Star: Amal Clooney hates Giuliana Rancic, Amal has vowed to ‘get revenge’


Here are some more photos of Amal Clooney in a European Human Rights Court on Wednesday. On Wednesday, I said that she was arguing “against” free speech, which started a massive argument in the comments. I have no apologies. She IS arguing against freedom of speech, regardless of what the laws of the EU or individual nations are. I have no idea how Amal really feels about this issue, and perhaps this is just the position she had to take because of her firm’s handling of the case. I’m not passing judgment on her personal ethics, I’m just making a point about freedom of speech: I believe people have a right to say stupid, nasty, ridiculous things without fear of state prosecution. While I loathe politicians who deny genocide, people shouldn’t go to jail or face financial penalties for saying ignorant things.

Anyway, while Amal faced a wall of journalists and reporters in the courtroom, one person asked her what she was wearing. I guess they expected her to respond with “Versace” or “McQueen” or something, but she ID’d the brand of barrister’s robes she was wearing at the time, saying: “I’m wearing Ede & Ravenscroft.” People are going crazy over that answer, like she’s so utterly badass. Meh! Meanwhile, Star Magazine had this silly story about Amal feuding with Giuliana Rancic of all people:

Sources tell Star that George Clooney’s bride, Amal, has put Giuliana Rancic on her hit list after the “two-faced” red carpet queen gushed over Amal’s goofy gloves at the Golden Globes – only to slag the style later on Fashion Police.

“Giuliana was so desperate to grab them on the red carpet, she even waved around a bottle of George’s brand of tequila,” sniffs an insider. “Giuliana couldn’t coo enough over Amal’s gloves but then when everyone on Fashion Police made fun of them, Giuliana went right along with it!”

Now, the insider says, a furious and embarrassed Amal has vowed to get revenge: “One thing is for sure, Giuliana will never get to speak to George again – not as long as Amal is around!”

[From Star Magazine, print edition]

Everyone did make fun of Amal during that episode of Fashion Police. What was funny was that when Giuliana started to hedge a little bit about the awfulness of the gloves, Kelly Osbourne snapped at her, saying something like “Then why did you tell her that you loved them?!” But honestly, while I have a lot of side-eyes for Amal, I seriously doubt Giuliana is even on her radar. Amal wouldn’t care about anything Giuliana would have to say about anything.


Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

186 Responses to “Star: Amal Clooney hates Giuliana Rancic, Amal has vowed to ‘get revenge’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. sally says:

    haha, god, those gloves are just soo stupid.

  2. BengalCat2000 says:

    I kind of liked the gloves, but I have no fashion sense and smoke too much weed. However, I can’t imagine AC having time to care what people think of The Gloves.

    • Kiddo says:

      I love you. This sounds like a modernized version of a Steve McQueen quote from Papillon.

      Amal needs to get a handlebar stache, and twirl the ends, while she says she “Vows to get revenge!” And no revenge quote is ever complete without adding, “It’s curtains for you”, with a dastardly laugh capping it off.

    • Sabrine says:

      Exactly. This is made up BS. Amal has more important things to think about than some celebrity hack making a comment about gloves she wore weeks ago to an event she probably has forgotten about by now. This is just a desperate ploy to drum up some non-existent story for ratings. I don’t think Amal is particularly interested in celebrity culture but she knows she will have to deal with the ridiculousness of it now and again because of who she married.

    • Kitten says:

      Weed made eating beans straight out of the can while watching Tom & Jerry for two hours seems like a good idea last Saturday, so I can see why one wouldn’t trust their judgment on the green stuff.

      • BengalCat2000 says:

        @kitten, I find that eating Kelloggs Corn Pops straight from the box and watching a Three Stooges marathon whilst reading Celebitchy to be a delightful way to enjoy a Sunday morning… wearing my tacky gloves of course.

      • Mark says:

        Holy hell you sound like a cool girl…you smoke weed

    • Geekychick says:

      Ahahahahaaha, you’re my kind of person. :) I agree, I think She has better things to do than worry about the Gloves.

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      Love this reply, Bengalcat2000. You’re all right. Gotcha on my list.

      • BengalCat2000 says:

        Awww, thanks! Honestly though, I’m so boring right now in my life that I make the Dugger ‘s look like members of Warhol’ Factory.

    • highdeehogl says:

      Hahaha this comment is great and i couldn’t agree more. Thanks for the laugh !

  3. minime says:

    Ahah Her answer on the barrister’s robes she was wearing was actually quite good. Is not that the answer is badass is that whoever thought it would be a good idea to ask that in a courtroom is a total dumbass.

    • The Original Mia says:

      Exactly. It’s fine when she’s on the RC but not when she’s working. They wouldn’t dare ask a male barrister that question.

    • MsGoblin says:


    • AntiSocialButterfly says:

      Yes, flip response to a ridiculous question. I don’t think she has any effs to give about the whole celeb-dom (-dumb).

      • someonestolemyname says:

        Oh yeh sure, she only stands on Red Carpets at Award shows with Couture gowns and posing for cameras. She totally loves the celeb-dom world she has entered.

    • Luca76 says:


    • Angie says:

      Maybe the question itself was meant as a joke–or a subtle dig at her new lifestyle.

    • Miffy says:

      Yeah, I actually loved that answer. I thought it was on par with Lauren Conrad’s response of ‘CEO’ when she was asked what her favourite position is. I like it, snaps for Amal on that one!

    • Nic919 says:

      Why did she pose for a picture in the courtroom? I have never seen an actual lawyer do that. She could shut down a lot of this media attention of she wanted. It is one thing for the hearing to be filmed, but a close up photo in the court room actually shows a lack of respect for the process itself. A court room is not a Hollywood red carpet.

      • Jag says:

        I wondered that, too! Just like celebs can dictate which questions they answer, I’m sure that she could request that the paps be made to leave the room.

      • Lori says:

        NIC919: I didn’t even think about that. The photos on the Daily Mail and Twitter show about a dozen paparazzi clicking away about three inches from counsel table. There are maybe ten similar photos of her at close range.

        You’re right – there’s a big difference between opening the proceedings to the public generally and using the courtroom as a forum for a photo op. Frankly, I am surprised that the court allowed this. Most tribunals prohibit flash photography.

        This whole setup makes Amal look like a less serious professional than is intended.

  4. Amcn says:

    Maybe she likes the attention but if it was me I would be terribly embarrassed to be on gossip rags for these ridiculous types of stories after having achieved such a level of professionalism. I’m sure most of her colleagues are not subscribers to Star magazine but still. I wonder if it will negatively affect her career? Maybe the novelty will wear off.

    • jen2 says:

      Maybe. But if she did not want to be judged like a celebrity, she should not have married one and gone to events like this. Once you enter the celebrity world, and in same cases act like one, that is how you will be judged. She can’t be a serious lawyer by day and celebrity wife by night and not expect what goes with the sometimes very unfair judging. Her profession does not make her immune or for that matter special. Not saying what is being said is fair, but it is not fair to others who get the same bashing.

      • Amcn says:

        I agree. She shouldn’t be given special treatment and she should have thought more about her career before her tabloid wedding. I do get the feeling that she is enjoying as much as her husband does.

      • Greata says:

        @Jen2…Spot on!

      • someonestolemyname says:

        Spot on, she married the biggest unmarried movie star in the world, What does she expect. She’s goes on red carpets at red carpet events. The thing is Amal didn’t really have to go stand in front of the cameras. She could have just walked in like some other spouses do and just waved.

        She loves this attention and she and George call the Press and Papz for her court outings imo.
        She looks like a drag queen anyway. No offense to some of my favorite Rupaul Drag Race drag queens…
        Can’t stand her. Her and George’s preciousness and self importance is annoying, more than anything else.

      • Zwella Ingrid says:

        Yes! This is the life she has chosen, and it stands to reason that she does enjoy the attention–to what extent we don’t know yet. I don’t see how it couldn’t hurt her career. She certainly can’t devote time to it with her celebrity lifestyle, but maybe its a situation where others do the grunt work and she shows up to be the mouthpiece.

      • Zwella Ingrid says:

        I read a comment on here recently-someone who wrote that it was their opinion that this whole marriage was engineered for political reasons for George. Lets imagine he fancies a run for President. You have to have the wife, right? And the right kind. She has to be independent and intelligent, and have a respected career of her own. She also has to look the part. Hence, the fashion change for her–the Jackie O look, if you will, that someone on here mentioned the other day. I’m usually not one to jump on the “conspiracy theory wedding” band wagon, but this idea kind of seems to fit. Something to think about anyway if you hadn’t already.

    • sailaway says:

      she opened the doors herself by being in vogue magazine. she’s responsible and george too, for turning her into a fashionista . they should have just let her work speak for itself, not start a narrative about how wonderful, professional, beautiful, fashion forward she is.

      she can only fall off her pedestal now.

      • wolfpup says:

        I see no pedestal. Is there any reason for her to not have a marvelous time?! I will bet that she becomes even more stunning, with age and maturity. Good for her.

      • someonestolemyname says:

        She’s not stunning, nor beautiful. She looks hard. All I see is drag queen , jimmeny cricket and No I don’t believe she’s naturally that thin.

        But Her PR puffed up self importance and preciousness is what makes her unattractive to me.

    • Nic919 says:

      Oops I posted above but if a lawyer wants to avoid flaky publicity then they don’t pose for photos in the actual courtroom. Even lawyers who want publicity for their case tend to give press conferences and photos once they have left the court room.

  5. Megan says:

    Are the interns running Star this week?

  6. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I would think that the first time you were bashed on Fashion Police, it would sting a little. But I doubt the rest is true.

    • megs283 says:

      Yeah. Ouch! But I’m sure she got over it fast!

      • Janie says:

        i must be the 1% who liked the gloves. I doubt Amal could care less what the two faced Rancic said. Eat a sandwich!

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      she had to know the gloves were a risky choice, right?

      • Zwella Ingrid says:

        Don’t feel bad Janie, I liked the gloves too. I thought they were too big for her, and maybe over the top for the GG….She should have saved them for the Oscars, but I still liked them.

  7. littlemissnaughty says:

    I seriously doubt that she has “vowed to get revenge”. WTF?

    I understand why someone would be in favor of freedom of speech 100%, no exception. But it’s a matter of perspective and history. What works for one country does not necessarily work for another. I try to imagine Germany getting rid of some of its law regarding freedom of speech and what that would mean. Nobody here wants the holocaust deniers to be able to write “history” books etc. Nobody wants anti-Semites to be able to spew their hate openly here. Laws always reflect history as well as current society. The U.S. has a special relationship with that particular right, as do we.

    So yes, she might be arguing against free speech but frankly, in some cases, so would I.

    • Diana B says:

      Exactly. No right is absolute and free speach is no different. Every right should have its boundaries and I see nothing wrong with europe’s restrictions. One should be accountable for denying historical facts which can have repercutions in the present.

    • siri says:

      Freedom (of speech) always includes responsibility when exercising this freedom, but we shouldn’t prosecute people for not understanding that. Because opinions like this, denying a genocide (he in fact didn’t deny murder, he denied it qualifies as ‘genocide’), will not disappear by simply making them illegal. I would rather discuss historical events like this very publicly, than throwing people in jail for their publicly stated interpretation of them.

      • Lara says:

        turkey and many muslims are very proud of the Ottoman Empire and its history. once i heard a turkish guy stressing that an empire like the Ottoman Empire is what is needed in the Middle East today. they do not believe that their grandfathers mercilessly murdered the Armenians and others who weren’t Sunni Muslims. it is important that we do not adapt and accept the turkish version of history. i know that the turkish today and even the majority of the muslims abandoned the extremism and are considered “moderate.” However, there are still people that dream of another Ottoman Empire as evident from the actions of ISIS. laws protecting the murdered and their family and preventing any siding with the murderer are not only morally right, but very needed especially today. what happened to the Armenians was a genocide, the same way what happened to the jews was a genocide, the same way what happened to the tutsi was a genocide.

      • siri says:

        @Lara: How is prosecution of the denial of genocide “protecting” the victims? They KNOW it was genocide. So do we. I think, debates about the historical truth or legal classification of atrocities as genocide or some other label are not the real issue. Nor is it a strictly “Armenian issue”. I fully understand what you are saying, yet I truly believe it’s in the long run better to confront these (human rights) matters without involvement of the juridical system. Because I fear that it will send those lunatics even more into the underground, cultivating their racial hatred in silence, only to become more extreme in the end. I don’t know what the right way would be to ‘deal’ with this, I simply have my doubts about legal ‘punishment’.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        @ siri: By that logic, you don’t need a legal system at all. The existence of laws will never keep every single person from breaking them but it keeps the social structure from collapsing. I myself am not sure about a prison sentence, it seems excessive. But a fine? I’m not opposed to that.

      • siri says:

        @littlemissnaughty: We were still talking about free speech/expression, not about maintaining general ‘law&order’ supported by the juridical system, and neccessary for any civilized society. I don’t mind a fine- just I doubt it will help anything.

  8. Tana says:

    I’m beginning to see Amal as a willing pawn for 2 men who can get something from her . The QC she is working with is getting a lot of attention he would not have gotten if not for Amal’s new celeb status and George is getting a PR makeover, all with the help of Amal at his side.

    Is she really the independent woman she’s been made out to be ? – or a well paid toy for the boys?

    • Biki says:

      That is my opinion too and she is very aware of it and plays the game very well and I feel no pity for ner since she is both educated and rich and could do somrthing higher without dragging into circus.

      • Uzi says:

        Exactly! She could’ve quietly continued with her career during the engagement and after the marriage. Instead George’s PR people hyped her credentials and fashion sense up the wazoo. I’m one of the many that thinks this is more business arrangement than marriage, which would explain “the circus.” I understand the George/Hollywood side, but other than bringing attention to their cases, what’s in it for a legit law firm? There are plenty of barristers equally or more qualified than Amal that could focus 100% on the legal stuff without bringing “what are you wearing” into the courtroom.

      • wolfpup says:

        If only all of us could fly so high? I enjoy a woman’s success.

        What George is doing, or even her barrister friends, can work in her, in the end – what’s wrong with that? – this is our world – why not enjoy? I believe that she trusts her mother, who is quite worldly-wise, in her own profession. I also believe that Amal was a virgin, (yet that can be a disappointing on the eve…and her mussy hair and tired expression, the morning after did not express a sense of satisfaction); but this can also explain the huge celebration that her parents gave her. She’s young, she’ll cling to George for a while.

      • someonestolemyname says:

        I never heard of her or saw her in the US press before George married her, I think she and George are using each other for PR and it’s nothing but a contract deal and she’s loving every second of it.

        She’s SIGNED on for this circus and loving it.
        I think when she hits 40 in 3 yrs they’ll be divorced and she’ll go one with her life having fulfilled her contract with George as his pr wife.

      • LAK says:

        If you’ve never heard of someone who is very famous in his world, on his side of the planet, but not in your sphere, does that make him less famous? If a person is very famous, but never seen in the gossip media, does that make him less famous?

        Geoffrey Robertson QC is quite famous in the rest of the world. Has been for decades. He is married to a famous comedian, Kathy Lette, is connected up the wazoo. More connected than George Clooney could dream of being connected. Additionally, he is an author, broadcaster and academic.

        ……but since you’ve never personally heard of him or his work until Amal became a looney, he is reduced to being her bag carrier.

        Honestly people…….

        Amalooney is attracting the wrong kind of press which GR, being the wily operator, is using to his advantage. All these comments about him are so laughably ridiculous.

      • Zwella Ingrid says:

        @uzi, High profile lawyers bring in high profile (rich) clients. It’s free publicity for the firm.

      • siri says:

        @Uzi: I rather wonder what it brings for the clients to have a ‘celebrity lawyer’? In many circumstances, too much publicity isn’t even smart. But I’m really sure here, that Amal as well as her chamber are not doing this for their clients in the first place anyway.

    • Icy blue says:

      Pull the other one. Geoffrey Robertson QC does. It need Amal Clooney. He is respected QC and has been long before Amal Clooney joined his team. In order to belittle Amal Clooney accomplishments and paint her little woman being used, you also smear a decen QC. Sexist drivel is what you spewed.

      • fiveandten says:

        But what if its true. Maybe she is helpful to these guys and gets something for it herself. I agree with the above that Geoffrey Robertson would not be getting this much coverage for this case if it weren’t for AC and GC benefits as well.

      • Ariadne says:

        I’m so glad you pointed that out Icy Blue. Just because Geoffrey Robertson is getting increased publicity doesn’t mean this was his aim or intention.

        Some of the comments on here are speculative & unfounded and not something the posters would dare to say directly to any of the people concerned because their justifications for their view points are bordering on being fictional

    • Lulu says:

      Wau. THIS is just SO insulting – to all women

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I feel that way, too, about a lot of the hate she gets. Some women seem to just refuse to believe that she’s accomplished and intelligent. There’s a lot of backlash against her for being “smug” and a “fame whore” and I think it’s because she dares to be more than just a pretty face. It’s discouraging. A “toy for the boys.” Gag.

      • Sweeny says:

        AAC is not a ‘toy for the boys’ she is a grown woman who married a womanizing drug using alcoholic. That’s enough to make people question her intelligence in all matters.

      • Emmet says:

        Sweeny – WELL SAID!!!

      • Kim1 says:

        WOW so now George is a womanizing drug using alcoholic who is also Gay.

      • Geekychick says:

        I think the media and especially comments here about Amal Clooney perfectly expose what is so mysoginistic and wrong in global perspective, that it’s so subtle that I bet many of the commenters here would be offended if called out on their sexism. She is a succesfull woman, well respected in her bussiness and she certainly didn’t earn that position by anything than her own accomplishments. Yet, for the fact that she married a famous guy and that ahe disn’t give up her career or catered to, as Lainey calls it, MiniVan majority, women, at least a great number of them on this site, it seems, hate her. Is it the fact that Clooney didn’t choose a Cinderella-type? That mahority of the ones that spew this crapp can in no way replace her with themselves on the same spot? For God sake, Jennifer Garner is Affleck’s acquisition in renewal of his brand and career, who miracously always has the best family pap photos during Oscar campaigns, but everyone here loves her. Amal Gets hate bc she had the nerve to wear gloves on red carpet. Or is it bc sh didn’t pander to stupid request to do shots on air( so much abput alowing a woman the freedom to do what she wants without pressure, you guys). I mean you could write agreat bachelor thesis about society and it’s subtle sexism and misoginy on Amal Clooney. i find it really really sad.

      • noway says:

        I don’t think that Amal Clooney really has been the recipient of misogynistic hate, more celebrity culture gossip. I also believe they have actively engaged and want this.

        Fact is Amal Clooney is a barrister who before her relationship with George had an impressive career as a junior barrister which for a 36 year old woman is quite an accomplishment. Second, George and his PR team misrepresented her resume as a high level barrister who always defended the just and downtrodden. Guess what lawyers and barristers often defend people they might not agree with because they have to, want to move up in their career and/or just believe in fair representation for all. That story however is hard for PR to sell so let’s go with she defends the hopeless. Upon people getting to know her resume they realize she has defended some criminals and tyrant and just not on the right side. Now she is not the golden child. However, not sure what people expected when you build someone up that high the only place to go is down.

        Most of this could have been avoided, and George knows how. My guess is they are both fine with the press coverage and perhaps enjoy it. I also think that although QC Robertson did not pick Amal for her celebrity status, he sure as hell is using it to improve his chances and publicize his causes.

        George and Amal did not need to have a wedding that rivaled a royal in opulence and press. If they didn’t want to be critiqued for their attire you don’t walk a red carpet. A lot of the celebrities don’t. I don’t really see hate here for Amal by many more a questioning of the whole celebrity status. I have to admit I wonder why someone in her career path would want this world.

      • Lori says:

        I, for one, have no problem with Amal being an intelligent, “accomplished” woman. Indeed, her background, as represented in the press, initially piqued my interest at the time of her engagement.

        As has been discussed previously, however, her accomplishments have been inflated, for unknown reasons. The video of her oral argument proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights reflects her actual status, as a reasonably competent but relatively junior barrier working under a much more accomplished Queen’s Counsel. The fact that she is purportedly advancing in her career (???) or garnering attention based upon her marital status, and not on her own professional merit, is more reflective of misogyny IMO than our criticisms of her courtship of media attention.

        The jury’s out, as well, on whether Mr. Robertson seeks to benefit from this attention. Mr. Robertson gave an interview to a reporter from the Independent, in which he indicated surprise at the level of attention to this case. During the interview, he took pains to emphasize that the case was about the law, and not about “yachts” or “white gloves.” He’s highly accomplished in his own right — I’m not sure why he would want or need that kind of publicity, apart from financial considerations.

      • noway says:

        I think QC Robertson has just used the hand he was dealt, and I really don’t see anything wrong with it. Not as much in this case, because I think it would be hard to get the court to bend because of publicity although in his mind it might bring attention to a worthy cause. There could also be another angle I may be missing as I am not as familiar with the case. In the Elgin Marbles case, he definitely used her publicity as that is really a negotiation and the publicity of the cause only helps him. Also, they can protest all they want, but having lived in DC for a long time and seen politicians, high powered lawyers, government and state leaders just drool over Hollywood celebs even though they have half the education or knowledge of them is truly a site to behold. The lure may have died by now though.

    • Rachel says:


      • someonestolemyname says:

        Well said Sweeny.
        Amal signed on to the George Circus and no I don’t believe it’s love for one second, except maybe her love of Fame and camera’s.

        She’s got notoriety now and fame now as George’s wife and it’s only going to get worse with each year of marriage.

        No matter how much they write what she does, the second or first sentence is always George Clooney’s wife….. She signed on for this notoriety.

    • vauvert says:

      Wtf?? That is so insulting both to Amal and those of us who have male bosses that we get along with and who support us, mentor us and are happy for our success. Yes, we report to them, does that make us a patsy?

      Who is she supposed to work with then? She was already working on high profile cases and associated with this QC before George ever came on the scene. And what was she supposed to do after the wedding, stay home and shop and tan like some other celebs’ wives? She is damned if she works – and the paps follow and ask stupid questions, which she intelligently deflected – and she is damned if she goes on vacation with her husband and his friends – look, she is a famehwore. How can this woman possibly win??
      I hope she is as strong and smart as she seems – goes around doing her own thing not worrying about people criticizing her no matter what she does.

      • someonestolemyname says:

        Amal made herself into a moving circus. Also she and George have a part in making sure those paparazzi camera’s are present.

        She made her bed, she has to lay in it.

    • Jessica says:

      Geoffrey Robertson is more than capable of creating his own media circus when he feels to, and she was working alongside him on many cases for years before anyone knew her name. I’m sure he has and will find ways to use her newfound fame to his advantage, but it’s not like he suddenly started working with her when she got engaged to Clooney.

  9. Lucy2 says:

    I feel like she probably has bigger things on her mind than a “reporter” from an entertainment channel. As do most people.

    • OhDear says:

      Yeah, I feel like the tabloids are trying to drag her down to their level. I doubt she cares all that much.

      • someonestolemyname says:

        She married at the tabloid level. She put herself there as soon as she married George. The whole entire marriage is a farce and she has become a moving circus.

      • Geekychick says:

        Why. Why does a marriage to George clooney means she has to be dragged down to media circus levels? She has her own carier and personality, and this outdated view that by marriage you have to accomodate and assimilate to your partner is so stupid. Every partnership is individual, and people make their own rules and compromises. This reminds me of 19th century when a teacher had to stop working when she married, to be accesible for her husband. This stance is basically the same. She is not an actress, nor does she live off of you or the media, so she doesn’t owe anyone anything, least of all explanation of her way of life.

    • Esmom says:

      Yes, seriously. What a silly story.

    • Josefa says:

      Yup. I’d like to believe Amal is smarter than that.

  10. Snazzy says:

    She was obviously trying to make a fashion statement with the gloves ( I think I’m the only geek who liked them), but I doubt she cares that much about it overall.

    • AntiSocialButterfly says:

      What I’d like to know is, why saggy, baggy, ill-fitting white? Why not be a little more different and sport black, well-fitting gloves? Her white clutch with b&w “Je suis Charlie” button would have stood out so much more.

      • Esmom says:

        Yes, I guess I get what she was trying to do in theory — although I’m not a fan of gloves unless they’re worn by the ladies of Downton Abbey on set — but the execution was just so terrible.

      • Uzi says:

        @Esmom…Yes! Ever since “glovegate” I’ve been watching Downton Abbey differently. The ladies’ dresses and gowns are stunning, but my focus is now on their gloves and how they fit and coordinate with the outfits. Perhaps the next time Amal wants to wear gloves on the red carpet she should consult with DA’s award winning costume designer!

      • wolfpup says:

        I wonder if she consulted with Anna Wintour about her gloves. Amal looked stunning, as always.

  11. Tinuvielle says:

    - While I loathe politicians who deny genocide, people shouldn’t go to jail or face financial penalties for saying ignorant things.

    That is a very american view.

    Most people in Canada, or Europe, do believe that hate speech have to be ban. The Armenian genocide was a dreadful thing, and lot of countries still deny it even happens. It won’t change the fact, but Turkey should apologize. Like Australia did apologize for the awful treatment of the natives population. Canada still haven’t apologize, and we should, as a nation, say sorry for the dreadful things that have happen.

    Preventing hate speech could help to prevent other awful event to happen. If racist/xenophobe charismatic leader is not allow to give his speech, he might get less following. If a moron cannot spread his idiotic view, less people might communicated them.

    • Isadora says:

      While I agree that denying a genocide is an absolutely dreadful thing, if you let people go to jail for this, I have to ask: where to start and where to end? Denying something in the past isn’t a call to violence, so you ban an opinion because it’s very hurtful to some people. However the same could be said of Mohammed caricatures – it’s very hurtful to some people that people make fun of their prophet who shouldn’t even be portrayed.

      But Amal still wears the “Je suis Charlie” button which is mainly a sign for free speech.

      So whose speech is free? And whose speech isn’t? Is speech against the Islam hate speech? Is a caricature hate speech? Is the opinion I state here hate speech? Or is it hate speech when someone in Saudi Arabia wants a have a blog for critical religious dialogue?

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        An opinion is not historical fact. Some things are established as fact and only the most ignorant of fools will debate or deny them. So while I see people’s point about not having to go to prison for your opinion (obviously), this is not really the case here. The only question is, should freedom of speech extend to ANY old bullsh*t someone wants to spew regardless of fact etc.? The caricatures are viewd as an insult by some/many Muslims. Again, nothing to do with facts. The rest is up for debate.

      • Chinoiserie says:

        The European laws that limit hate speech are very clearly defined so there is no fear of overextending them.

      • spaniard says:

        Exactly ,as littlemissnaughty said, historical facts are very different from “beliefs”. Denying the Holocaust or some other genocides which have been proved it is not the same by drawing something “some” people decide it’s an insult. I thnik Laws are very clear regarding this, so please, let’s not compare Hate speech with Free speech.

      • Lara says:

        there is a difference between stating an idiotic opinion in a coffee shop and going from country to country to challenge their laws regarding genocides. the turkish politician is not being prosecuted for stating an opinion, he is being forced to pay for intentionally spreading a historical lie and breaking a Swiss law in Switzerland. i hope he doesn’t end up making hitler right in his questioning of the care for the annihilation of the Armenians.

      • Frosty says:

        @Isadora – these laws against genocide denial are new-ish, and have their root in holocaust denial, which is usually used to belittle that genocide, and, not coincidentally, promulgate nazi ideology.

    • noway says:

      It is a very American point of view, but I think you overstate the rest of the world’s people are in favor of your point of view. How could you possibly know that, many countries have censored media and know no other way, maybe they would like to have complete freedom of speech but not something they understand. Even if you are right though, doesn’t make your point of view more valid or correct. Kaiser’s point is her headline is accurate, and some people went nuts. Still the headline is accurate. Amal is fighting against some freedom of speech.

      Now the point about hate speech I find interesting. As people think because it would be criminally illegal it would not exist. I find that extremely naive. If people want to spew hate they will, just underground. I would rather have it out in the open, so others can tell the facts and let it die on its own merit.

      • Lucrezia says:

        Noway: The rest of us don’t understand free speech? That is ridiculously condescending. I’m sure you didn’t mean it to come out that way, but go back and re-read what you wrote. And keep in mind, the specific country we’re talking about here (with the denial of genocide law) is Switzerland – which outranks the US in any education or Freedom of Press index you care to name. (For the record, I’m Australian, and the Swiss kick our asses in most indexes too. So that’s not a slur, just a reminder that perhaps they know what they’re doing.)

        As an Aussie, I am strongly in favour of anti hate-speech laws. Not because I’m ignorant: but because I’m happy to give up person freedoms for the good of society. It’s not just this one topic either. Most countries lean more socialist (collectivist?) than the US on individual vs society topics like universal health care or social safety nets or unions. It’s an entirely different attitude toward individual rights/duties.

      • wolfpup says:

        I agree, this is totally a debate at this point, which some judge or type of jury, will decide. Debate is good…

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        ” As people think because it would be criminally illegal it would not exist. I find that extremely naive. If people want to spew hate they will, just underground. I would rather have it out in the open, so others can tell the facts and let it die on its own merit.”

        Well, it would be naïve, yes. But who in their right mind actually thinks that? We (Germans) do have laws restricting free speech in some areas. For good reasons, which I think I’ve mentioned somewhere further up. We know it doesn’t keep people from spewing hate and plain old bs, i.e. denying facts. But the laws do keep people from perpetuating certain “ideas” in some forms, e.g. history books. If you want that “out in the open” like that, fine. I don’t. We are still, 70 years later, working on dealing with our history, as we should. If you want crazy people to be able to work against that, that’s okay. I’ve never met a German who does. I want to see one person come up to a Holocaust survivor and defend the idiot who thinks he/she needs to write an extensive account of how none of it happened etc. to their face.

        I keep bringing up the Holocaust because a) this week there was nothing but this on tv, for obvious reasons and b) none of this right-win/Nazi crap is underground (not really). It’s very much out in the open. People just know how to circumvent the laws. Nobody’s hiding.

      • noway says:

        Lucrezia I didn’t say that the rest of you do not understand freedom of speech. I was responding to the response that what Kaiser had said was a very American point of view- which it is, although others I am sure share it, and that most people in Europe and Canada believe hate speech should be banned, and was saying that even some European countries do not have or don’t have any history of freedom of speech so how could they know exactly. I have a problem when people say everyone believes this way, as I think people would be quite surprised if they found out what the mythical “everyone” believes on anything. Sorry if it seemed condescending but it wasn’t meant that way, I was responding to the remark I clicked on.

        I find this conversation interesting and a great discussion, as American’s do have a history of letting all speech be free, and some other nations set boundaries. It’s always good to see and listen to other ideas. I still think it is more fair to let it all be said, as I wouldn’t want to be the one who judged what should be free to speak and what is not free to speak, and I am not sure who I would want doing that for me either.

        Speaking of another thing I have an issue with is the argument that these lies end up in our “history books.” They are not “history books” when they spew basic facts that are wrong, then they should be called what they are fiction.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        @ noway: Look at any group with extreme views and you’ll find that it’s very easy to distort fiction into fact. You just have to repeat it often enough. Like anti-choice groups who sincerely believe a fetus looks like a fully formed newborn at 6 weeks of gestation. It’s not that hard to perpetuate a lie and make enough people believe it. Once you’re there, facts have very little meaning especially when it’s about ideology. History is a very easy thing to manipulate. If you read enough history book, you know.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Noway, very few European countries had or have no history of freedom of speech. In fact, I can think of only one. You sound artogant. We do know, exactly. I absolutely agree with the statement that in Europe anf Canada the very dominating opinion is for hate speech to be banned and indeed, we don’t share the American attitude.

      • Samsuzzanne says:

        I find this conversation interesting as an American who spent about a month traveling across Europe last spring. One of the things my husband and I noted over and over again as we traveled was the shocking amount of racist and offensive things people felt comfortable openly saying- shopkeepers, hotel staff, waiters, etc.- we had so many experiences with people randomly insulting Jews, gypsies, mocking foreigners, etc. that it was startling. While racism is definitely a huge problem still in the US, it’s interesting that even with a greater freedom of speech, you hear such open racism much less here (I’ve been to 25 states and while I have seen a horrible kkk protest once, I’ve never had a random stranger or sales clerk spout racist things to me). Whatever the restrictions are on free speech in some if these European countries (& yes, we heard things like this in Switzerland), we encountered a much greater openness in openly spouting offensive/racist things during our visits. Maybe these subcurrents are why so many Europeans feel like restrictions on some types of speech are still needed? The racial and cultural differences felt much more apparent and hostile during our time there, though Im sure part of that is being more accustomed to the US’s issues.

        I guess my overall point is, while there may be laws and restrictions on some types of speech, people still seemed to feel pretty comfortable saying whatever they wanted in their day to day lives. Too comfortable for my tastes!

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      “Preventing hate speech could help to prevent other awful event to happen. If racist/xenophobe charismatic leader is not allow to give his speech, he might get less following. If a moron cannot spread his idiotic view, less people might communicated them.”

      Then who exactly decides what constitutes “hate speech”??? It may seem cut and dry to you, but its a slippery slope. What happens the day when someone decides what you have to say is “hate speech” or a “moronic” point of view?

      • siri says:

        I agree. The thing I fear more than ‘morons’ saying the most outragious things, are repressed opinions, because they WILL look for a ventile to be made known otherwise. It somehow follows the line of ‘political correctness’, only saying ‘proper’ things, and, in the end, not being honest about your thoughts. I see danger in this. It also might open the door to a lot of false accusations, because we all know how often things are misinterpreted, misquoted, or simply turned around to prove a point. Somehow, I don’t think it’s a good idea to make a difference between “this” and “that” opinion, as in harmless, or not.

      • MP says:

        We are talking about denying facts. There is a big difference between denying that genocides have happened and saying racially offensive things. The first is illegal the second is not. Some truths are so important that they need to be protected from people who would like to distort them for their agenda.
        The time when there will be no one left who experienced WWII and all the horrors first hand is very near. We need to make sure we leave the future generations the truth of what happened so they can stop it from happening again.
        I do believe the lives of thousands or millions of people are more important than absolute freedom of speech which doesn’t actually exist anywhere anyway.

      • noway says:

        MP you should read up on USC’s Shoah Foundation that records the history of not just Holocaust victims, but victims of other genocides and wars. It is a truly an inspiring idea for future generations to hear the word from the victims themselves.

    • Sister Carrie says:

      “While I loathe politicians who deny genocide, people shouldn’t go to jail or face financial penalties for saying ignorant things.” <—but this is NOT protected speech in the US. Freedom of speech in the US neans that citizens have the right to freely criticize their government without fear of reprisal. You cannot just run your mouth without repercussions. I have the right to bitch at my boss, sure, and she has the right to fire me for it.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Thank you for that! That’s how I understood it and always wondered what this “absolute” freedom of speach people appraise here is! In this case we, Europeans,are right there without even the need of legislation. We, as a whole, are famous for criticizing all powers that be. Government, president, police, etc. They are the topic on every second table at the cafe and our favorite boys for beating.

  12. boredblond says:

    No, the real battle is who can be the most emaciated..gotta love the photo of her smiling for courtroom paps..can’t think of anyone who has so completely believed their own press.

  13. sad DSA says:

    What the—? Her nail polish colour is so irrelevant to quality of work. I work in the public sector too and I can wear whatever nail polish I want as long as I get the job done, and that standard should apply to her too.

    Also: FYI, 32 is pretty green in international relations/international law and the public sector in general (I got my first supervisory position about 3 years after my former classmates in the private sector started reaching that level). IIRC some international organisations’ maximum age limit for interns is like 30? And 32 also happens to be the cut-off age for the UN Young Professionals Programme, and I think I have a PDF report somewhere about the average entry-level age being early 30′s or something (so, Amal is totally NOT a late-bloomer). Plenty of my friends who majored in international law actually gave up and gave in and started working in the private sector and/or Big Law because it’s so competitive, positions are scarce in the international public sector, the fact that she’s doing cases in Strasbourg at all (at age 36) is EFF-ING AMAZING.

    And, frankly, while I don’t like the spotlight, if I had that level of publicity on my causes, I’d be pretty happy and smug too.

    • SunnyD says:

      Excellent post and thank you for the perspective.

    • Ariadne says:

      That’s interesting to hear.

    • Jessica says:

      Thank-you! I find it so odd that people here seem to think the fact she’s not on the same level as Geoffrey Robertson as some sign that she’s not that great at her job. She’s 36 years old, of course she’s working with more senior barristers/QC’s.

      Her career trajectory is highly impressive for her age. I know people 15 years older who would kill to be working on cases she was working on in her late 20′s.

  14. Rachel says:

    Star is the worst. I think Amal has more important things to think about.

  15. Kiddo says:


  16. scout says:

    I agree with you Kaiser. I watched the video of her “argument” against overturning charges of a guy who expressed his opinion and had been convicted for his opinion. Her Boss Robertson had made her a pawn in his bidding because she attracts attention to his case and she is loving it. I can’t believe this guy got convicted just for saying what he thought even if it is stupid as saying Armenian Genocide didn’t happen!
    Millions of people say that Martians are visiting and medically probing us, USA didn’t really land on the Moon, Holocaust didn’t happen, found a dead Alien in New Mexico, one religion is better than all others, JFK was assassinated by CIA, and many many more theories like these. Are we going to arrest, charge and convict each one of them just because they express their opinions, even if they are the moronic opinions? does Freedom of Speech only applies if we say what others like? Where is the democracy in that?
    Hope Supreme court stays with their judgement of over turning his previous conviction, it’s only fair, IMO.
    Her boss has written a book about Armenian Genocide and I read that they are all attending memorial day in April along with Kardashians and Kloonys. Good for them, they are bringing attention to a cause but tone down with the PR little bit before we start hating! I also don’t need to see her mug from “inside” the courtroom.
    Fashion Police and others can express their opinions too, take that with pinch of salt, Mrs.big hands in white gloves! Yup, I said it.

    • Brittney B says:

      She wasn’t arguing a case in the United States, though. “Free speech” doesn’t mean the same thing in this case as it does in your life.

    • Isadora says:

      In many European countries you go to jail if you even doubt the number of vicitms of the holocaust. So yes, you get convicted for certain moronic opinions.

    • vauvert says:

      Free speech is one thing, and hate speech is another. Also the laws in US and EC vary greatly, as several others have already pointed out. And even in the US I presume that there are things where the right to free speech would be trumped by, oh I don’t know, the civil and human rights of the others. Would the KKK be allowed to march around in the white pointy hats inciting hatred and publishing articles? I doubt it, and it’s for a very good reason.

      Also, I don’t see how the size of Amal’s hands has anything to do with her job?? That is just a mean playground comment, with no relevance to the discussion. As for her position in this case, just like a teacher does not only teach her favourite pupils, or a doctor does not only treat likeable patients, her personal opinion (whatever it may be) has nothing to do with her showing up in court and doing her job.

      • boredblond says:

        Actually, the kkk can publish any thing they want..99.9 percent of people won’t read it and consider it garbage but there’s an old saying that unpopular speech is the only speech that needs protecting. Stupid opinions don’t threaten a solid society..requiring everyone to think and speak alike seems so intolerant.

      • noway says:

        Yes the KKK is allowed to march and has published articles inciting hatred in the US for years. Usually there are another set of people marching against them at the same time. The KKK have dwindled down considerably in the last decades, although they still exist. I know it is very different in the EC and other countries, but in the US we fight hate speech by bringing it out in the open and letting most others see it for what it truly is stupid.

        Now as far as Amal’s hands, well I just don’t understand these comments either. People just love to pick on dumb things. I don’t think and hope this story isn’t true, because then it would mean she has truly drank the Hollywood Kool-aid.

      • wolfpup says:

        I have big hands – so I need *large* stones on all of my rings to fit them.

        I think that her hands are beautifully formed; super manicured as well. Are we now body-shaming one’s hands?

      • Geekychick says:

        @boredblond yes, in Us KKK can march freely, and that is what I would find worrisome. the problem in leting hate speech fly with excuse of free spech, is that by that you open the doors to seriously harming people-Armenian people deserve, at least, for the truth not to be doubted, as the holocaust victims, or the victims of Srebrenica genocide. When it’s denied, when it’s excused and when the others let it pass nonchalantly, without any consequemces, it sends the message that maybe it’s ok, maybe it’s the truth-I don’t know how to translate it smoothly in English-basically, denying cold hard truths NEVeR leads to society to facing it’s problem, discovering the cause, and finding solutions to change. It just makes a fertile ground for the same hate and crimes to be done again. Trust me.
        The other side of this story was censure of free speech in communism-but that is somethimg completely different, trust me:you’d get punished for speaking the facts, not fiction.

      • Hazel says:

        Well, I think that’s what Skokie was all about–the Klan wanting to rally wearing their pointy little white hoods & the locals objecting. I need to refresh my memory on this, but I think the ACLU argued on behalf of the Klan. As someone said above–it’s unpopular speech that needs protection.

    • Lara says:

      oh please Scout, the turkish politician has an agenda. he wasn’t innocently stating an opinion in some random place. and he isn’t some moron. he knew exactly what he was doing. he and the people behind him wont stop until all the laws that prevent the denial of the Armenian genocide are abolished. if he is left alone, don’t be surprised when later on the Armenian genocide becomes merely an opinion!

    • Mary-Alice says:

      I can’t help but wonder what would happen in the USA if any given politician tours the world promoting the idea tHat slavery in the USA never happened. Not just rambling but seriously defending the idea. FReedom of speech will be forgotten as soon as the first voices of black people are heard!

  17. rudy says:

    I like Amal but I can’t help but think she sold her soul to the devil, eyes wide open.

  18. maeliz says:

    I’d be so embarrassed if I made gloves that ridiculously didn’t fit, and wore them for everyone to see. Right after we saw them, we all started talking, but that’s what happens when you’re a celebrity.

  19. Judyk says:

    I very much doubt Amal cares what anyone thinks about what she does or does not wear. Shallow she’s not.

  20. vava says:

    The part of this story I find most interesting is Two Faced Rancic. Yeah, she raved over the gloves to Amal, but on Fashion Police she dissed them. I loved that Kelly called her out on that! LOL

    • GoOnGirl! says:

      @ vava. You are so right. Don’t know what it is, but G. Rancic has changed. She has turned into a two-faced bit*ch.

      • vava says:

        The way she behaves lately on Fashion Police is a bit over the top, as well. In some ways it looks as if she’s holding court. I’d love to have my own show to comment on HER hair, makeup, and fashion!

    • Jessica says:

      That’s why I hate all the fashion commentators on these types of shows. They interview the celeb and and they’re all nice and sweet, then later they say the most awful things about their bodies and looks and style. Even Joan Rivers was guilty of it, she’d be polite to the celebrity and as soon as they turn their back she was making disgusted faces and calling them fat and ugly.

      Either be a raging bitch to people’s faces and give them a chance to call you on it, or just shut up.

  21. Jonesy says:

    My goodness, she looks just like Joan Crawford in that first picture. I blame it on the eyebrows. Please don’t have any children, Amal, or else we’ll have to start calling you Mommy Dearest.

  22. NeoCleo says:

    The gloves were not that bad. Peace out.

  23. Amelie says:

    Re: Freedom of Speech, Voltaire said:
    “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it.”

    • Mary-Alice says:

      I think Voltaire deserves much better than misusing his words and turning him into a defender of lies.

      • Amelie says:

        Perhaps Voltaire’s statement would make better sense to you if it is understood in this way ….

        When we qualify something like ‘freedom of speech,’ we are setting a limit. If freedom, which is the absence of limits, has limits is it really freedom?

        For example, I see alot of heinous things done in the name of re: art concerning religious topics in my country. I frankly find this stuff offensive. But allowing this expression is a necessary part of freedom of expression.

  24. The Original G says:

    If this means that Guiliana Rancic might be finally be prosecuted for her fashion crimes, I’m all for it.

    • vava says:


      Did you see the dress she wore on the most recent Fashion Police? When she sat down, it barely covered her crotch. I guess if she can’t show off her gaunt upper body, then she has to expose the entire leg. And yeah, she needs a new hairdo, too.

  25. Mia4S says:

    I’ve read this whole thread and seen repeated snarky comments about her looks, her choice to marry, and her being used by her boss. Not one critisism of the quality of her work or actual comments she has made.


    I can pretty much guarantee she doesn’t know or doesn’t care who Guliann or whatever her name is, is. Also, what special treatment? Time and a place. Would you be OK with a reporter following Angelina Jolie around a refugee camp asking what her feels are on Jen and Justin getting married? No, because it’s pathetic! Time and a place.

  26. Murphy says:

    If you want to get back at her–bring a really big cup cake to the next awards show and make her eat it on camera.

  27. Yep says:

    Anorexic fight! Anorexic fight! Anorexic fight!

  28. vava says:

    I watched when Rancic interviewed the Clooneys and neither of them warmed up to her. It seemed quite awkward really.

    • someonestolemyname says:

      You should have seen NBC, one reporter told George , I guess you showed Tina and Amy after the joke about last year. Here you are this year back at the Globes and married.

      ….George looked pissed for a second and said “THAT’S not why I did IT”

      …Amal stood, SAID NOTHING and just looked shifty….LOL

    • The Original G says:

      I’m not a fan of Rancic, or, the red carpet designer merchandising in general, but who is Clooney to be cool to Rancic? He’s and entertainer and she’s an entertainment reporter. they both have jobs to do.

      As for Arnal, this is like when you have to attend you husband’s Christmas party. Curling you lip up at his work, his success, his massive source of income and his colleagues is rude. She can’t act about something she is actually oh-so-committed to. She have to find the right line to walk. I give her amnesty on this pair of gloves, but that’s it.

  29. Anna says:

    I think that many, such as myself, were quite “pro-Amal” in terms of her brains and beauty combination, which is not so uncommon–many women fit that bill, in cities grand or modest. The turn-off, so to speak, was her wedding, which *did, in fact, make her seem too into the fame aspect. I would have believed more in them as a couple had that event been very low-key, perhaps even totally private, and definately small. She has invited much of the “speculation” one reads in these comments. It is not necessarily an envy factor at work.

    • Jayna says:

      I don’t mind the wedding, because it was fun to watch. I think my turn-off to her is the way she loves the camera, seems to revel in being papped. I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt on that in the beginning, until it happened over and over and over. She loves her photo-ops, with the paps, whether on the street, leaving restaurants, airports, etc. Half the time she is looking over at the camera. That just comes across so fame-hoey.

      • daughterofjean says:

        I disagree regarding her love for the camera. I’d say the camera loves her. She seems rather shy or embarrassed by it in my opinion. She’s no fluff piece nor does she want to be.

      • wolfpup says:

        I loved the photo-ops, the paps in the streets, leaving restaurants, airports, etc., even when she is looking over at the camera. She looks so fine – I would like to be happy for her.

        PR is a bitch: it can’t always be fun.

      • Jessica says:

        She is a barrister, she was never going to be shy and retiring in the face of attention.

        She doesn’t seem to be purposefully seeking it out, but she’s not avoiding it either. I’m not sure what’s so wrong about that. Isn’t that what most people here think celebs should do? The general consensus here is usually that celebrities who call the paps daily and court attention via stunts are gross, but that celebs that hide their faces, look pissed off or pained by it or hide/run from the cameras are idiots too. It seems to me she’s behaving perfectly. She’s going about her life as she would without the press intrusion, and when they happen to photograph her she’s playing along without actually engaging. Just like Clooney always does.

        If she was being a drama queen about being photographed everyone here would be saying ‘what did she expect marrying him?’.

      • wolfpup says:

        I’m totally with you, daughterofjean.

    • snowflake says:

      i thought their wedding sounded like a blast and very original. I don’t hold it against her. a lot of women think of their wedding as their special day. also, george might have been the one wanting the festivities, he seems kinda full of himself. if she did, so what? it’s her wedding!

      • taylor says:

        It’s not the wedding itself that made them look media hungry. It was the many, MANY pics and stories they allowed to be published after that caused people to question their intentions to marry.

  30. cleo says:

    Where Clooneys go, can the Casamigos logo be far behind? Considering the OTT tequila promotion that was their wedding and their MO, not surprising they might be a bit touchy about it.

  31. md1979 says:

    Judging by the “je suis charlie” pins that both Amal and George were wearing, including in the photo with this story, I’d assume they’re both strongly in favor of free speech. Just because she was arguing against free speech in court while REPRESENTING A CLIENT doesn’t meant those are her personal beliefs. As an advocate, it would be her ethical duty to her client to advance every legitimate argument in favor of that client’s case, including some that would advance a view she may not personally hold.

    • word says:

      I don’t get the whole “Je suis Charlie” thing. France wants freedom of speech but doesn’t allow freedom of religion. They enforce a turban ban in that country. How is that right? No person wearing a turban is allowed in France. I think that is ridiculous and hypocritical of them.

      • Hazel says:

        Yeah, I always thought that odd in a ‘free’ country.

      • manta says:

        You have freedom of religion in France guaranteed by the state, providing you keep it a private matter. The full title of the Minister of Interior is “Ministre de l’Intérieur et des cultes.”

        There’s no turban ban either. I’m not sure of your chose of term because a turban what Eva Mendes puts on her head and I can assure no one has ever been deported for wearing that.
        Jewish women can cover their hair, muslim women too. Hidjabs (headscarves) are allowed, abbayas (integral garment forbidding to see one’s face) aren’t. The same way you’re not allowed to walk public places with a ski mask or an integral moto helmet. The restriciton concerns public schools, public jobs: and every religious sign is treated the same way (crosses, kippas). You can totally wear them if you chose to go to confessional schools, which are permitted and partially funded by public money.

        Public money is also used to finance places for ritual slaughters. It’s a matter of public health and safety.
        I don’t know which part of France you refer to but mine has a mosque (call to prayer heard several times a day), a church, a Hindu temple, multiple protestant cults and a taoist temple. Same for cemeteries. And I can assure you, no person in uniform ever shows up to these places to cuff people and deport them.

      • Hazel says:

        Manta: thank you for the clarification.

    • Amelie says:

      “Just because she was arguing against free speech in court while REPRESENTING A CLIENT doesn’t meant those are her personal beliefs.”

      I am one of those people who take issue with the notion of separating one’s(personal) beliefs from their actions-in any venue.

      A belief is the conviction of the truth of some statement etc. So if someone holds a particular religious belief for example on the sanctity of life, I do not think that it is possible to limit one’s actions concerning this issue just because it doesn’t take place in a personal venue. A good example is politicians who state they are against abortion PERSONALLY, but support abortion thru their platforms or legislative votes. Although I chose the sanctity of life issue, the same would hold for freedom of speech. Logically, arguing legally against free speech even in a particular case works against free speech in general. Successful arguments against free speech could lay the groundwork for the loss of this right. So, I am critical of Amal and anyone else who espouses that one’s work actvities or work product can be separated from one’s personal beliefs. Beliefs are not apparel that one takes off and puts on when it’s convenient; they are an integral part of one’s character.

      • wolfpup says:

        Amelie, your comments are why it would be nice to hear the arguments in this case. I don’t believe that it is really possible to make a judgment concerning Amal, without them.

      • Amelie says:


        My point was that Amal has already made a statement (about freedom of speech & her beliefs) by working on this case.

  32. JoleenMean says:

    LOVE Ede and Ravenscroft. I wore their signature scholar’s gown while at Oxford.

  33. siri says:

    Just on a side note, did anybody notice that while Amal was away working, George had another alcohol-fueled party at Asanebo’s?

    • taylor says:

      Yes, Amal married a drunk.

    • Amelie says:

      Folks are set in their ways at 53 years of age, hence my comments on another thread re: Amal putting him on a stringent diet. I doubt excessive amounts of alcohol are part of this diet! Amal can’t say that she didn’t know who and what he is.

  34. CH2 says:

    But people DO go to jail for saying stupid thing in America. People who put threatening things on the facebook wall, for instance, have gone to jail… even though it was obvious the person was kidding.

  35. Barbara says:

    I don’t really follow fashion, but even I was startled when I first saw Amal in them. It just looked too odd to me.

  36. manta says:

    “people shouldn’t go to jail or face financial penalties for saying ignorant things. ”
    I don’t know one person in France who’s in jail for saying ignorant things. Even the most prominent negationists/revisionists never saw the inside of a cell.
    It’s not just saying ignorant things. It’s who says them (their influence and power)and the exact content of their speech.

    They rarely stop at a simple denying. What puts them in front of a court is generally what follows: well, they werent exterminated, so there are still some of them among us. Hence the job remains to be done. Of course, they’re clever enough to phrase it that i’ts not a direct call for murder but that’s what it is at the end.
    As for the who: people react as if one moron casually sipping his expresso at the counter while denying the Holocaust was scooped by a squad and put in a donjon . No, authorities don’t waste their resources on the idiot of the block. The figures targeted are those slick enough to infiltrate the system, using success in some academic fields (literature, philosophy) to reach tenure in schools, University. These people have a power to give grades, take part in jury exams, have the power to fail students.Their salary is public money, they’re employed by the state and it would be simply illegal to fire them.
    The only way to bar them from public jobs is if they have a record. I have no problem wit this approach. The just sit-there-everyone-with-a-brain-will-see-through one hasn’t been so efficient to this day.

    I’m sure thousands of Tutsis would have welcomed with relieve a ban for hate speech on Radio Mille collines.Apparently a Harvard University researcher estimates that 9.9% of the participation in the genocidal violence was due to the broadcasts. The estimate of the study suggests that approximately 51,000 deaths were caused by the station’s broadcasts.
    The international criminal tribunal for Rwanda (formed with the approval of the US, with US members) condemned for genocide members of this broadcast, some magazine directors too, people who never handle the machete themselves, who just talked through a mic or printed articles.
    And finally didn’t the United States military draft a plan to jam RTLMC’s broadcasts at one point? I guess even some Americans are sometimes ok with a limitation of free speech.

  37. Hearthering says:

    This story has irked me so much. The Telegraph journo DID NOT ask “who” she was wearing! He’s a serious journo who frequently covers ECHR proceedings. He commented directly to AC and her boss G Robertson QC (during a court break) that he was surprised at the Pap interest (Paps who were allowed in court with AC’s blessing) as that doesn’t, the implication being “shouldn’t”, usually happen in serious cases at this level. He then JOKED directly to AC “they [the Paps] probably expected you to turn up in Versace” to which she made the now being iconised [sic] robes response. He was pointing out the absurdity of it all – in support of a woman in a serious workplace SHOULD NOT be viewed through a Pap led media fashion prism. NOW, someone (most likely Clooney PR) are briefing the press to make it look as AC made some heroic fem stand in the face of an ignorant journo. The guy concerned is clearly fed up (see his Twitter) with being made to look a fool by misrepresentation by others.

  38. Lorenzo says:

    Her answer is a little strange for a person who has a silly blog online which is all about her designer outfits, make up and her oh so beautiful pictures.

    She seems to spend more time with make up, dressing up to the nine and getting ready for the paps than anybody else on this planet, so she shouldn’t act like smarty pants when asked about it.

  39. Jen says:

    I liked the gloves.