Hmmm, Germans trying to monkey around with the economics and politics of Poland and Hungary, why does that sound familiar?
;)
In all fairness though the ethical debate on animal cruelty is narrow minded. Strict veganism virtually requires the use of synthetics in an effort to protect domesticated animals (domesticated basically meaning bred to be of utilitarian value for humans).
However synthetics are nearly all petroleum based and if you look at the entire life cycle of your cheap and simple plastic based textiles, you'd be appalled at the ecological impact your "vegan" lifestyle has. From the oil spills to the chemical processing to the coloring to the sweatshop, your ethically myopic decision is injuring countless animals and humans.
No matter what you decide to do, some poor cute lil bunny rabbit will probably have to die to keep your fingers warm. So the choice shouldn't be a complete abstinence from having a negative impact (every life negatively impacts other life) but instead how to minimize the inevitable impact. Using sustainable sources for clothing, whether bluesign certified, recycled polyesters or *gasp* products from well-cared for animals, it is more important to the focus holistic goal MINIMIZING harm to other creatures rather than eliminating it.
You WILL do harm. There is no way around that. Zero impact is an illusion in our society and doesn't exist in the natural world. Even autotrophs degrade the inorgnic soil and contribute to erosion. What matters is the "rate" of harm you do. If you harm an animal population for personal gain, can that population recover in time for you to harm it again? In the process of harming, can you minimize the amount of unnecessary discomfort so that the animals live a fulfilling life aside from your moments harm? If so, and it often is possible albeit expensive, then that should be a goal worth pursuing…ethically speaking.