WOW - Kim Cattrall is really a fine lady with great ideas! i just hope that fur wearing hags like sharon stone and mj blige learn from her mature attitude! many thanks, Kim, you are an astonishing, beautiful personality!

Posted by: animalfriend | December 19, 2007 11:51 AM

Brava!

Posted by: nadia | December 19, 2007 01:08 PM

So, it's OK for the homeless to wear a fur coat? Do you run around and spray them with paint after you give it to them? Hypocrites!

Posted by: Joe | December 19, 2007 01:22 PM

I don't get it...why was real fur used on the set to begin with? Surely viewers will not be able to tell the difference if fake fur is used,especially on camera.

Posted by: Chantal | December 19, 2007 01:52 PM

Why dont you hags get a life and leave normal people trying to make a living alone.

Posted by: Joe Blow | December 19, 2007 02:03 PM

To be perfectly honest, I have never seen the Sex in the City tv show and have absolutely no desire to see the movie. However, I am very happy to hear that Kim has given up wearing fur. Now if only some other sadistic celebrities like Jennifer Lopez, the Olsen twins, Britney Trainwreck, Beyonce, Star Jones, and other anti-animal torturers would follow Kim's lead and give up fur, maybe I will actually get to like you!

Posted by: Rex's mom | December 19, 2007 02:20 PM

That is great news!! I love open minded people!

Posted by: Jaclyn | December 19, 2007 02:31 PM

Way to go Kim! a person with a good heart.

Posted by: vegan4animals | December 19, 2007 04:05 PM

Do you know that guy that did the YouTube video crying and yelling at everyone to leave Brittney Spears alone??

Well, when I read Joe Blow's comment, I imagined the YouTube/Brittney guy yelling out, with tears wetting his face: "Why dont you hags get a life and leave normal people trying to make a living alone!!"

Posted by: Jaclyn | December 19, 2007 04:57 PM

THis is great! I am very glad to hear that people are now more aware about the fur industry. Now, i hope other stars will follow her footsteps.

Posted by: Ngoc | December 19, 2007 05:38 PM

Why did they even NEED to use real fur as part of the costume design?? I think fake fur would have looked basically the same on film. I get catalogs from Donna Salyers' Fabulous Furs and they say they supply fakes to a lot of TV shows and movies.

Big deal--the Sex In The City people are now donating their used coats to the homeless. They still allowed the businesses that produced and sold these coats to turn a profit. It is a little late now to do the right thing.

Posted by: Kelley | December 19, 2007 07:38 PM

Sorry Jack,
But in the last few years, I have read too many items about this sorry sack of poo poo.
Listen to someone such as this, NEVER.
Also,
as
I read my new newsletter from PETA last night and Ingrid said, and I quote, you can buy "I AM AN ANIMAL" from none other than AMAZON.COM.
How ignorant do you think we are?
Log on to amazon, put in "Magazines" and next to that, write in, "ANIMAL FIGHTING", Jesus H Christ, most of you will be shocked.
This will tell you all about how to teach your "gamecocks" and your "Dogs" how to fight.
You knew about this Ingrid,
I remember getting an email from PETA to send a letter to AMAZON telling them to get rid of the magazines about animal fighting, and they never did. And I have not ordered anything since.
This site is not about you, it is about THE ANIMALS.....
I have belonged to PETA for many years, but I believe my time here has come to a close.
Take care all, and as Ana and Ariel say, "KEEP FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT".
Judith
Proud to be a "Radical Buddhist".

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | December 19, 2007 08:31 PM

Hypocrites? The unfortunate animals are already dead, why not donate them so a homeless person can wear them? Kind of useless to just throw them in the trash when thousands are cold in the elements with no place to go.
It just kills me that one criticism of animal charities is that "we should be helpiing people", then PETA does something to help people and still you bitch.
Get over it.

Posted by: Rachel | December 19, 2007 09:50 PM

That is awesome that "Samantha Jones" gave up wearing fur! I mean, seriously...if fur hags like J.Lo, Sharon Stone, and those tore-up-from-the-floor-up Trollsen Twins (God, I loved that)realized that if God had intended human beings to wear fur coats, he would have made them born with them! That's why we shave, people!

Posted by: MeL | December 19, 2007 10:16 PM

Now you speak!i am so sick of divas like Jennifer lopez and many others walking around with dead animals on their bodies(fur) thinking
they are hot.Well it is not hot to be a part of innocents animals suffering.So divas! try to find something else to try to impress us!

Posted by: marie | December 19, 2007 10:45 PM

TO NADIA: some people are so ignorant..What Peta is doing with the fur coats is a beautiful thing..how can you call them hypocrites?..at least those poor animals didnt die in vein..i say, if you're going to spEAk out at least have a valid argument and don't bash an organization that is doing so much for the good of these animals. If you understood for a second what they were doing by taking the donations of these coats intead of speaking so ignorantly against such amazing people then maybe you could be taken seriously.. but since you're too superficial to look beyong the surface you are no better then the people you speak against ...so take a look at the good before jumping to conclusions!!

Posted by: Brittany | December 20, 2007 01:14 AM

Joe

I dunno, but according to PETA, they don't spray fur coats (or THROW paint)

Posted by: Caboose | December 20, 2007 06:19 AM

People CAN have a change of heart, and many have,(including most of us former meat eaters and milk drinkers who write on this blog). It's curious to me how people here call other people names UNTIL they change their minds, and then, all of a sudden, they're great people. Kim Catrall is the same person she was before; she's just changed her mind, and for the better, in my opinion. People aren't awful because they wear fur. They just don't really get it, and once they DO, they usually give fur up. I don't agree with calling people names when they don't act the way I wish they would. I'm just glad if they come around and change their minds. Good for you, Kim!

Posted by: Susannah S | December 20, 2007 09:51 AM

To enlarge upon what Judith had to say (above), Amazon.com also sells foie gras on its web site. Many of us have written to them about this, but they continue to do so. I'm surprised to hear that Ingrid would even permit her DVD to be sold on amazon.com, because she knows that they sell these items.
What's that about?

Posted by: Susannah S | December 20, 2007 09:57 AM

um, people...the show's prop person ordered real fur coats, not Kim Cattrall, so give credit where credit is due, to a lady who did the right thing and now refuses to buy real fur. If you have a gripe, take it up with the movie's prop person who ordered real fur instead of fake fur.

Posted by: vegan4animals | December 20, 2007 10:24 AM

Hey! Joe Blow! What is your 'real life'? Perhaps you work in a slaughter house? A furrier? or maybe the local meat cutter?
Us hags have a good life and want the animals to have one too, inspite of the Joe Blows of the world. So. Joe. Blow.

Posted by: MiMi | December 20, 2007 10:25 AM

Joe do you do something for the people in need? Why do you like to judge others that do good things, like PETA. I am proud of PETA

Posted by: liliana | December 20, 2007 12:33 PM

Have to agree with Chantal!! Just think how many animals had to die in that one shooting of that film, NOT right!!

Posted by: Carla | December 20, 2007 12:51 PM

Judith, Freedom Fighter for the Animals,

Just in case you check back in -OR just for the record:
Losing you on this blog site would be one of the greatest losses for the animals. However, I TOTALLY understand how you feel because I felt that way a long while back for a different reason and dropped off for a long time. (Jack knows why). I eventually returned -only by a very strange co-incidence that I really can't even explain- but I was about to write a letter to our local newspaper about dog breeders. Ironically, the first topic I came across on here was about dog breeders! So I wrote a comment, and that was going to be the end of it.
But for a certain reason that I would prefer not reveal publicly on here, I continued to comment ONLY because of the animals, as always.

Not whining, just explaining: every single day, I have a lot to cope with -but recently, I have even more serious matters to cope with -so I've only been on here occasionally lately. Nevertheless, despite my circumstances at any time, I ALWAYS looked forward to inter-acting with all of you on here -good people- as we shared our same beliefs -VERY important to me, most especially because of the animals.
I read a LOT of excellent comments from REAL a/r/a's -but there was a comment that I discovered on this site today that was absolutely sickening! (No, it wasn't about me. And just for the record, the antis' attempted "insults" doesn't affect me anyway). I apologize for being so vague, so all I can say is that upon reading that comment, it was the ultimate peak of nonsense AND stupidity that I have ever read on here! Totally unbelievable! ASSinine!
Therefore, perhaps I will continue to comment on here, but most likely not. But no matter what, I KNOW that you and I will NEVER stop speaking for the animals in other ways as we have been doing anyway.
We will ALWAYS keep up the good fight!

Posted by: Ariel | December 20, 2007 01:02 PM

I think it is a great idea to give homeless people these coats. As distasteful as the use of fur might be it is still a wonderful insulator as any bear would tell you. On a similar note (not identical, just similar) hunting groups have donated over 1,700 tons of venison to soup kitchens to feed the hungry.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 20, 2007 01:40 PM

Rachel -

They may have gotten the hypocrite part from the wide spread belief (whether or not it's true) that PETA doesn't care for people, so why care for the homeless?

I believe that's where they were coming from.

Posted by: Kristina | December 20, 2007 03:07 PM

HI Ariel!!

I understand completely. Their comments should be censored especially since they serve no purpose. You and Judith: keep fighting the good fight!!!! Merry Christmas!!! :)

Posted by: Ana | December 20, 2007 03:34 PM

Judith - Freedom Fighter - please don't go! It's among others because of you that I kept my courage because of these fucking antibloggers - we need you - the animals need you!!! pls do it for the animals! you have a strong voice and heart!!! mercy for the souls - you are a bodhisattva - me also i did the bodhisattva-vows! i thank you in the name of the animals!

Posted by: animalfriend | December 20, 2007 04:37 PM

A note to Judith:
Don't leave! As with any good cause, leaving only means that the opposition wins!
Disagree with Ingrid - I do, sometimes, although not often-or with Jack or whoever, but don't leave. The animals NEED all the good voices they can get!

Posted by: Susannah S | December 20, 2007 05:23 PM

Losing a fellow blogger would be bad to the animals?! WTF?

Posted by: Caboose | December 20, 2007 06:23 PM

Thats really confusing, why is it good to give fur to homeless???? Wont that make the "important people" go out to buy more coats to replace them?

Posted by: William | December 20, 2007 08:52 PM

I love what Kim Cattrall is doing, but find it disturbing that four real fur coats were used to shoot that one scene. It seems incredibly, callously, unnecessary and it saddens me to think of the number of animals contained in those four coats. But, true, at least someone can truly benefit from their death; someone who needs it for warmth and not vanity.

Posted by: dvmin09 | December 20, 2007 09:03 PM

Bravo Kim. Sve najdobro (all the best)!

Posted by: Aleksandar | December 21, 2007 04:04 AM

Judith, your voice on animal rights can still be posted here, regardless of your opinion of peta.
Maybe Ingrid feels that the profits going to peta outweigh having to use Amazon. The end justifying the means. It would be a different thing if the proceeds were hers alone.

Posted by: rojo | December 21, 2007 08:32 AM

As I see it, you either object to the exploitation of animals for human consumption, or you don't. Obviously, a better regulated and more humane fur industry is something to strive for, but my worry is that the fur industry is made into something of a bogeyman. There are other industries which cause equal, if not greater, suffering to animals - such as battery farming of chickens - yet it is pefectly acceptable to buy unethically farmed eggs.

Before anyone comes out with the 'Oh, but we NEED food, we don't NEED fur,' save it: we don't NEED to eat meat - millions of vegetarians go without. Also, there is this to consider: if a celebrity wears leather, noone cares. If a celebrity wears fur - God help them.

I respect PETA [for the most part]. They have an anti-animal cruelty agenda which is comprehensive. However, the exclusively anti-fur lobby does much to discredit animal rights activists as it is inherently hypocritical to object to one type of animal by-product and not the others.

So, my 50 cents would be this: REGULATE the Fur industry just as agriculture is regulated, do not discriminate between one animal product and another [ethically, leather is the same thing as fur, people] and campaign against ALL animal exploitation on an equal footing [rather than throwing paint at a fur coat before trotting off for a steak lunch].

Just to make my own standpoint clear: I buy ethically farmed meat, wear leather clothing and buy fur from properly regulated suppliers. I believe that animal suffering for superficial human gain is wrong, and I do what I can to avoid participation in cruel farming practices, but the majority of people treat fur as a somehow special concern and that is the kind of crass hypicrisy that removes credibility from genuine arguments for reform of human-animal interaction.

Excuse the rant: up all night working and needed to let off some steam!

Posted by: Tim | December 21, 2007 08:33 AM

I'm guessing this will be my last opportunity to post before Christmas, due to time zone differences. Unless you really are a workaholic, Jack.

So best wishes to you all, especially to Ariel, and have a joyous Christmas. Buddhists and otherwise alike.

Posted by: rojo | December 21, 2007 09:03 AM

concerning ingrid selling the peta-book on amazone: as she does it for the animals: the purpose sanctifies the means! don't let us be sectarian: amazone sells and buys everything - also your grandmother!

Posted by: captain nemo | December 21, 2007 02:19 PM

joe blow, We have every right to fight for animals .What gives them the right to kill them.

Posted by: vicky | December 21, 2007 10:40 PM

She's a classy lady.

Posted by: hell's kitchen guy | December 21, 2007 11:02 PM

I agree with Christopher - it would be a shame to throw the coats in the garbage, only to make a landfill grow.

My Apache friend has fur coats donated to her wildlife rehab center often - she uses them to keep orphaned wildlife warm.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | December 22, 2007 11:25 AM

She should have refused to wear the real thing in the first place, only faux furs or nothing. No one would have been able to tell the difference.
I have more respect for actors like Joaquin Phoenix or Natalie Portman who only wear fakes on set.

Posted by: Marcy | December 22, 2007 11:22 PM

Dear Tim:
Not to be contentious, but what IS "ethically farmed meat"? What are "properly regulated" fur suppliers?
If you believe that it's unethical to eat, wear, or exploit animals - and I do believe that - then there IS no such thing as "ethically farmed meat." There are beef raisers who are more humane, perhaps, but the end result is the slaughterhouse, just the same,and if you think there's such a thing as a humane slaughterhouse, then go visit one - ANY one - and see if you still think so when you come out. As for "properly regulated" fur suppliers, just WHO "regulates" them? And what does that term even mean? Regulated for what? Animals used for fur are either trapped, if they're wild, or raised in tiny wire cages, if they're on a "ranch", and they're usually electrocuted when they're put to death, or strangled, or worse, skinned alive. It's not a good life, and it's a HORRIBLE death that most of these animals experience. As for leather, a lot of it comes from India, where cows are driven for miles to a slaughterhouse without food or water and then killed, often in brutal ways. My point? There IS no "ethical" way to justify the use of animals for food or clothing,from my point of view, and attempts to do so are just ways to ease one's conscience in order to soften the fact that living, breathing animals suffer unnecessarily for our so-called pleasures. The use of animals for food and clothing is just habit, plain and simple. We were taught to use animals in this way, and we often don't know what else to do, or are resistent to change. There are other, truly ethical ways to go, ways which allow humans to co-exist with animals with a clear conscience. Once you know how animals are treated by the factory farms, the meat processers, the egg farmers, the leather and fur industries, then you know that there is no such thing as an "animal-lover" who eats meat,or wears leather and fur, or eats eggs and drinks milk. There's just no way around the facts.

Posted by: Susannah S | December 23, 2007 10:05 AM

The homeless do not purchase fur coats. They do not support the industry with their money. Since old fur coats are useless, they can be donated to the homeless and people who aren't homeless can buy a different coat.

Posted by: Aleasha | December 24, 2007 02:17 AM

Your comments dont serve much of a purpose either.

Posted by: Caboose | December 24, 2007 02:27 PM

Dear Susannah S,

Thanks for your reply, it was very interesting.

For starters, I will explain what I mean by ethically farmed meat and properly regulated fur suppliers. There exist, you must agree, differing methods of farming, some relatively humane - animal born, animal put to pasture, animal killed as painlessly as possible, animal's produce used. There are others which are inhumane - egg laid by chicken in tiny cage, hen grows up in tiny cage, hen taken out of tiny cage and killed as cheaply as possible regardless of suffering, animal's produce used. There are also some foodstuffs which require cruelty to produce - foie gras, veal etc. I make a point of 1) only buying British animal produce [there are tight regulations about farming conditions, with the exception of poultry, and slaughter techniques in this country], 2) not buying foodstuffs whose methods of production are inherently cruel [eg the aforementioned] and 3) buying produce which carries some sort of seal of approval from an animal animal cruelty standards organisation, 'Free range' poultry and poultry products etc. Does this help explain what I mean when I say I only buy 'ethically farmed' meat?

Properly regulated fur: this is simply fur from supplies which carry a seal of approval from an organisation which promotes standards in humane trapping, rearing and slaughter, such as the International Fur Trade Federation, British Fur Trade Association etc.

Britain has some of the tightest animal welfare laws in the world, so in buying British produce, be it fur, meat, eggs, whatever, I can be fairly certain that I am not supporting an unneccesarily cruel industry, as HM Government [along with various independent regulators, watchdogs and charities] is heavily involved in policing the industry.

I believe there are 'ethics' to farming and hunting. The ethical debate lies in not whether or not we should do it - it is fairly clear that it is not going to stop, and to campaign against the entire industry would be a simple waste of time - but HOW it is done. The less animals suffer in our service, the better.

The most important thing I want to say is: We will never agree. We have a fundamental difference of opinion in that I believe there is nothing morally wrong with farming and hunting animals for human benefit, whereas you do not. I respect your opinion, but I dont agree with it. You take your argument to it's logical conclusion and one could say that putting animals to work is a form of slavery, as is keeping a pet - the animals are not in position to make an informed choice about whether or not they want to work for us or be out pets.

The crux of my rant wasn't that to exploit animals for human benefit can be morally justified, that it is right or wrong, but I was merely objecting to the double standard that exists whereby Fur is somehow wrong yet other products are acceptable. I wear fur and leather and eat meat because I enjoy these products. Some people view it as OK to eat meat and wear leather, but not to wear fur. Endangered Fur is a disgrace, as is fur that comes from a barbaric system, but provided one buys carefully, as with any animal product, these things can be avoided.

Posted by: Tim | December 27, 2007 08:57 PM

tim, I share most of your views, except that an animal has to give up its life solely to provide fur. Leather is a by-product (or should be) of the animals slaughtered for meat, and ensures that no part of the animal is wasted.
Basically fur in the majority of our climates is an aesthetic pleasure, and the carcass is generally discarded. Use wool instead to keep warm.

Posted by: rojo | December 31, 2007 06:28 PM

Well, in that case we must agree to disagree. To me, killing an animal for human consumption or use is the same, whichever parts of the animal you use or do not use. You still end up with a dead animal. In the meat industry, many parts of the animal are unusable [feathers, for example]. I really don't see the moral difference between killing for fur and killing for meat, provided the methods used in upbringing and slaughter are humane.

Posted by: Tim | January 7, 2008 10:13 AM

You donate them to the homeless because whats the point in throwing them away when people who ACTUALLY need them can have them, and not pay extortionate prices on a natural source, lets face it, I would rather the fur was a necessity than not

Posted by: Anna | February 14, 2008 11:01 AM

What P.E.T.A is doing is brilliant. I can only hope that one of these wealthy fur buying folks can see a homeless man sporting a more expensive fur while emptying aluminum cans and searching the trash for their lunch. M.J. Blige can now share her fashion sense with a man in 80's high-water jeans, white sweat socks, and used high-top Rebocks. Fabulous!

Posted by: Nicholas | April 16, 2008 11:06 AM