PETA Slams Janet Jackson Over Fur Campaign
all4loveandbelieve
Posts: 4,455
Says pop star's career is "on a downslide" but didn't think she was so "desperate"
Janet Jackson was announced as the new face of a luxury fur line yesterday, and PETA is already upset with her, reports Starpulse.
Blackglama, a company that specializes in high end mink coats, announced on Thursday that Jackson would be the new face of their What Becomes a Legend Most? Ad campaign. In the past, the 40-year-old campaign has featured Diana Ross, Sophia Loren, Audrey Hepburn and, more recently, Elle MacPherson and Elizabeth Hurley.
Animal rights activists were quick to take a dim view of Jackson's choice, however, and released a snarky statement. PETA spokeswoman Amanda Schinke hissed, 'It's amazing what celebrities will do when their careers are on a downslide, but we didn't think that Janet was this desperate.'
Schinke then switched gears and softened her low blow with a plea: 'Surely she knows enough about suffering and unjustified death to recognize that both occur in the production of a fur coat. We are asking her to think again and to donate these stolen skins to be used as bedding for animals orphaned by other human-caused disasters, such as loss of habitat.'
Joe Morelli, the chief executive of Blackglama, spoke out about Jackson's participation in the campaign. 'Janet is an icon in the world of music and entertainment, a true legend,' he said. 'She represents everything that this storied campaign embodies. Janet is to entertainment what Blackglama is to luxury.'
ET recently covered Jackson's shoot for the high-end mink line at Milk Studios in New York. The print campaign will be visible in September, appearing in Vanity Fair, Vogue, Elle, Harper's Bazaar and a giant Times Square billboard.
<!-- m -->http://inmusic.ca/news_and_features/pet ... n/6998181a<!-- m -->
Wow I am speechless again.. Why do they always bash Janet and Micheal.. Especially Janet, she is a sweet as honey, just like Michael. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Janet Jackson was announced as the new face of a luxury fur line yesterday, and PETA is already upset with her, reports Starpulse.
Blackglama, a company that specializes in high end mink coats, announced on Thursday that Jackson would be the new face of their What Becomes a Legend Most? Ad campaign. In the past, the 40-year-old campaign has featured Diana Ross, Sophia Loren, Audrey Hepburn and, more recently, Elle MacPherson and Elizabeth Hurley.
Animal rights activists were quick to take a dim view of Jackson's choice, however, and released a snarky statement. PETA spokeswoman Amanda Schinke hissed, 'It's amazing what celebrities will do when their careers are on a downslide, but we didn't think that Janet was this desperate.'
Schinke then switched gears and softened her low blow with a plea: 'Surely she knows enough about suffering and unjustified death to recognize that both occur in the production of a fur coat. We are asking her to think again and to donate these stolen skins to be used as bedding for animals orphaned by other human-caused disasters, such as loss of habitat.'
Joe Morelli, the chief executive of Blackglama, spoke out about Jackson's participation in the campaign. 'Janet is an icon in the world of music and entertainment, a true legend,' he said. 'She represents everything that this storied campaign embodies. Janet is to entertainment what Blackglama is to luxury.'
ET recently covered Jackson's shoot for the high-end mink line at Milk Studios in New York. The print campaign will be visible in September, appearing in Vanity Fair, Vogue, Elle, Harper's Bazaar and a giant Times Square billboard.
<!-- m -->http://inmusic.ca/news_and_features/pet ... n/6998181a<!-- m -->
Wow I am speechless again.. Why do they always bash Janet and Micheal.. Especially Janet, she is a sweet as honey, just like Michael. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Comments
PETA needs to clean itself up before they start talking about ethical treatment of animals and I am a vegetarian, non-leather wearing, non-fur wearing kinda gal.
Exclusive: PETA’s Pet Killing Program Set a New Record in 2009
July 16, 2010
Public Records: PETA Found Adoptive Homes for Just 1 out of 300 Animals
Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 23,640 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.
PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2009, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 97 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2009, PETA found adoptive homes for just eight pets.
Just eight animals -- out of the 2,366 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.
Why would an animal rights group secretly kill animals at its headquarters? PETA’s continued silence on the matter makes it hard to say for sure. But from a cost-saving standpoint, PETA’s hypocrisy isn’t difficult to understand: Killing adoptable cats and dogs – and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated – requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.
PETA has a $33 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh and blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all “unethical.”
The bottom line: PETA’s leaders care more about cutting into their advertising budget than finding homes for the six pets they kill on average, every single day.
The Virginia Beach SPCA, just down the road from PETA’s Norfolk headquarters, manages to adopt out the vast majority of the animals in its care. And it does it on a shoestring budget.
Years of public outrage has not been enough to convince PETA to eliminate its pet eradication program.
Now the death toll of animals in PETA’s care has reached 23,640, including more than 2,000 pets last year. That’s not an animal charity. It’s a slaughterhouse.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Trial Day 10
After three-and-a-half hours, the jury returned "Not Guilty" verdicts on everything except the littering charges. But even those were high-level misdemeanors (not at all like a jaywalking ticket). Judge Grant sentenced them to a year's supervised probation, 50 hours of community service, and a suspended ten-day jail term. Plus a $1,000 fine (each). And they have to split $5,970 in restitution for the town's expenses in cleaning the crime scene, burying the animals, and storing the van.
Ah, yes. The van. PETA's not getting it back. The town of Ahoskie has confiscated it. But there is no joy in Mudville. We hear they have a whole fleet of mobile death chambers.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day10.cfm
Warning Graphic! Evidence photos
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/shockingphotos.cfm
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaVictims.cfm
I strongly agree with you.... when I posted this, I had not clue that PETA killed animals. They should be in jail for this. If you kill a human being, you pay your crime in jail. What is the difference with animals? They are still killing living things. I am sorry they should have done a prison sentence. I am sure they are continuing killing animals.
My view is that if an animal dies naturally then there is really no reason why the pelts cannot be recycled and used. If hundreds of rabbits are killed to make a supermodel coat which means hunting them down specifically for that purpose, then I would,nt agree with it at all.
Regarding the Oil spill, the animals were not hunted down and killed - they were the victims of a negligent 'disaster' - but they were not sought out for their fur so that kills off that argument.
Back to Basics, just because Janet is Michaels sister does not excuse her for wearing fur. There is absolutely no need to wear fur, we dont need it with so much choice of fabric flowing out over the paris shelves and elsewhere and frankly fur is a vanity object to create the image of 'luxury'.
Its a total fallacy to find reasons why Janet would be excused for wearing it - whether she is saying F*** Y** and doing what she wants or not. Shes entitled to wear fur and she can afford to so good luck to her, but just because she is a Jackson does not detract from the fact that there is NO NEED to hunt animals for their pelts. If they die of natural causes there is absolutely no reason why the pelts should,nt have some use, but the fashion industry need a good kick up the backside and stop trying to sell us all this crap and parade around in the overcoat of some poor animal that had to run for its life.
So though I dont care what Janet does anymore then she does,nt care - I do care about the exploitations of the fashion industry to promote 'luxury items' and also for the poor mugs that buy into it.
Sad or what?
PS My post is,nt particulary supporting Peta - its just the voice of a rabbit with a torch in its eyes.
Just a little reminder that 'rabbits' are an emblem of Easter which is all 'Christ' related - but we stick chocolate in our faces to commemorate that, and then we kill the rabbits for coats?
dont even think Im not laughing, I am, because the world is stark staring mad. We have all these principles and at the 11th hour we spoil the beauty of everything.
No wonder we are all messed up. Blame the idiots out there that brainwash.
This is a baby mink - cute is,nt it - anyone want a crate of tomatoes for the fashion industry? I also think this topic is OFF topic because its about JANET wearing FUR not what Peta does. Janet has a responsibility - if she wants to get the public on her side she needs to promote the welfare of animals not parade around in them sticking her fingers up at slaughter. Sorry has to be said.
I totally agree
You are the 'beautiful' people.
Heres someone who loves animals too.
but humans have dominion over animals, to make use of them...
I hope I don't offend <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
..minks look like rats and I don't thinks rats are cute, but people have been wearing animals since the beginning of time <!-- s:ugeek: -->:ugeek:<!-- s:ugeek: --> ... and if it's such a big deal, why don't they go after race horses, or dogs that pull sleighs over ice, or police dogs, or go to the towns of the world where wild animals are out of control and try to tame them? I see nothing wrong with breeding mink (as long as they put the minks to sleep in a peaceful way <!-- s:geek: -->:geek:<!-- s:geek: --> )
now if peta would protect CHILDREN the way they "protect" animals, this world would be a much better place
but IMO they are an animal protection advertising agency...
Janet Jackson should be ashames of herself I am sorry to say that as I admire her but what the hell has she done this for
It is wrong to wear fur it was grown for the owner to wear not some rich thoughtless person who ever you are.
Some body offered me a second hand mink i was disgusted to think they thought i would even touch it.
This is a bad move janet please dont do this.
I understand completely how you feel. I have never worn fur either and have no desire to do so. Unfortunately, in the scheme of things I am afraid Janet isn't concerned about the public opinion of PETA and society. It's about the millions she will get for dawning her face on top magazine covers in September wearing fur. Sorry guys! money is what moves alot of the wealthy ( their are exceptions) not morals. Keep the Faith!
Janet has disappointed me so much ever since June 25 last year, I'm starting to lose all respect I had left for her. Nobody can be that ignorant when it comes to the cruelty involved in the fur business. F you, Janet.
Fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly people.
Oh dear, would you prefer being skinned alive as a person, child or animal? Do you think it's any less painful for an animal to be killed?
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Gandhi
Lovely picture Empathy and it perfectly suits this thread <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?p=372&more=1
Here is just part of the article:
Not Old McDonald’s Farm
On fur farms, animals such as foxes, mink, ferrets, and sables (an animal in the weasel family) spend their entire lives stacked on top of one other in barren cages with nothing beneath their feet but wire mesh. Those in the topmost cages are marginally more fortunate; they do not have feces falling into their food and water from animals imprisoned above. In many cases, multiple animals are forced to share a single, tiny cage. They may have no protection from wind, rain, or snow, save a roof on an “open” shed.
Studies have shown that as many as 85 percent of the animals confined in these facilities develop behavioral abnormalities such as rocking, head-bobbing, and self-mutilation due to boredom, anxiety, and the inability to meet their instinctual needs. A mink who, in the wild, would forage and roam for miles, might spend her days frantically pacing her cage, stopping only to bite repeatedly at her own tail.
Fur farms inflict such terrible psychological trauma on animals that in one study of vixen (female foxes), half of the kit loss that occurred prior to weaning was attributed to infanticidal behaviors, primarily mothers eating their young. Such behavior rarely occurs in wild populations. Diseases harbored in filthy pens and disorders caused by genetic manipulation are also seen in animals on fur farms.
If life on a fur farm is cruel, death there is equally so. After suffering through years of confinement, animals are killed and skinned for their pelts. Killing methods are typically cheap, crude, and performed in such a way so as not to damage the animal’s fur; there is no such thing as humane “euthanasia” on a fur farm.
On U.S. fur farms, one of the most frequently used methods of killing animals is electrocution: the “farmer” puts a metal clamp in an animal’s mouth, a metal rod in the anus, and sends a high-voltage current surging through the body. Sometimes the power surge forces the rod out of the anus, so the procedure must be repeated to kill the animal. Other commonly-employed techniques include homemade gas chambers, such as a box hooked up to a tractor exhaust pipe; lethal injection of various chemicals that kill through paralysis, which can result in immobilized animals being skinned alive; and neck breaking.
More than 36 million animals die on fur farms around the world each year. Thirty-one million (or about 90 percent) of these animals are mink. Foxes account for another 4.5 million, while chinchillas, sable, ferret (usually marketed as “fitch”), coypus (an aquatic mammal also known as “nutria”), and raccoon dogs (not to be confused with the North American raccoon), account for most of the remaining half-million animals. Due to the recent drop in pelt prices for mink and fox, some of U.S. fur farms have attempted to “diversify” by raising bobcat, coyote, raccoon, and beavers, along with coypus and rabbits — all in equally abhorrent conditions.
I'll say it again! Money! Money! Money! Money! :Keep the Faith! <!-- s:( -->:(<!-- s:( -->