No fur for you!
After months and months and months of battling fur protesters outside their store, Schumacher Furs is pulling up stakes and heading to an undisclosed suburban location. Owner Greg Schumacher cites a litany of reasons to leave (protesters are one factor, to be sure) – panhandlers, public urination and street musicians (???).
I’ve been following this issue with a jaded eye for the last few months – I’d like to see downtown businesses survive, but also couldn’t help but agree with Randy Leonard’s conclusion (after he stepped back from trying to resolve the conflict with protesters): “I honestly had never been involved in anything in which I felt like the folks I was trying to help did not want to be helped.”
But while I don’t necessarily begrudge the protesters their right to free speech and assembly, I have to ask this: couldn’t all that effort and energy have been better spent? They didn’t manage to save one animal from being killed, after all. And I really don’t think that the protesters will pick up their stakes and follow Schumacher to the suburbs. So ultimately – what was the point, anyway?
But hey – with all that free time, maybe protesters can help solve a tangible problem close to home. There’s that whole ‘appalling quality of street musicians’ issue that apparently needs serious attention, for starters…
Update: According to The Merc, it’s not a planned retreat – Schumacher EVICTED–not “leaving”. Matt Davis has the scoop, as per usual…
I wonder if now the loathsome protesters will now target the hat makers at the Saturday Market with fur in their goods…
I personally find these protesters wretched, deplorable, and idiotic.
I think they harrassed and fatigued this business into leaving. Why this was allowed to continue in the fashion it did is disgraceful and telling of some of our civic leaders.
For the tenacious and pious harassers what is next on the list for “protesting”?
The meat market? The sushi restaruant? A leather store? Where does this end? Thousands of rodents die in the soy harvests, perhaps the tofu stand or the soy milk users?
It reminds me of the foie gras issue. Don’t like foie don’t eat it. Don’t agree with fur don’t wear it, but please do not try and impose your values on me.
Reminds me of PCU, a movie with a decent message, even if it does star David Spade.
Update: The Merc is reporting they were evicted and aren’t leaving by choice: http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2006/11/schumacher_evictednot_leaving.php
check this out too, supports the theory that they got evicted cause they were nasty folks running that business. its the sign they left behind…
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/L_IMAGE.10efcb6ba0a.93.88.fa.d0.347e3504.jpg
Oh man… the wife (?) of the Schumacher owner came into New Seasons yesterday (ironic that it was the new one in Beaverton). After strolling up in her Ocelot/Leopard coat, matching handbag and requisite bluetooth headset, she proceeded to ‘let fly’ when asked how her day was. “Oh, you’ll SEE it on the news tonight… you WATCH! The police refuse to do their JOB! The city is bad for business… yadda yadda…. YOU’LL SEE! It’ll be a BIG announcement!….”
Then, get this: she then said Lars Larson gave them a Elk pelt to make a jacket out of, but he’s gotten so fat recently that he needs to go shoot another Elk just to make it happen. Maybe the classless snoot should think about client confidentiality next time… but how funny is that?
This has been in the cards for a long time, folks. They’ve wanted to pull out of downtown and smear it on the way out in the style their buddy Lars likes to do. Guess what honey? Times have changed, and people have effin’ Goretex now… they don’t need some exotic cat carcass draped around their neck. Portland is pragmatic, if nothing else, and fur looks out of place here. Take your bitchy business to Lake O for all anyone cares…
For me the question is whether you think it is appropriate for a passionate minority to shut down a business through systematic intimidation.
You can’t just say “Yay! I think fur is icky!” You have to divorce it from whatever the business may be engaged in, because it doesn’t matter whether it’s fur coats, women’s health, lap dances, hemp products, or red meat, there are going to be people who believe fervently that it should be closed down. Do they have the right to do so?
If this is seen as a victory, then who’s next on the list?
I work downtown near the Schumacher store, have met the Schumachers, and feel sorry for them. Linda is a pleasant woman, and managed to keep upbeat even with all the turmoil about. That was last year. Can you imagine having to put up with that kind of behavior where you work? (Mr New Seasons, perhaps video of a meat-processing plant next to your meat counter?)
I think of the wasted police resources, when I see three or four (or more) cops having to babysit what seem like otherwise rational adults as they taunt, harrass and belittle passersby. (I didn’t so much mind the naked girl protesters, but I digress…) Bottom line, bullies suck, and these protesters have gone from conscientious objectors to bullies.
I will miss the Schumachers. They patronized local businesses, were good neighbors, and always pleasant when their livelihood wasn’t being attacked. Good luck in your next location!
I’m thrilled to see them go. How can you respect someone who makes their living literally off the backs of tens of thousands of suffering animals a year? Wearing fur is self-indulgent, arrogant, cruel, thoughtless, and disgusting. The entire industry is one that ought to be relegated to the trash heap of history and I simply cannot feel sorry for the Schumachers for even one second.
Whenever I walked past the (predominantly unwashed and malodorous) protestors with their lovely signs and photos, I used to get a sudden craving for steak.
*shrugs* I guess Jake’s Grill is going to notice the miniscule drop in their bottom line since they were usually my next stop.
She’s cranky about street musicians!? Does she mean that guy who plays the violin at the 10th Ave MAX station, because he rocks. I mean, if it was the guy in the white tux with the trumpet and the Mickey Mouse hat, yeah, well, he’s not a great musician (but I still enjoy seeing him around), but the violinist is better’n most of the damnfools I knew at Juliard.
Supposedly they weren’t evicted.
What I can’t grasp is how it’s the same (to quote Jonashpdx from his post today) “lefty, hippie, liberal, hands-off-my-body Portlanders” that don’t want anyone or anybody to tell them how to behave that have absolutely no problem at all blanketly declaring all fur wearers and fur sellers as “self-indulgent, arrogant, cruel, thoughtless, and disgusting”.
PAgent:
First, if it’s true, as being reported elsewhere, that the Schumachers are being evicted, does that deflate your point at all?
Second, thanks for finally making an argument that doesn’t rely on linking this story to some other emotionally-charged issue.
Thirdly, the whole point of “Freedom of Speech” is to encourage public debate of issues.
The anti-fur protesters wanted a public debate on the practices that the Schumachers were partaking of and encouraging – like cruelty to animals, and trade with China, both of which I understand (from their leader’s editorial in the Trib back in March or April this year) the anti-fur protesters were, um, protesting.
But the Schumachers didn’t want that debate. They avoided it. They just wanted the protesters arrested, killed, anally electrocuted… The Schumachers had an elitist view that they were automatically right because they were entitled, and that they were somehow above debate.
If they had just engaged the protesters honestly and openly, I believe this could have been resolved differently.
Yes, protesters have a right to protest. Businesses may have the right to ignore public debate, but just ’cause they have the right, doesn’t mean that is always the best response.
And the whole thing about a business being “shut down” is a straw man argument. If the business relocates to the ‘burbs, that doesn’t count as “shut down” to me. Being evicted (as is being reported) is also a far cry from the whole “dirty hippies ran them out of town! WHERE WILL IT END” argument (which is bigotry combined with a “slippery slope” logical fallacy) I’ve seen (see the first comment in this thread for an example; there are plenty of others).
Aaron B. Hockley:
Got any examples of your straw man? You say you’re quoting Jonashpdx – I didn’t see a post by him on Portland MetBlog or his own website. I didn’t see a comment by him here, on Loaded Orygun, or at the Merc’s Blogtown.
Maybe Jonashpdx will clear this up…
Brian:
“First, if it’s true, as being reported elsewhere, that the Schumachers are being evicted, does that deflate your point at all?”
Not at all. First of all, they deny that that are being evicted. But even if they are, are you going to suggest that they would have been evicted anyway, even if there hadn’t been a weekly disturbance at their property? If so, why?
“Second, thanks for finally making an argument that doesn’t rely on linking this story to some other emotionally-charged issue.”
You may be missing my point. I wanted to emphasize that virtually EVERY aspect of this issue is emotionally-charged. It’s emotion that is being used to justify the protests. It’s emotion that drove the Schumachers to lash out. It’s my position that if this was a worthwhile use of power, then it should be able to be justified even in the absence of such an emotional component.
“Thirdly, the whole point of “Freedom of Speech” is to encourage public debate of issues.”
Debate. The key word is debate. Do you really want to characterize what was happening in front of Schumacher’s as a “debate”?
Freedom of Speech is often used to justify anti-social behavior. It’s trotted out as some kind of a shield to try and ward off the consequences of this or that action. You have the right to peacefully speak, and peacefully assemble. Intimidation is not a first amendment right.
“The anti-fur protesters wanted a public debate on the practices that the Schumachers were partaking of and encouraging – like cruelty to animals, and trade with China, both of which I understand (from their leader’s editorial in the Trib back in March or April this year) the anti-fur protesters were, um, protesting.”
The anti-fur protesters wanted Schumachers shut down. I don’t think they would deny that. There are a lot of ways to try to implement change. There is education, calling campaigns, letters to the editor. Even peaceful sit-ins. But when you start picketing a business and harassing customers, you are no longer peacefully protesting. You’re taking action. I just want someone to explain how this is substantively different than the tactics that anti-abortion groups have used to shut down women’s clinics, WITHOUT resorting to some kind of “the ends justify the means” argument.
“But the Schumachers didn’t want that debate. They avoided it. They just wanted the protesters arrested, killed, anally electrocuted… The Schumachers had an elitist view that they were automatically right because they were entitled, and that they were somehow above debate.”
How about the Schumachers didn’t want to engage in a debate with people that had no intention of seeing their point of view? I can’t say I blame them. And I think the ‘arrested, killed, anally electrocuted’ comments were out of line, but perhaps understandable after the efforts made to intimidate their customers and put them out of business. People get pretty touchy when you want to take away their business.
“If they had just engaged the protesters honestly and openly, I believe this could have been resolved differently.”
Just out of curiousity, do you really believe this? What intermediate position do you think would have satisfied the protestors? What level of fur production would they consider acceptable? Every bit of rhetoric I’ve heard leads me to believe that there was no middle ground for those folks.
“Yes, protesters have a right to protest. Businesses may have the right to ignore public debate, but just ’cause they have the right, doesn’t mean that is always the best response.”
Again, I resent your characterization of this as a ‘protest’. I’d rather call it ‘intimidation’. Public debate is something that happens in newspapers, or in city council meetings. When you have folks screaming outside your store, week after week, it’s no longer a debate.
“And the whole thing about a business being “shut down” is a straw man argument. If the business relocates to the ‘burbs, that doesn’t count as “shut down” to me. Being evicted (as is being reported) is also a far cry from the whole “dirty hippies ran them out of town! WHERE WILL IT END” argument (which is bigotry combined with a “slippery slope” logical fallacy) I’ve seen (see the first comment in this thread for an example; there are plenty of others).”
I hope you are not calling me a bigot. I don’t have a thing against hippies or other liberals. In the examples I provided I hoped to show that moral self-righteousness was a dangerous drug for either side of the political spectrum. And if you think that moving out of downtown to the suburbs won’t effect their business, then you have your head in the sand.
And if you want to look for bigotry, how about reviewing Becky’s comment above. Clearly, Becky isn’t prepared to accept ANY person’s justification for wearing fur, or I suspect, for defending someone’s right to sell fur.
And finally, you decry the slippery slope logical fallacy, but can you provide a specific reason why the kind of justification for shutting down Schumachers can’t be applied to abortion clinics, or adult bookstores, or a gay/lesbian organization?
Brian, my Jonashpdx quote is taken from this post of his today: http://portland.metblogs.com/archives/2006/11/portlands_fourt.phtml
Like PAgent, I have nothing against someone who wants to be a liberal/hippie/whatever, and I’m all about free speech and expressing one’s opinion. But as he notes, there’s a difference between expressing an opinion, and interfering with someone’s ability to conduct commerce without harrassment.
PAgent makes many of the same points that I would in response, using some very good arguments. I look forward to your response to him.
I hope you’ll forgive me for also posting my response on my own website, in addition to here. :-)
Thanks for the debate. I appreciate it very much and am glad for the opportunity.
That being said… This boils down to two points, as I see it. First, you seem unaware of what the publicly stated aims of the protesters are, which means you’re arguing what you believe their motives are, rather than going by what they’ve said. And you seem intent on enforcing some code of how and where protests should be conducted – “public debate is what happens in newspapers, or in city council meetings”. Luckily, free speech is more broadly protected than that.
To the first point, I’m including some links at the end of this comment. There are plenty more; this has been a widely reported topic in the local media. I’m sure I’ve missed some, but I’d like to draw your attention to the first link. One of the protesters, Matt Rossell, had an editorial published in the Portland Tribune back in March – have you read it? In it, and in other articles in the local media, he specifically said that the goal of his group is education; education about how the furs are obtained and from where (China, from what I understand).
He specifically denies that they are trying to “shut down” Schumacher Furs: “With protests originally scheduled to last only through Christmas, In Defense of Animals’ objective always has been to educate people about the inherent cruelty of the fur industry, not to put Schumacher out of business.
The strategy is simple: Portlanders are compassionate, and most will make humane consumer choices when given accurate information.”
One thing I’ve learned in my reading that I will admit I didn’t know before is that there have been arrests during the protests, and that there have been some vandalism. That being the case, it seems that the protesters spokesperson acknowledges that the aim is peaceful, and that those who have broken the law have had to face the consequences of their actions. That sounds about right to me, and stands in contrast to Gregg Schumacher’s claim of death threats against him. If there were credible death threats, then I imagine that law enforcement has been involved. I haven’t seen any reports of that.
And the claims of death threats against the business, which appear baseless, stand in contrast to the actual death threats the Schumachers’ posted in their windows. How we deal with those who disagree with us is a reflection of who we are. In my view, it was not a mature response, and was actually dismissive of the protesters. It was not on the same level as the signs and protests I’ve seen deployed and documented in videos.
And, yes, I do consider this a public debate. In what way is it not? In fact, Rossell has said that there were steps that the Schumachers could take that would satisfy the protesters and end the demonstrations. I haven’t seen what Rossell thinks those steps would be, but I’d guess that it would be some form of acknowledgment of where and how the furs are harvested – assuming that they were seeking education and not shutting down the business. I admit that this is speculation on my part, and I think I’ll try to track down Rossell and put the question to him myself. I’ll happily report what information I can get.
Sadly, I don’t have to look very hard for bigotry, but you’re right, it’s everywhere. I’m sure I show evidence of it myself, which is why I’m grateful for friends (and others) who can call me on it when I show it. I welcome that kind of criticism. It doesn’t appear the Schumachers share my openness to criticism.
To your last argument: even if I accept your unfounded premise that the aim of the protests was to “shut down” the Schumachers, and even if I also accept your premise that the Schumachers business may be harmed by moving to the ‘burbs (if the downtown is as scary for their customers as they claim, the counter-argument could be made that the lower rents, better parking, and proximity to their customer base could actually HELP their business, not hurt it), there’s still this fear underlying what you say. Is it so scary to have someone disagree with you? Even if they disagree on a weekly basis, loudly and as often as possible?
It doesn’t matter if I agree with the speech of others. If their speech is hateful, I want everyone to hear it, because I think that rational people can recognize hateful speech when they see it. I don’t fear the vocal minority. I want to protect it.
An example of my personal hero is Richard Dreyfuss, the actor. During the filming of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, when it was being filmed in Mobile, Alabama, there was a group of Klansmen that wanted to march in a parade. There were many who opposed the Klansmen marching; they wanted to silence them. Mr. Dreyfuss actually demonstrated in favor of letting them march, on the same basis that I myself said: all speech is protected, and (pardon this analogy, I can’t help it) give your opponents enough rope to hang themselves. If their underlying nature is bigoted, they will show that side of themselves sooner or later.
I may have the details wrong on that story; I read it long ago, and the underlying premise stuck with me. It may be a myth that I use to support my beliefs, but even if the actual story is different I think the value I got from it is a good one.
I would support the peaceful protest of any topic in the public sphere, even if I do not, myself, support their view. If someone was trying to “shut down” a business that I supported, if I wanted to take part, I would encourage communication between the two parties, and do my part to make sure both sides understand their responsibilities in engaging the public. I applauded Randy Leonard in trying to mediate in this case, and I think the evidence is clear that it was the business owners who were beyond help, not the protesters.
Abortion clinics, fur stores, gay/lesbian bookstores, whatever – none of them have a right to exist, free from criticism, regardless of whether I believe in their rightness or wrongness. Someone’s always going to disagree with you. The best response is to engage them and learn from them. And if they appear to have all the power and you don’t, then you might have to take the debate outside of city councils or newspaper editorial pages, places that seem stacked in favor of the ones with money and power. Especially if you’re young and idealistic and don’t have a lot of cash on hand.
Links:
Matt Rossell’s editorial in the Portland Tribune:
http://portlandtribune.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=34704
The website of the Portland anti-fur protesters:
http://www.furisdead.org/
Brian, thanks for your response. And thanks for the link to the protester’s website. Had I realized they were a PETA operation, I wouldn’t have spent much time on this at all. That eliminates any possible credibility I might have otherwise given them.
I would LOVE to hear about the supposed middle ground… what it is that the business owners could have done (other than not selling fur) that would have pleased the protesters. If you can find out this information, I’d love to hear it.
Aaron: Your response is what I expect when someone has no cogent points to make to my argument. :-) Thanks for ceding the debate to me! Yours is an honorable retreat.
Wait, wait, this horse ain’t dead yet!*
Aaron, you pulled one of the two quotes you used, above, from Jonashpdx’s post – the one where he describes himself as one of those “lefty, hippie, liberal, hands-off-my-body Portlanders” – but the reason your use is a straw man is because no where does Jonashpdx use the second quote you used: “”self-indulgent, arrogant, cruel, thoughtless, and disgusting” – that’s from Becky in this thread.
You can’t quote one person and then imply their a hypocrite because of something someone else claims! Can’t you at least admit that your use of quotes was disingenuous at best?
*Oh, yes, I went there. On purpose.
Mr. Charlie- I have no objections to hunting, eating meat, cutting meat or selling it. It’s called SUSTENANCE, we’re omnivores. At least New Seasons doesn’t carry veal or hormone-riddled meat.
I don’t support the extent of the protests at the fur store, but I speak for others when I give a big ‘shrug’. Maybe fur should stay legal, but expect it to be every bit as taboo as it should be in society. High risk, high reward as they say.
I’m pretty sure if I were to list all of the problems and credibility issues with PETA that we’d run out of space here. If you seriously believe PETA is credible, let me know, and I’ll put together a laundry list of their issues.
Regarding the quotes, Jonashpdx was offering up his view of lefty Portlanders. Becky, who seems to proudly call herself progressive, then proceeds to offer up her quote as a blanket statement about a group of people.
Did someone directly contradict themselves? Nope. But Becky touched on one of my pet peeves which is so-called open minded free-speech-advocate liberals who then proceed to condemn other groups for exercising free speech.
Anyway, regarding PETA… like I said, if you actually want me to provide lists of problems and links, I will.
Re: PETA – yes, please. I’m not sure if you can tell from my comments so far, but I’m not one to just sit back and accept someone at their word. If you’ve got evidence that undermines PETA’s credibility, I’d very much like to see it, ’cause, y’know, I’m not afraid of dissent.
But I still have to ask: what does PETA’s credibility have to do with my arguments about freedom of speech, above? Are you saying that because PETA has no validity in your eyes, that my views on free speech are invalid? What’s the connection, there, again? I’m totally not following you.
I think that you’re just looking for a way to avoid refuting any of my arguments. And that’s OK. Just buck up and admit it, rather than trying to change the topic.
Re: your painting of Becky with a brush borrowed from someone else – thank you for acknowledging that your biases are preventing you from rationally evaluating others’ speech. Brave man.
Brian, for someone who is so vocally claiming to be all about rational debate, you sure are trying your damndest to turn this into a pissing match. FWIW, since you yourself seem to be devoting a lot of your rhetoric to attacking Aaron’s character and putting words into his mouth rather than addressing the issues, I am also bowing out of this ‘debate’. The signal-to-noise ratio is just getting too low.
(I have no doubt you will characterize this as a mighty victory for your side. Which is too bad, because I thought the dialog started out pretty reasonably.)
I have canine teeth.
I’m going to ask that we dial down the rhetoric and color commentary on debating styles and stick to the issues at hand here, if possible. I’d like to keep the discussion a little less personal and heated, if you don’t mind.
At the risk of fanning flames, I do have to respond to one of Brian’s earlier points:
First, you seem unaware of what the publicly stated aims of the protesters are, which means you’re arguing what you believe their motives are, rather than going by what they’ve said.
I’d say only that publicly stated aims and the actual results at the end of the day often don’t match up. I’d prefer to weigh their contributions by looking at their actual accomplishments/actions, as opposed to the group’s canned op-ed, mission statement, or website.
I’m not discounting those additional pieces of information wholesale, of course. But how many times have we heard that an organization is nominally about taking the high road when a closer look reveals that they don’t necessarily walk the walk?
Or, in other words – just because they say it’s so doesn’t make it so. I wouldn’t be so quick to label someone as ‘unaware’ simply because they don’t agree with the party line as presented as a result.
I had an interesting discussion with a friend about this and reconciled that it is perfectly acceptable to try and impose your values on me via free speech.
examples used
coming out of a shoe store and being informed that the company uses child labor over-seas.
people picketing in the 60’s to be made aware of restaurants that served blacks or didn’t serve blacks
or the Westbro Baptist Church gathering at Iraq war soldier funerals holding signs that say “god hates fags” and “god hates america”
these are just a few examples but in each one we agreed that we would support their freedom to speech no matter how we personally felt about the content of that speech…
Yet, the fur protesters and PETA do create more of an issue for me becasue I feel they often go beyond free speech. They practice sabotage, property crime, harassment, and assault. They lose credibilty for me when they resort to this kind of action… and I do not support it at all. I associate the fur protesters at Schmauchers with this kind of behaviour.
lastly, let me mention something I see as common in many activist organizations… it seems to me that once an objective is achieved a new one is made. These organizations exsist exsist soley on the creation of new objectives…
Look at MADD for example the founder now calls the org “neo-prohibitionist” and while I agree with the curbing of drunk-driving I would argue that the org has taken a stance that is conflicting with my freedom.
I think this kind of example can be illustrated in many organizations from the Christian Coalition to the A.C.L.U to E.L.F and I think it is something to be aware of when evaluating “causes” because it seems to me that many people jump in “lock step” when they hear of an issue from a org they have supported in the past.
I agree with Atlas. If we are in a free society each individual should be able to chose how they worship, what they eat and what they wear. And each vendor should be able to offer their product without threat of business shut-down based on factions or protesters. The Mayor and City Council needs to ensure that business are protected. Consider this, what if Music Millenium or your other favorite music store or on line site were forced to close because a group of people were opposed to the kind of music you like?