and has a history of it. The day before he made the comment about Madonna he had a meeting with Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's founder. Then he appeared onstage and said, referring to Madonna's son, "“I wouldn’t be surprised if she [Madonna] made that African boy into a coat and wore him ... for 15 minutes, and then threw it away.”
I don't know your definition of silly, but that's a kind way to describe that statement. What he said there didn't help anyone in any way and made him look like an idiot. I don't have any proof that they discussed Madonna wearing fur but I am pretty sure they discussed strategy and talking about Madonna wearing fur would be very PETA. The twist about making an African boy into a coat is unfortunately not out of line with other statements Morrissey has made. He probably thinks the boy shouldn't have been allowed to immigrate.
When he announced his boycott of Canada PETA posted his statement.

As far as needing to be associated with an organization in order for this statement to matter, I think he's pretty well known in Ireland. Maybe you're right about the implied reward/threat but I think lots of people really oppose PETA even if they agree with a lot of their stated purpose.
I do not think Morrissey knows what he is doing in most cases beyond having a real flair for attracting publicity. But did he know what he was doing when he defended Hollywood rapists then had to deny that was what he did? When, after the denials, the audio was released and it said exactly what they had printed did he know what he was doing?
When he accused that Italian police officer of abusing him and then a completely different story emerged did he know what he was doing?
I don't think so. I do think he knew exactly what he was doing when he said "Chinese" and "subspecies" in the same sentence. He was making news. He's a troll and then when he gets a reaction he weeps and tells us all how unfair the press is.
Anyway, this started out with me saying good job on the letter but I see him as a PETA puppet. I was trying to say something nice. haha But you see him differently and that's okay. I haven't been won over to your point of view, but it doesn't matter. Hopefully he will continue in this way, writing nice and persuasive letters that might have some positive effect instead of making "outrageous" comments that are too easy to pull out of context and use to depict him in a variety of unflattering ways.
I haven't seen the "Redemption" ad but I'm against anything that implies moral authority of the Church or religion in general, so I will agree that I probably wouldn't like it.
 

Peppermint

Well-Known Member
Yes, I SADLY worked for an advertising company when I was very young (I have even more respect for people who work selling drugs than for people who work for advertising companies, but it's not a criticism of you, because I have done it too, though only for 2 years, but that's not an excuse, I can't cast a stone).
I worked behind the cameras and not in the legal department... and we would often receive a package with 3 things: the script, the desired aesthetics (and clarifications about some issues which were relevant for each brand, specially some colours that HAD to be used because they were associated with the brand... or details that were important for the brand -i.e, Gatorade will often show a green area in the middle of a urban context, etc)... and finally a psychological explanation of the intentions, which was something that was even more sinister than reading a medical report by Mengele. I resigned after reading one by Crystal Light that was willingly and explicitly inducing pathological behaviours (anorexia). It was as simple as saying: "OK... I won't do this shit. it's sick".

The ONLY advantage of having done such a horrible thing is that I can watch a commercial and perfectly get what they are really doing (though I am sure that you know it too).

This documentary is a bit boring, but very informative:


Anyway, going back to the original topic: of course it's a good idea to side with PETA... otherwise the Minister of Agriculture and Food would simply receive a letter from Morrissey and probably think: "O.K... Morrissey doesn't like fur farms... no big deal". By bringing PETA, the message is the same, but the meaning changes absolutely (as a politician, the last thing he wants is an organization with some economical power harassing him or becoming a burden in his political career... but it also opens the chance of receiving a good publicity for free)... and that's how politics work.
I see it a bit differently, but then I worked for quite small agencies and can't remember working on anything that gave me an ethical dilemma. On the whole I worked for some very nice, very hardworking people, with the odd big ego wanker - but that's probably true of anywhere. I enjoyed the creative challenge of writing something within very specific constraints: here is the message, this is what the target audience respond to (which dictates the type of language), here is the outcome we want, and here is the artwork which will govern the style and the length. It was a bit like a puzzle to solve, in the most concise, original and eloquent way you can think of. I liked it. Having said that, I never worked at the big bucks end on radio and TV, where perhaps most of the advertising exec cliches reside.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom