Pamela Anderson Brings London to a Standstill

Posted by 6 years ago | Permalink | Comments (12)

Pam at the launch of her new adCovent Garden is one of the craziest, most bustling places in the world on a weekend. But on Sunday, all pedestrian traffic came to a standstill when Pamela Anderson, PETA’s “weapon of mass distraction”, arrived to unveil her racy “All Animals Have the Same Parts – Go Vegetarian” ad to the London media.

You may remember that in July, Québec authorities refused Pam permission to debut PETA US’ version of the ad on the city’s streets. Officials said that ad was too sexual, and Big Brother turned down the permit application! Not to be deterred, Pam held a news conference and premiered the poster up the street at the Just for Laughs Festival instead. There were no such problems in London, though. Crowds gathered in the thousands to take a peek at our ad and take home a leaflet highlighting the benefits of going vegetarian. The striking ad reminds everyone that cows, pigs and chickens are made of flesh, blood and bone, just as we are.

As Pam put it, “Humans and animals have a lot more similarities than differences. Both have a brain, a nervous system and, most importantly, a heart. And that’s why I’m a vegetarian. I hope that this new campaign helps people come to the same conclusion”.


  • KT commented on October 26, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    People often forget that humans ARE animals.

  • Andrew Taylor commented on October 28, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Great stuff, Pamela!

  • John Carmody commented on October 29, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Absolutely adore Pam and adore PETA!

  • Chris commented on October 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    I am a campaigner on animal issues and have been for many years.

    Your campaigns using sexism, promoting the porn industry and all the attitudes which go with it are a total disgrace.
    That is why I will never support you.
    Your latest ad is just another low.
    You fail to grasp (or fail to want to) that your campaigns are totally at odds with what a compassionate movement should be about. Not only that but they reinforce the patriarchal attitudes that foster abuse and violence in the first place.
    You are an appalling and cringe inducing embarrassment to decent minded and progressive vegetarians and vegans

  • Chris commented on October 29, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    “officials said that ad was too sexual”

    No they said it was sexist garbage which it is and which is why they rightly banned it.

  • Chris commented on October 29, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    According to an official spokesperson, Montreal’s ban is based on concerns that the ad “goes against all principles public organizations are fighting for in the everlasting battle of equality between men and women.”

    Amen to that sentiment.

    Too bad you had to filter that fact from your blog and instead distorted the truth by falsely saying they banned your ad because it was ‘too sexual’.

  • Jasmine Chen commented on November 1, 2010 at 11:48 am

    cheers Pamela 🙂

  • Phoebe Sharpe commented on November 1, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    I’ve only eaten meat as a very young baby and never intend to touch it again!!

  • Carin Howe commented on November 13, 2010 at 2:07 am

    I really don´t see why a “sexual ad” promoted by an adult woman who knows exactly what she is doing is a problem but slaughtering innocent animals needlessly is not. Something is very wrong in our society.

  • Bianca Jennings commented on November 13, 2010 at 2:13 am

    I consider myself a feminist, I support abortion, women´s rights, I volunteer at an organization that helps battered women AND I am an animal lover. I don´t see why people don´t get the ad. The point is not her nudity or any other woman´s nudity. The point is that animals suffer and that they are similar to us, and the fact that the ad is being promoted by a famous woman makes that point get across easier. I really wish people who are not animal lovers would let others be. Also, Pamela is a grown up woman and was not forced into anything.

  • Chris commented on November 17, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    If you took a moment to read my post you will see that I am activist on animal issues and have been for a long time. My point seems to have evaded you and you dont seem to wish to look at the causes of oppression. Sexism and links to the porn industry are the total opposite of what a compassionate movement should be about. You do not improve the lives of animals or people by promoting the very attitudes which produce abuse in the first place. That seems to be lost on PETA because it dotes on pornographers.

  • Shari commented on November 18, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Interesting and complicated issue.

    Amazing that people can draw lines so quickly and be “right” on both sides with so little discussion ….

    The degree of female socialization into permissible hypersexuality under the umbrella of women’s choice seems all to normal; until we truly understand that our bodies are everyday bought and sold like animal carcasses, and what that means, this “choice” rhetoric will remain in place. And, no, I don’t think most women get that, because they don’t deal with sex crimes or sex as commodity: they are usually middle class to upper middle class women who have been socialized into a mainstream politically correct talking points of choice, women’s rights, and the rest. Feminism 101, American style.

    Meanwhile, men will continue issuing rude dictums and judgments, because they have always been allowed to do so. Imposing their views as the right and the wrong of the world is just as much part of the status quo as the aforementioned rhetorical oblivion seen in some of these banal responses.

    Even if sexism correlates to animal exploitation, with which I wholeheartedly agree it does, running around laying down the law in your logical superiority, as is so characteristic of the “other side,” hardly seems a persuasive way of making your point, no matter how enlightened and “compassionate” that perspective.

    The subject here, to my mind, is freedom of speech. Next time, who will decide what is permissible and what isn’t.

    All kinds of moral superiority is flung around in the name of deciding what is best for whom: 9 times out of 10 it is wrong, even the if the principle is correct.

    Google, “The People Vs. Larry Flynt.”


Post a Comment


By submitting this form, you will be indicating your consent to receiving e-mail marketing messages from us unless you have indicated an objection to receiving such messages by unticking the box above. You're also acknowledging that you've read and you agree to our privacy policy.