Do not confuse 'anti-fur' with 'extreme'

MR Mowatt's letter accuses those concerned by the suffering of animals of being arrogant, but it is he who is being arrogant.

It is the hallmark of arrogance to avoid arguing the issue (in this case whether or not the fur trade involves unnecessary cruelty) and instead attack the character of one's opponents. Woolly talk about ''cultist-type, mind-control propaganda'' and innuendoes of financial impropriety are typical of those unable or unwilling to make an honest appraisal of new ideas that are at variance with long-held assumptions.

These slur tactics are typical of those who try to cling to discredited ideology - whether it is slavery, the tobacco industry, apartheid or, in this case, the fur trade.

The current worldwide anti-fur campaign is run by a disparate mix of people who believe it involves unnecessary cruelty. It is irrelevant to the fur issue that some of these people also believe the same of certain other uses of animals. We can later havea debate on the merits or demerits of vegetarianism, , vivisection, circuses, zoos and the use and abuse of charitable funds - these are all issues that require consideration, but separately.

At the moment we are talking about fur: can Mr Mowatt put forward some valid arguments in favour of the use of fur in modern society? DR JOHN WEDDERBURN Sai Kung