DM - Amal Clooney Gets Cases Thanks to George

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Justice Minister: Amal Clooney gets top cases thanks to George
By Sebastian Shakespeare for the Daily Mail
Published: 19:47 EST, 13 September 2015 | Updated: 20:52 EST, 13 September 2015





Wearing a £925 red Dolce & Gabbana dress and huge sunglasses, Amal Clooney looked as though she was on her way to a premiere rather than a prison when she met her client, jailed former Maldives leader Mohamed Nasheed, on a working trip to the Maldives last week.

So it’s no wonder that the 37-year-old human rights barrister has raised eyebrows among the great and good of the law, including the Justice Minister, Edward Faulks QC.

‘I’m sure she gets such high-profile cases and everyone wants her because she’s married to George Clooney; and by employing her they’ll give publicity to their case,’ Lord Faulks tells me at a book launch in London.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Sour grapes? Justice Minister Edward Faulks QC, pictured left with with his brother Sebastian Faulks, said he believes Amal's success lies in her marriage to George Clooney

‘I mean, look at Cherie Blair: being married to Tony Blair didn’t do her career any harm.’
The comments by the minister, whose brother is Birdsong author Sebastian Faulks, come just weeks after Clooney lost her high-profile press freedom case in Egypt, when her client, Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy, was jailed for three years.
       
‘I heard her speak after the court case defending the journalists who were convicted in Egypt and, if I’d have closed my eyes, I’d have never placed her because she has this new-age media trendy accent,’ Lord Faulks adds.
‘I can tell you, they weren’t like that when I was a barrister.’

Just days before the Fahmy verdict, Amal was spotted partying in Ibiza in a gold lame mini-dress with her Hollywood star husband on one arm and a £625 Jimmy Choo bag on the other.

Luckily, Amal clawed back some goodwill after George demanded the Canadian government do more for Fahmy during an appearance at the Toronto Film Festival last week.

Nor is Lord Faulks the only one to have noticed Amal, whose wedding was covered with ten pages in Hello! magazine, blossoming in front of the cameras.

‘There are plenty of clever lawyers out there — many with considerably more impressive human rights records than Amal Clooney,’ points out Jonathan Ames, editor of law website Legal Cheek. 

‘But her intellectual and professional muscle — and even her base sex appeal — is nothing compared to one fact: she married a Hollywood heart-throb called George.’


Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

What's the point?
Of course she gets cases because she's married to George. So her cases get much more attention than those of her collegues. On the other hand: If I don't want any attention as a client I for sure wouldn't choose her as my lawyer. I just don't know if a minister should state this and especially if the DM is the right source for such a statement. To me it feels unappropriate.

It makes no sense though because she was getting put on huge cases well before she was ever with George...the Assange case, the Yulia Tymoshenko case, the advisor position with Kofi Annan. Those were all well before George ever entered the picture. Sure the cases are getting more attention now but the weight of the individual cases is the same as before. That's a testament to her hard work. It just sounds like sour grapes. And completely innappropriste comments from a minister. He just sounds mysoginistic to a degree as well, he cuts down Cherie Blair's accomplishments too in the same breath. It's just the Daily Mail digging up someone to randomly make negative comments about Amal. As per usual.

If it was about getting attention I think the Justice Minister should pay Amal credit instead talking about her husband and her sex appeal, that's really unappropriate.
Because of her marriage the legal system in the UK gets much more attention than before. Who before knew about barristers before? Who knew that lawyers can specialize in human rights? At least I didn't.

And I agree with you, kat. She had had high profile cases and clients before, so she didn't rise from nowhere - at least in the legal world.

Maybe some lawyers are exhausted that Amal and her cases get much more attention than theirs - but that's not Amal's fault.

She was handling high profile cases before she ever met George. That is a fact, and it is typical male chauvinism to suggest otherwise.

Her own public profile has increased since marrying George but the type of cases she's getting are similar to what she was doing before. Tymoshenko was the former head of state of Ukraine being wrongfully imprisoned. Similar to the Nasheed case now. The media just focuses on her role in the case more now. But that's not her fault. 

This minister sounds like a chauvinist and also like a Conservative bigot who probably sits comfortably within the old establishment. His comment about her accent and about how barristers didn't sound like that back in his day is a direct sign of his bigotry. If it was up to him the British bar would forever be made up of only white upper class men with snooty elitist accents.

His comments just reek of pettiness.

kat,

I can't do anything than agree 100% with you. If the Minister had made these comments at a private event, drunk at night, it would be bad. But to say this at an official event, during an interview, makes it much worse. At least he's a politician.

Amal wouldn't get any clients if she wasn't good at her job. Nasheed wouldn't risk choosing her just for her name and the attention she gets and risking to lose because she didn't do her job as good as possible.

The Fahmi case in Egypt for me was a political decision. It wasn't just about Fahmi but also about the other two journalists who were sentenced to prison, even the Australian journalist who had been deported before. And don't forget that there's a law in Egypt now claiming that journalists who write false facts commit a crime - and a false fact is anything that is not an official statement by the egyption government. So press freedom doesn't exist in Egypt at the moment...

The statements the Minister made also claim that any female lawyer with a good reputation is just well known because she has a well known husband / has a certain sex appeal.

And every male lawyer of course is well known because he's just good at his Job. Well, if I look at the photo it certainly isn't about HIS sex Appeal!

Sorry for writing in fragments, but I'm at work and also have to work a bit... .

I think it's also a "nice" thing to include the prices of dresses Amal wore for work and on private events. This has nothing to do with her reputation! But for me it's used to flesh out their statement that Amal gets her cases because of George. It's her decision what she wears and as long as she wears appropriate clothes for work there's nothing wrong.

Ah, so Lord Faulks doesn't think her being part of Fahmy's team in Egypt has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she headed the International Bar Association's team looking into and reporting on the justice system in Egypt? Or that most of her cases are as a result of instructions from the UN? 

Next thing you know he'll be saying she got the job assisting Kofi Annan at the UN as a result of him knowing George!!!

Maybe the headline should have read 'Government Minister, brother of author, trivialises female lawyers' work on the basis of their dress and who their husbands are'.

He might want to take a look at Jennifer Robinson, and Baroness Helena Kennedy who's just headed up a campaign to elect Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader

What a ridiculous article ,she is well known in her field and has been getting high profile cases well before she met George.

Doughty Street Chambers and Geoffrey Robertson QC statement


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A really good and clear response!

This says it all.........

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If only this article would get as much Attention as the embarrassing one before...

" served....assisted....acted....."

All minimal participation in junior positions. Amal Allahmuddin never won a case;  never led a case. Not very articulate nor impressive.
Overhyped publicity by an ever-so-desperate PR team.  

Lucky that her uncle Ziad Takieddine & family had contacts or influence  to place this junior barrister in these assisting clerking roles, to create more illusions by association.

Can Amal Allahmudin actually speak French? Because her pronounciation of one term at the Golden Globes stirred mockery amongst francophones..  And she refused to answer in Arabic in Egypt, despite it being her mother tongue, even though reporters were interviewing her in Arabic for Egyptian media.

Btw, the Faulks' brothers have amazing hair! 
 

That's what got my attention...Not the snooze inducing subject matter which is so obvious to the world...who tuned out last Halloween.

Just wanted to mention the words 'legal advisor.....appointed...counsel....and worked with...'

And as we all know the word 'acted' in legal terms means 'represented in court'.............

Thanks pan.

party animal - not! wrote:Just wanted to mention the words 'legal advisor.....appointed...counsel....and worked with...'

And as we all know the word 'acted' in legal terms means 'represented in court'.............

All terms above denoting nothing outstanding and broad connotations applicable to many vocations; in this case, as a junior part of a legal team, in the dual role of an aspiring PR rep, using a celebrity's famous name to lure attention. 

Moreover, the fact remains that Amal Allamudin is quite unaccomplished & unremarkable.  Just grossly over-embellished by the publicity team instructed to promote her. 
The mockery generated in the professional legal sector, political arena, media, and overall general public perception,  regarding her efforts demanding ultimatums,  are dismissed as ridiculous.

Amal and the Armenians: The power to attract

American power to attract the public opinion now appears in the so-called Armenian genocide. Amal Clooney accuses Turkey of the so-called genocide with information produced by American sides as an agent of the same group

Raphael Lemkin considered dozens of cases involving massacres to be genocide. It is safe to suppose that this would have been an even higher number had Lemkin lived to see the United States bombing in Vietnam and Cambodia, among other more recent events. Despite Lemkin's proclivity to assign genocide to many instances of massacres throughout history, only one instance has been subject to a legal discussion regarding genocide without ever being defined as such in a competent court of law.

In the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Doğu Perinçek should have been allowed by the Swiss authorities to enjoy the right to express himself freely about Ottoman history and characterize the Armenian suffering in ways other than genocide. The case was then brought before the Grand Chamber of the court, and while it is expected that the upcoming decision will also favor Perinçek, a platform had been created by the exhibition of the case for enhancing the discourse on genocide. In other words, the court of law might very well decide against the imposition of characterizing the 1915 events as genocide, but in the court of public opinion the mere existence of this case energizes the public about the issue and cements the selective language about it even further.

Producing the propaganda

Architects of the genocide accusation do not necessarily anticipate victories in courts of law at this stage, but rather they seek first to establish a popular language about the Armenian suffering as genocide. For them, the objective is to find ways to maintain a genocide-centric discourse. To a great extent, this is done through ill-researched yet highly advertised sources of information such as news items and books, despite the inherent weakness of the legal argument, and despite the high threshold that the U.N. set for what is to be termed genocide.

The staging of this platform in Europe is not without an American influence. In Switzerland, where the already publicized debate took on a legal spin, the U.S. has been influencing public opinion through international organizations such as the Massachusetts-based Facing History and ourselves, which indoctrinates the Swiss public according to an American-biased education on history. This American influence in Switzerland ought not be a surprise if one considers that Germany functions as Europe's economic powerhouse while being under American military control.

And Amal Clooney on the stage

Considering the involvement of American sources of information in the effort to disseminate a genocide discourse regarding the Armenian suffering, American tactics come into view. There are American ways through which to elevate the Armenian tragedy as a case of genocide in public opinion. By sustaining the discourse on Armenian victimhood, the U.S. is able to control the language on genocide in general, and to influence Turkish affairs in particular. This is accomplished not only by mobilizing Armenians through the activation of American-empowered scholars and political entrepreneurs of Armenian heritage, but also by utilizing American power to attract attention to selective information. The role of Amal Clooney, who in January represented Armenia before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, is an example of this.

Clooney's utilized fame embodies the American ability to affect public opinion without being subjected to scrutiny. She is not an American, and is ethnically a Lebanese Arab. Her credibility lies in not being easily associated with American interests, though it is the American media that has made her into the most recognizable human rights lawyer in the world. Her status as such is heightened by interviews conducted with her husband George Clooney, with or without her. In these interviews her image as a serious and dedicated defender of human rights is promoted without much critical thought.

Media support for Clooney

Recently on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, George Clooney, who himself was presented by Colbert as a legitimate human rights activist, commented on how his wife outdoes him in the advocacy of just causes. The conversation with Colbert was structured in a way that establishes a credible reputation for Amal Clooney as a serious professional. In turn, the public that consumes the information given on such widely followed interviews, later readily accepts Amal Clooney as a source of information on human rights issues. This means that through Clooney's top position as a celebrity and human rights lawyer, it is possible to control, first, which cases of human rights get a high level of public attention, and second, which side of the human rights debate should get public support.

Clooney's celebrity status was utilized in the American-controlled media to bring attention to an American-controlled genocide discourse. For instance, on the popular search engine Bing.com, her image was placed on the reel through which the site suggests popular searches, and the caption put together the words "Armenian" and "genocide," as if a matter of fact. Similarly, The Associated Press ran an article headlined "Amal Clooney on legal team in Armenian genocide case," presenting the characterization of genocide as a matter of fact. The same headline then appeared on mainstream media outlets such as CBS News, the Chicago Tribune, CNN, the Daily Mail, MSN, New York's Daily News and Yahoo News. The result is that the public, which is in an uncritical mode while simply following an entertainment-induced interest in Clooney, internalizes controlled information on Ottoman history that is given through this crafty design. It is akin to the use of bait.

Thus, most Americans proceed to go about living their lives with the inclination to describe the Armenian suffering as genocide simply because of an accumulation of language-control gimmicks such as a headline that they saw while following a news item about an A-lister's wife. Instead of suspecting that their most recognizable sources of information are taking them for fools, these Americans suspect those whose views differ from what it is that they think they know about Ottoman history from skimming through gossip articles. These Americans would choose Clooney's view over Perinçek's.

This technique enables American agenda setters to highlight human rights issues of their choosing, simply by orchestrating her hiring as a barrister on a legal team. In order to attract attention to certain issues, and also direct public sentiment on them, Clooney may be taken on as a barrister to read out her lines just as her husband does in his movies. The cameras and coverage will follow, as they did in her representation of Armenia. All it takes is a few minutes of display of oratory skills by Clooney and many people are then influenced into adopting a view on history that serves American interests.

No cynicism intended here, as this exact type of phenomenon has already been articulated by Joseph S. Nye, Jr. as a soft power tactic. Nye is a political scientist with substantial experience working for the U.S. government, and his definition of soft power describes what is done through Clooney: The U.S. has an uncanny ability to structure situations by using its power to attract people to its designated sources of information without being seen as doing so. The best way to persuade the public of an idea without it appearing as propaganda is by the utilization of those who are able to attract attention and appear as independent of the U.S. government.

As an agent of American soft power, Clooney is more effective in the court of public opinion than in the court of law. However, public opinion could be stirred into eventually affecting court decisions and lawmaking. Perinçek might win the case, but Turkey is losing the discourse. Turkey cannot rival American soft power, but it can be frustrated if made ineffective.

The work of skilled Ottomanists for an accurate depiction of Ottoman history will be recognized as an adequate discourse on the events of 1915 only after it becomes recognized that American power has been dominating the dissemination of information on this piece of history.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I guess we saw this one coming...

Minister apologises to human rights lawyer Amal Clooney

A Government minister has apologised to human rights lawyer Amal Clooney after claiming she got high-profile cases because she is married to a Hollywood star.
Lord Faulks apologised for "any offence, distress or inconvenience" caused by his comments about the lawyer, wife of movie actor George Clooney,
But he insisted that he never intended to imply that Mrs Clooney's success was linked to her celebrity husband.
Lord Faulks said: "I apologise to Amal Clooney for any offence, distress, or inconvenience caused by my comments. I never intended to imply that her considerable success, nor the esteem in which she is held by the legal profession, is due to her marriage.
"I regret the fact that my comments have been interpreted in this way and am very happy to set the record straight."
Lord Faulks was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying: "I'm sure she gets such high-profile cases and everyone wants her because she's married to George Clooney; and by employing her they'll give publicity to their case."
The minister also referred to her "new-age media trendy accent" and added: "I can tell you, they weren't like that when I was a barrister."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nicky that article you posted in regards to the Armenian genocide is completely opinion by someone who clearly denies the existence of the Armenian genocide and is now taking it out on Amal for representing that cause. It is a Turkish newspaper. We know that Turkey denies the genocide. And we know that freedom of expression in Turkey is very stifled. So it is not at all surprising that a Turkish paper would publish an op-Ed denying the genocide and calling those who know it actually happened guilty of spreading propaganda. It is hardly an unbiased newspaper of record. I am surprised that you posted it here. Perhaps it should be clarified that the piece is written by someone with a very clear agenda. An agenda that is quite disgusting actually.

The op-ed Nicky posted is related to what Lord Faulks stated about George Clooney's high celebrity profile & the attention his name brings to issues ...so subsequently Alamuddin benefits by association. 

The author calls it soft power tactic.

This technique enables American agenda setters to highlight human rights issues of their choosing, simply by orchestrating her hiring as a barrister on a legal team. In order to attract attention to certain issues, and also direct public sentiment on them...

 
That is the main argument of this op-ed, & media influence. 

There is no doubt that the Armenian Genocide occured & is recognised by most nations. That's an international awareness & no biased protesters change that. But power of celebrity influence is his argument.

As for Lord Faulks' tactfully eloquent apology for any unintentional offense, note the irony about not doubting Alamuddin's "success."  Most certainly not as a barrister.

kat19 wrote:Nicky that article you posted in regards to the Armenian genocide is completely opinion by someone who clearly denies the existence of the Armenian genocide and is now taking it out on Amal for representing that cause. It is a Turkish newspaper. We know that Turkey denies the genocide. And we know that freedom of expression in Turkey is very stifled. So it is not at all surprising that a Turkish paper would publish an op-Ed denying the genocide and calling those who know it actually happened guilty of spreading propaganda. It is hardly an unbiased newspaper of record. I am surprised that you posted it here. Perhaps it should be clarified that the piece is written by someone with a very clear agenda. An agenda that is quite disgusting actually.

Kat, in this Forum you can post everything what has to do with clooney. If you do not like it you can leave the thread and enjoy another thread.  And whatever I will find in future I will continue to post regardless if you like it or not. In this forum you find everything positive or negative articles. This has been done in the past and will be this way in the future and this will not change. So please don't be surprised. There is nothing surprising about it.

Surfing wrote:The op-ed Nicky posted is related to what Lord Faulks stated about George Clooney's high celebrity profile & the attention his name brings to issues ...so subsequently Alamuddin benefits by association. 

The author calls it soft power tactic.

This technique enables American agenda setters to highlight human rights issues of their choosing, simply by orchestrating her hiring as a barrister on a legal team. In order to attract attention to certain issues, and also direct public sentiment on them...

 
That is the main argument of this op-ed, & media influence. 

There is no doubt that the Armenian Genocide occured & is recognised by most nations. That's an international awareness & no biased protesters change that. But power of celebrity influence is his argument.

As for Lord Faulks' tactfully eloquent apology for any unintentional offense, note the irony about not doubting Alamuddin's "success."  Most certainly not as a barrister.

I never thought I would say this to you Surfing but yes you are correct , that's what it is about and why I posted it here . At least someone got it.

Nicky80 wrote:

Surfing wrote:The op-ed Nicky posted is related to what Lord Faulks stated about George Clooney's high celebrity profile & the attention his name brings to issues ...so subsequently Alamuddin benefits by association. 

The author calls it soft power tactic.

This technique enables American agenda setters to highlight human rights issues of their choosing, simply by orchestrating her hiring as a barrister on a legal team. In order to attract attention to certain issues, and also direct public sentiment on them...

 
That is the main argument of this op-ed, & media influence. 

There is no doubt that the Armenian Genocide occured & is recognised by most nations. That's an international awareness & no biased protesters change that. But power of celebrity influence is his argument.

As for Lord Faulks' tactfully eloquent apology for any unintentional offense, note the irony about not doubting Alamuddin's "success."  Most certainly not as a barrister.

I never thought I would say this to you Surfing but yes you are correct , that's what it is about and why I posted it here . At least someone got it.

I was equally surprised last night Nicky. I gave Surfing his-her first (from me) green tumbs up.

Nicky80 wrote:

kat19 wrote:Nicky that article you posted in regards to the Armenian genocide is completely opinion by someone who clearly denies the existence of the Armenian genocide and is now taking it out on Amal for representing that cause. It is a Turkish newspaper. We know that Turkey denies the genocide. And we know that freedom of expression in Turkey is very stifled. So it is not at all surprising that a Turkish paper would publish an op-Ed denying the genocide and calling those who know it actually happened guilty of spreading propaganda. It is hardly an unbiased newspaper of record. I am surprised that you posted it here. Perhaps it should be clarified that the piece is written by someone with a very clear agenda. An agenda that is quite disgusting actually.

Kat, in this Forum you can post everything what has to do with clooney. If you do not like it you can leave the thread and enjoy another thread.  And whatever I will find in future I will continue to post regardless if you like it or not. In this forum you find everything positive or negative articles. This has been done in the past and will be this way in the future and this will not change. So please don't be surprised. There is nothing surprising about it.

I know that "everything" is posted on this site, trust me, you don't need to clarify or PATRONIZE me. Up till now all of the base level tabloids/websites have their crap posted here and i've never questioned you posting it. But I was under the impression that this site operated on some basic level of principle. It doesn't. Thanks for clarifying that for me Nicky. 

So YES there was something to be surprised about. This article is not from some tabloid source. It is basically the equivalent of posting an article from a pro-Nazi newspaper in which the writer clearly denies that the holocaust ever took place but since he also argues about the "propaganda" or "soft power" employed by the attorneys on the case that apparently makes it okay to post here. Gotcha. Thanks. That scenario is completely analogous to this one. Not everything should be so easily swept under a rug as "well umm we post all positive and negative stuff here". This goes beyond that. 

Some basic level of responsibility should govern the way info is provided here and that base level is to at the very least consider the source when dealing with something as sensitive as a GENOCIDE. It's not enough to say 'oh well we're just going to throw every piece of filth on here and posters should just be smart enough about choosing what to believe or not.' Not everything is gospel that needs to be heard. Some of it appeals to the most basic level of filth in humanity and should at least be handled with more class. But clearly there isn't any governing this board. So again, thanks for clarifying that for me. Now you can continue patting Surfing on the head while you reprimand me for daring to question your practices.

I look forward to your reply for me to feel free to go find another forum or to leave this one.

kat19 - I find the whole idea of "soft power" and the use of celebrity very interesting - even though the author of the article obviously has an agenda unfavorable to the US and to Amal.

I appreciate you clarifying the source as a Turkish newspaper. Knowing where it comes from puts it into perspective. I don't think ignoring the article does anyone any good. If you don't know what the other side is thinking how can you hope to change anything?

The Armenian Genocide is not recognized by the whole word as a Genocide. Only 28 countries has recognized it as a Genocide. US, UK, Australia and Israel are not among them.

Pernicek won the first round in the European Court of Human Rights. Time for round two.

Daily Sabeh, where the op-ed was published, is a daily English speaking newspaper in Turkey. The mother paper Sahab has ties to New York Times. Daily Sabeh has ties to Erdogan but it is hardly a Pro Nazi newspaper. Unless you want to call Turkey a Nazi country because they don't recognize the Armenian Genocide as a Genocide. The paper gives the Turkish point of view.  I don't agree with the Turks but I can't see anything wrong with posting the article here.

Silje wrote:The Armenian Genocide is not recognized by the whole word as a Genocide. Only 28 countries has recognized it as a Genocide. US, UK, Australia and Israel are not among them.

Pernicek won the first round in the European Court of Human Rights. Time for round two.

Daily Sabeh, where the op-ed was published, is a daily English speaking newspaper in Turkey. The mother paper Sahab has ties to New York Times. Daily Sabeh has ties to Erdogan but it is hardly a Pro Nazi newspaper. Unless you want to call Turkey a Nazi country because they don't recognize the Armenian Genocide as a Genocide. The paper gives the Turkish point of view.  I don't agree with the Turks but I can't see anything wrong with posting the article here.

It was a Genocide. And a well documented one at that. The fact that not all countries recognize that is a purely political thing. 

As for calling Turkey a Nazi country or the newspaper Pro-Nazi, I did not say that so please don't put words into my mouth. Do you understand what an analogy is? Because that is what I said. I said the situation was ANALOGOUS to this one. The Nazis committed genocide and so did the Turks of that period. It was an analogy. 

And the fact that a foreign paper has some flimsy ties to the NY times doesn't put it above anything. 

I've said my piece and you guys know where I stand on this. Obviously this forum runs on an entirely different standard of ethics. So post away whatever bottom of the barrel articles you want to. But I vehemently disagree with giving hateful genocide deniers a platform.

kat,
thanks for identifying this newspaper. It really puts everything into perspective - that's why I asked if the DM is related to Murdoch. I think that nowadays you really have to question everything: the source, the author, even the country which is expressing this article... Not easy to form an opinion on something because you really have to do a lot of research. And many people don't do this...

I just read yesterday that our (i.g. Germany's) biggest gossip "newspaper" has founded an initiative to help refugees in Germany (which is a good thing). So all the football (soccer for the Americans) clubs will have a banner which says "we help" on their shirts. One of the clubs said no because they already do more for refugees than any other club and maybe don't want to be instrumentalized by this (but that's my impression). So the chief editor posted on Twitter that there refugees are  not welcome. Which is just crap but seems to work...

kat,
I just wanred to say that I do understand your feelings. I sometimes think the same about the wildest rumor on celebrityglitter or another 'reliable' source. I try to svoid to read it online when I google George's name but when it's posted here I at least flick through.

But I think it's difficult to categorize the source before posting it. We don't always have the background informations and don't know the specifics of every country. I just was in Britain and realized how different think and act comparing to us - and that's the same continent... Then we've got language barriers - just think of the funny google-translations we sometimes have here. And one fact this forum is so alive is because everybody can post here and posts are posted immediately as well.

So a sort of censorship would be really difficult I think. And it would be tricky to decide what could be posted. I wouldn't want to be the one who decides...

kat19 wrote:

Silje wrote:The Armenian Genocide is not recognized by the whole word as a Genocide. Only 28 countries has recognized it as a Genocide. US, UK, Australia and Israel are not among them.

Pernicek won the first round in the European Court of Human Rights. Time for round two.

Daily Sabeh, where the op-ed was published, is a daily English speaking newspaper in Turkey. The mother paper Sahab has ties to New York Times. Daily Sabeh has ties to Erdogan but it is hardly a Pro Nazi newspaper. Unless you want to call Turkey a Nazi country because they don't recognize the Armenian Genocide as a Genocide. The paper gives the Turkish point of view.  I don't agree with the Turks but I can't see anything wrong with posting the article here.

It was a Genocide. And a well documented one at that. The fact that not all countries recognize that is a purely political thing. 

As for calling Turkey a Nazi country or the newspaper Pro-Nazi, I did not say that so please don't put words into my mouth. Do you understand what an analogy is? Because that is what I said. I said the situation was ANALOGOUS to this one. The Nazis committed genocide and so did the Turks of that period. It was an analogy. 

And the fact that a foreign paper has some flimsy ties to the NY times doesn't put it above anything. 

I've said my piece and you guys know where I stand on this. Obviously this forum runs on an entirely different standard of ethics. So post away whatever bottom of the barrel articles you want to. But I vehemently disagree with giving hateful genocide deniers a platform.

Yes Kat19, I know what an Analogy is. But you are the one who said Nicky posting the article here is equivalent to posting an article from a Pro-Nazi newspaper. I disagree with you because this is not a Pro-Nazi newspaper as far as I know.

I also found your statement that: "And the fact that a foreign paper has some flimsy ties to NY times doesn't put it above anything.", interesting. When I read this sentence the word foreign stands out in my mind.

I also found it amusing that you said that Nicky patronized you. Because in my opinion you patronize people on this board that you disagree with all the time. You can dish it out but you can’t take it, can you?

No insult intended to anyone because I've been there myself all too often, but we're way off topic. We need a new thread for a discussion of censorship on the forum. This argument has nothing to do with Amal only being famous because of George.

kat19 wrote:

Nicky80 wrote:

kat19 wrote:Nicky that article you posted in regards to the Armenian genocide is completely opinion by someone who clearly denies the existence of the Armenian genocide and is now taking it out on Amal for representing that cause. It is a Turkish newspaper. We know that Turkey denies the genocide. And we know that freedom of expression in Turkey is very stifled. So it is not at all surprising that a Turkish paper would publish an op-Ed denying the genocide and calling those who know it actually happened guilty of spreading propaganda. It is hardly an unbiased newspaper of record. I am surprised that you posted it here. Perhaps it should be clarified that the piece is written by someone with a very clear agenda. An agenda that is quite disgusting actually.

Kat, in this Forum you can post everything what has to do with clooney. If you do not like it you can leave the thread and enjoy another thread.  And whatever I will find in future I will continue to post regardless if you like it or not. In this forum you find everything positive or negative articles. This has been done in the past and will be this way in the future and this will not change. So please don't be surprised. There is nothing surprising about it.

I know that "everything" is posted on this site, trust me, you don't need to clarify or PATRONIZE me. Up till now all of the base level tabloids/websites have their crap posted here and i've never questioned you posting it. But I was under the impression that this site operated on some basic level of principle. It doesn't. Thanks for clarifying that for me Nicky. 

So YES there was something to be surprised about. This article is not from some tabloid source. It is basically the equivalent of posting an article from a pro-Nazi newspaper in which the writer clearly denies that the holocaust ever took place but since he also argues about the "propaganda" or "soft power" employed by the attorneys on the case that apparently makes it okay to post here. Gotcha. Thanks. That scenario is completely analogous to this one. Not everything should be so easily swept under a rug as "well umm we post all positive and negative stuff here". This goes beyond that. 

Some basic level of responsibility should govern the way info is provided here and that base level is to at the very least consider the source when dealing with something as sensitive as a GENOCIDE. It's not enough to say 'oh well we're just going to throw every piece of filth on here and posters should just be smart enough about choosing what to believe or not.' Not everything is gospel that needs to be heard. Some of it appeals to the most basic level of filth in humanity and should at least be handled with more class. But clearly there isn't any governing this board. So again, thanks for clarifying that for me. Now you can continue patting Surfing on the head while you reprimand me for daring to question your practices.

I look forward to your reply for me to feel free to go find another forum or to leave this one.

Kat, it is not my business to tell you to find another Forum just because we don't agree on something. It is is your choice. Everyone has to look for something what makes yourself happy. As you come here joining us I assume that makes you happy.

LizzyNY wrote:No insult intended to anyone because I've been there myself all too often, but we're way off topic. We need a new thread for a discussion of censorship on the forum. This argument has nothing to do with Amal only being famous because of George.

Thanks Lizzy, you are correct, we are off Topic.


I will not open another thread about censoring this Forum as Katiedot made it very clear since the beginning she is against censorship. The matter is not censoring the Forum. The matter are the emotions people have. Sometimes it helps to leave the emotions out. We had this discussion with his other Exes too. The Forum is what it is. And if there are articles I don't like I don't join the thread.

So let's move on and go back on Topic.   Thanks Lizzy

Silje wrote:

kat19 wrote:

Silje wrote:The Armenian Genocide is not recognized by the whole word as a Genocide. Only 28 countries has recognized it as a Genocide. US, UK, Australia and Israel are not among them.

Pernicek won the first round in the European Court of Human Rights. Time for round two.

Daily Sabeh, where the op-ed was published, is a daily English speaking newspaper in Turkey. The mother paper Sahab has ties to New York Times. Daily Sabeh has ties to Erdogan but it is hardly a Pro Nazi newspaper. Unless you want to call Turkey a Nazi country because they don't recognize the Armenian Genocide as a Genocide. The paper gives the Turkish point of view.  I don't agree with the Turks but I can't see anything wrong with posting the article here.

It was a Genocide. And a well documented one at that. The fact that not all countries recognize that is a purely political thing. 

As for calling Turkey a Nazi country or the newspaper Pro-Nazi, I did not say that so please don't put words into my mouth. Do you understand what an analogy is? Because that is what I said. I said the situation was ANALOGOUS to this one. The Nazis committed genocide and so did the Turks of that period. It was an analogy. 

And the fact that a foreign paper has some flimsy ties to the NY times doesn't put it above anything. 

I've said my piece and you guys know where I stand on this. Obviously this forum runs on an entirely different standard of ethics. So post away whatever bottom of the barrel articles you want to. But I vehemently disagree with giving hateful genocide deniers a platform.

Yes Kat19, I know what an Analogy is. But you are the one who said Nicky posting the article here is equivalent to posting an article from a Pro-Nazi newspaper. I disagree with you because this is not a Pro-Nazi newspaper as far as I know.

I also found your statement that: "And the fact that a foreign paper has some flimsy ties to NY times doesn't put it above anything.", interesting. When I read this sentence the word foreign stands out in my mind.

I also found it amusing that you said that Nicky patronized you. Because in my opinion you patronize people on this board that you disagree with all the time. You can dish it out but you can’t take it, can you?

If you know what an analogy is then why do you keep saying that the paper is not pro-Nazi? I never said it was pro-Nazi. I analogized, ie. compared the two situations, thus my use of the word "equivalent". 

As far as the word "Foreign" goes, why don't you elaborate as to why that would be interesting or stand out in your mind instead of making veiled inferences. The newspaper IS foreign to me, ie. it is from another country. That doesn't mean I question the credibility of any and all foreign newspapers it means I question this particular one because it is from a country that is known to control press freedoms. Thus, it is absolutely a questionable source. And any ties it may have with the NY times doesn't negate any of that. 

As far as the patronizing goes, myself and other posters are patronized and chastised all the time on this board. That seems to be a regular occurrence, I take it all the time and if you think I dish it out that's fine as well. What I take exception to in particular is stating the obvious in a patronizing manner instead of answering to what the core of the issue was. I.e. I said I was surprised that an article from such a source would be posted here and also said that it should be clarified where the source was from and the agenda behind it. Instead of explaining why she felt it necessary to post such an article she chalked it up to the obvious, "oh we post everything, positive/negative, nothing to be surprised about, go to another thread if you don't like it". I know you post everything, but this wasn't from celeb dirty laundry and it wasn't about George getting his balls ironed or Amal being pregnant via IVF. It was about a pro-Turkish newspaper clearly denying a genocide and using Amal as a tool to paint themselves as victims of propaganda and "soft power". Maybe such topics should be handled with a little more sensitivity rather than a patronizing brush off that in any other circumstance I wouldn't care about. 

Silje, I'm done arguing with you. I've said my piece already. It was never directed towards you to begin with but you brought yourself into it. I felt strongly about this topic so I made that known. Now I'll get out of here so you guys can get back on topic.

Nicky80 wrote:

kat19 wrote:

Nicky80 wrote:

kat19 wrote:Nicky that article you posted in regards to the Armenian genocide is completely opinion by someone who clearly denies the existence of the Armenian genocide and is now taking it out on Amal for representing that cause. It is a Turkish newspaper. We know that Turkey denies the genocide. And we know that freedom of expression in Turkey is very stifled. So it is not at all surprising that a Turkish paper would publish an op-Ed denying the genocide and calling those who know it actually happened guilty of spreading propaganda. It is hardly an unbiased newspaper of record. I am surprised that you posted it here. Perhaps it should be clarified that the piece is written by someone with a very clear agenda. An agenda that is quite disgusting actually.

Kat, in this Forum you can post everything what has to do with clooney. If you do not like it you can leave the thread and enjoy another thread.  And whatever I will find in future I will continue to post regardless if you like it or not. In this forum you find everything positive or negative articles. This has been done in the past and will be this way in the future and this will not change. So please don't be surprised. There is nothing surprising about it.

I know that "everything" is posted on this site, trust me, you don't need to clarify or PATRONIZE me. Up till now all of the base level tabloids/websites have their crap posted here and i've never questioned you posting it. But I was under the impression that this site operated on some basic level of principle. It doesn't. Thanks for clarifying that for me Nicky. 

So YES there was something to be surprised about. This article is not from some tabloid source. It is basically the equivalent of posting an article from a pro-Nazi newspaper in which the writer clearly denies that the holocaust ever took place but since he also argues about the "propaganda" or "soft power" employed by the attorneys on the case that apparently makes it okay to post here. Gotcha. Thanks. That scenario is completely analogous to this one. Not everything should be so easily swept under a rug as "well umm we post all positive and negative stuff here". This goes beyond that. 

Some basic level of responsibility should govern the way info is provided here and that base level is to at the very least consider the source when dealing with something as sensitive as a GENOCIDE. It's not enough to say 'oh well we're just going to throw every piece of filth on here and posters should just be smart enough about choosing what to believe or not.' Not everything is gospel that needs to be heard. Some of it appeals to the most basic level of filth in humanity and should at least be handled with more class. But clearly there isn't any governing this board. So again, thanks for clarifying that for me. Now you can continue patting Surfing on the head while you reprimand me for daring to question your practices.

I look forward to your reply for me to feel free to go find another forum or to leave this one.

Kat, it is not my business to tell you to find another Forum just because we don't agree on something. It is is your choice. Everyone has to look for something what makes yourself happy. As you come here joining us I assume that makes you happy.

LizzyNY wrote:No insult intended to anyone because I've been there myself all too often, but we're way off topic. We need a new thread for a discussion of censorship on the forum. This argument has nothing to do with Amal only being famous because of George.

Thanks Lizzy, you are correct, we are off Topic.


I will not open another thread about censoring this Forum as Katiedot made it very clear since the beginning she is against censorship. The matter is not censoring the Forum. The matter are the emotions people have. Sometimes it helps to leave the emotions out. We had this discussion with his other Exes too. The Forum is what it is. And if there are articles I don't like I don't join the thread.

So let's move on and go back on Topic.   Thanks Lizzy

Nicky, we'll agree to disagree I guess and move on.