As tributes poured in for Ozzy Osbourne, PETA’s post sparked confusion—praised the “gentle side” he showed to animals. That raised eyebrows given Ozzy’s infamous bat and dove stage antics. The Guardian’s review takes you inside the strange public reaction.
PETA highlighted Ozzy’s support for their 2020 campaign against cat declawing, noting he described it as a cruel “amputation.” The post recognized Ozzy, Sharon, and Kelly for standing up for animals. Ozzy’s wildlife advocacy shows how he used his fame to champion that cause.

“How do you praise animal kindness after bat and dove incidents?” asked a fan.
Fans on social media rushed to point out that Ozzy once bit the head off a bat onstage and a dove during a PR event—acts that sparked major backlash in the early ’80s. That history made PETA’s tribute seem tone-deaf. Unilad’s coverage captures the bewildered responses.
In fact, Ozzy later defended those actions, saying the bat was dead when he bit it and that releasing doves at a label meeting turned chaotic after they died prematurely. Still, those moments overshadow what many now call “a genuine turnaround.” Tyla’s breakdown revisits how those shocking incidents unfolded.
“Bats and doves would like a word,” quipped one user.
PETA’s tribute focused on Ozzy’s more recent advocacy—his ads condemning cat declawing and his alliance with animal welfare efforts. They framed his legacy as evolving from a rock provocateur to a compassionate voice for fur-bearing friends. That analysis explores how PETA selected their messaging.
Some fans defended the tribute, noting growth and redemption matter—Ozzy did sign on to PETA campaigns years later, even posing for “Fur Is Dead” posters. Others aren’t convinced, calling the post hypocritical at best. Tyla’s report** shows both sides sparring online.
PETA’s statement said, “Ozzy will be missed by animal advocates the world over,” a line that many found jarring in light of his macabre past. Comments like “I thought it was satire” and even “satire account posting this” reflected public confusion. That social media uproar quickly went viral.

Longtime Ozzy fans also weighed in, sharing how he evolved into a pet-friendly family man—dedicating interviews and media campaigns to rescue animals and raise awareness. They say complex legacies shouldn’t be erased. That context shows why some supported PETA’s focus on his later life.
“He bit a bat, sure—but he also fought declawing,” a fan wrote. “We all change.”
Animal experts point out cancellation culture often erases nuance. PETA’s focus on Ozzy’s end‑stage activism highlights how advocacy shifts over time. But mixing tributes with a legacy filled with contradictory actions is tricky. Metal Injection’s perspective argues it’s less hypocrisy than rebranding.
PETA spokesperson Lisa Lange said the tribute aimed to spotlight Ozzy’s work against animal cruelty—and specifically cat declawing—rather than gloss over his past. But the backlash reveals that fans weren’t expecting that angle, sparking heated debate. The Guardian quotes her explanation on separating protest from performance.
Psychologists note that people emotionally invest in celebrity stories, and sudden discordant messages can feel like betrayal. PETA’s post triggered cognitive dissonance—celebrating a man associated with cruelty as a defender of kindness. That study on celebrity contradiction** highlights how fans process conflicting layers of a figure’s legacy.
Despite critical headlines, some still defended the movement. They argue that celebrating Ozzy’s later crusades doesn’t erase his past—rather, it offers a path for change. “No one is perfect,” one X user commented. “If PETA only praised perfect heroes, no one would ever qualify.” That comment** illustrates the divide.
This confusion highlights the challenge charity groups face when honoring figures with checkered histories. Even the most caring gestures can backfire without clear messaging, especially when juxtaposed with darker memories. That tension is obvious in online reactions**.
In the end, PETA’s tribute may have tried to humanize Ozzy—to say a man defined by theatrics could also use his fame for good. But by glossing over his shocking past, they triggered an identity crisis among fans: is this aggression we celebrate, or compassion we applaud? Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between—a reminder that redemption and legacy are messy and emotional journeys—both for icons and the fans who loved them.