You won’t see this in the final edit.
The interview I did was 3 hrs long - and it will be cut down to 37 minutes.
I feel it was reduced to Mainly my body parts and men.
My friends who were interviewed had a lot to say - so did I.
But - I can’t be shocked.
For example when Joseph Farrell /Wikileaks was interviewed -these were his answers.
When I did the interview in front of Live audience they showed very little of Joseph -
Which I felt set the tone -
this might not get in depth at all.
But it’s ITV - Piers is notorious for trying to make every one happy with a twist of tabloid journalism.
He knows his Audience. -
I just wish differently.
Times are changing.
People are more aware than ever.
Keep up, Stay tuned.
(At least my friends at Wikileaks kept record. ... )
Life Story -
How and why did Pamela become involved with wikileaks and Julian Assange?
As far as I’m aware, Pamela became interested in WikiLeaks and Julian because of her own work as an activist around the issue of animal rights and veganism. She’s a celebrity who cares a lot about using her position to advocate for important causes and she cares a lot about the state of the world. I think she was also naturally interested in Julian’s philosophy as a free speech advocate. Playboy as you know has a huge history with the first amendment and free expression in the US. She was very articulate and interested in the free speech philosophy behind WikiLeaks, which is a project that seeks to make the world more just through the exercise of free expression. I think that’s why she got in touch.
Why is Pamela so well placed to comment / campaign / raise awareness of Julian’s incarceration?
Julian is a very strong person, and this is why he has been able to live in such a difficult situation for so long. But you often don’t see how much it takes for him to survive in that situation. You don’t see how it affects him, and it is difficult for the public to properly understand that. But Pamela knows. She has spent the time with him, and she is able to speak about what a travesty it is. Through her eyes, people can understand what has happened to Julian, and how urgent it is that it ends. She thought it was a worthy cause.
What has Pamela done to help Julian’s cause?
I think for Julian, for Pamela to visit him is the biggest thing – the most personal thing. He has been in a single place for many years, so he needs that connection to the wider world. But Pamela has gone beyond that – she has raised awareness, not only of Julian, but of WikiLeaks too, by speaking out.
Do you think letters such as the one from Pamela to Barack Obama help or hinder Julian’s situation?
I think every little helps. We live in a different world to several years ago, and politicians and other people often communicate in very unconventional ways nowadays. I am personally skeptical that Obama would care about Julian’s plight, but I would be happy to be surprised. Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning, and I was surprised about that. Ultimately, I think he did it to preserve his own legacy, but it is still something that should be commended. And I think it was creative and industrious for Pamela to reach out to him the way she did. I don’t see how it could have hindered Julian’s situation.
How do you / Julian find working with Pamela – what does Pamela bring to the table?
Pamela is without cynicism. Working with WikiLeaks for a long period of time, and seeing how it’s just one attack after another – there is a risk you can get jaded and defeatist. You can start to be pessimistic – you can start to believe the things your opponents say. Pamela won’t have any of that – she instantly reminds you of the great successes WikiLeaks has had – how it has changed the world so much for the better. She is optimistic and indefatigable. It is extraordinary.
Is Pamela’s intellect underrated by the media? Does this actually make her a more formidable campaigner?
Certainly. I think certain people underestimate her. They think she’s just a pretty face, and they don’t realize she’s spent years making sure she knows what she’s talking about. She is committed and serious about her activism – the things she cares about are weighty and have global importance. We have a lot to learn from Pamela.
Is their much more to Pam than perhaps the press (especially the tabloid) press would have the public believe?
Of course. It’s the same with everyone in the public eye. There is always more to them than you see in the press. The tabloids serve an important function, but they are not the place to look for a nuanced character portrait. So of course there is a lot more to Pam than you see there.
Pam is very well known for being an animal activist, do you think she has a strong moral compass and perhaps feels a need / compulsion to make a difference?
I think for Pamela a lot of her activism comes from a very strong sense of compassion. Not just for other people, but for all other creatures. Suffering, whether human suffering or the suffering of animals, affects her deeply, and she seeks to understand the reasons that suffering happens. Many people have this, but for Pamela, she knows she has a platform, and wants to use her platform to provoke change. I am sure she would say that she is just doing what anyone would do in her position, but I think it’s more than that. She is an exceptionally kind and compassionate person. That’s where it comes from.
What, if anything do you know about Pam’s other activism – is she / has she become a kind of ‘gun for hire’?
Not at all. I think there is a clear thread that runs through all of her interests and activities. What may appear a disparate collection of causes is really the work of someone who understands that everything is connected, and that injustice is a systemic problem, and that we must have action on all fronts if change is to happen. And at the basis of that, as I said, is compassion. An example of her understanding is how she told me that saving the whales is important. Because the whales fertilize the plankton and plankton is responsible for 60% of the world's oxygen.
What can you tell me about Pam and Julian’s friendship?
I don’t like to comment on other people’s private relationships. But I can say they are very very good friends.
Could you please tell me about the poem Pam wrote to Our Prime Minister and Mr Trump?
I think there was a lot of anger at that point, because of the Grenfell fire, and Pamela shared in that anger. So many ordinary, decent people were devastated beyond belief, and their faces were on the television every day. Their lives had been destroyed and yet they still had such sad dignity as they explained that what had happened had not been an accident. It was the government which was ultimately responsible. Pam saw that, and she saw our PM’s weak and inadequate response. She saw the PM go down for a photo opportunity, but refuse to meet with any of the survivors. I can’t speak for Pamela, but I imagine she was angry at how callous and detached that was.
For those who don’t know could you please explain why Julian was and is still detained at the embassy?
In 2010, when he was publishing secret documents from the United States, there was an attempt to extradite Julian to Sweden, to face an investigation there. Julian couldn’t risk going there, because he could be sent from there to the US, so he fought it in the UK courts. When he was not successful, he sought political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, and they gave it to him. He should have been allowed then to go to Ecuador to take up his asylum, but the UK refused to allow him, because it said it had an obligation to extradite him to Sweden. Now, for years, Ecuador asked Sweden to enter talks to try to find some arrangement so that Julian could answer the case against him in Sweden without risking being sent to the US, but Sweden dragged its feet. Years of this, left Julian imprisoned in the embassy against his will. And last year, when that seemed to be making progress, Sweden dropped its investigation. Just like that. So strictly speaking, there is no longer an extradition order against him. He should be able to leave – but the UK now refuses to promise that he won’t be extradited to the US. Before he can leave and go to Ecuador, he needs guarantees of safe passage to the country of his asylum, and the UK refuses to provide that. So he is effectively detained by the intransigence of our government.
On which political ground do Pam and Julian agree / discuss / meet and discuss?
They are both interested in each other’s activism, and interested to understand each other’s perspectives and worlds. They both agree ultimately on the necessity for free expression, because without it, we cannot properly understand the problems around us and then we can’t change them.
Is Pam a powerful weapon when it comes to raising awareness of issues – please give examples if possible?
I think speaking of Pamela that way diminishes her agency. She chooses her own battles, but when she does – she is certainly formidable. I think her speech to the French Parliament about foie gras is a good example – you can see there someone who is extremely knowledgeable about her subject, and has the utmost conviction, speaking articulately and passionately. It’s hard to ignore.
Has or did Pam ever become any kind of ‘target’ (for security services / the press) when visiting Julian?
Everyone who visits Julian is subject to covert surveillance by the UK government. Nobody can go in or out of the embassy undetected. So in that sense, she is a target or a subject like anyone else. Thus far, I am not aware of her having any issues, and I believe her celebrity is a protection against that to some degree, but I wouldn’t put anything past the police in this day and age. You can’t be complacent around WikiLeaks.
Is Pamela the world’s most famous / infamous vegan food delivery service?
Hah. I think of it a different way – I think many people are resistant to a vegan diet for all sorts of reasons, but it would be very hard to put up much of a fight if you had Pamela Anderson encouraging you to try it. Plus Pamela views her diet as a political choice. It harks back to her understanding of all things connected.
Your organisation posts sensitive information surrounding governments and policy – is there any irony in a friendship with someone who’s home movie being ‘leaked’ to the world and in some ways forcing very early questions around the legality of items on the internet?
There’s a big difference between these two things. Governments and big companies exercise lots of power – over you and me and everyone else – so it is important that they are transparent. And they are often not. Sometimes in journalism we publish leaks from these kinds of organisations in order to keep them honest. But ordinary individual people are not powerful, and they need to have privacy to protect themselves. At the same time as WikiLeaks is a big advocate of publishing true information about powerful organisations, we have always been an ardent defender of the privacy rights of ordinary people. This is something that is increasingly under attack in our internet age. So – no – I do not think there is an irony there. In fact, transparency for the powerful and privacy for the individual – these issues naturally go together.
Pamela has said that she would like to start helping men who have been falsely accused of rape, do you think her friendship with Julian and his acquittal contributed to this?
You would have to ask Pamela about that, but I am sure getting to know Julian has been an influence.
Is Pam an American Icon?
Is the sky blue? Can you think of someone more iconic – more emblematic of a whole decade of American culture, than Pamela Anderson? Yes. She is more than an icon, but she is certainly that.
Is Pam the quintessential blonde bombshell?
I think each decade redefines these categories. I don’t think Pamela and for example Marilyn Monroe compete with each other for that title, but I think she is certainly so iconic as to become an archetype. I’ve met a lot of celebrities in my work, but there was still something slightly dazzling about meeting Pam for the first time.