The Jolie’s gold band

March 26, 2013 14:52:25 Posted at March 26, 2013 14:52:25
Lainey Posted by Lainey
Photos:
Keystone

Angelina Jolie is in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda this week with British Foreign Secretary William Hague “to call on all governments to help eradicate sexual violence in conflicts”. Can you believe that’s even something that has to be actioned? That that is what we have to make a point of TELLING PEOPLE NOT TO DO? Hey, when you’re bombing each other and sh-t, can you please not rape the women and the children?

(Jolie’s) 2011 film In The Land Of Blood And Honey depicted the experiences of women in the infamous rape camps set up during ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and was a catalyst for the UK initiative, the Foreign Office said.

Jolie said: "This visit is about hearing first hand from people who have endured rape and sexual violence during the conflict in the Eastern DRC. We want to identify ways in which the international community can help them to rebuild their lives. Unless the world acts, we will always be reacting to atrocities, treating survivors rather than preventing rape in the first place. I welcome the United Kingdom's efforts to galvanise the international action that is so desperately needed."  -- Source

Here’s the Jolie leaving from LA on Saturday en route to her mission. As you can see, she’s not wearing her massive engagement diamond and has replaced it with a gold ring, though this time it’s likely not a sign of marriage as it is a gesture of propriety. Not exactly something you want to wave in the face of someone who’s been tortured.

In other Jolie news, two of her kids Maddox and Pax, were photographed playing soccer together the other day. Their parents weren’t there. Those photos, though posted on many blogs, were not -- at least not that I saw though admittedly I wasn’t refreshing every 5 minutes -- posted on either PEOPLE.com or USMAGAZINE.com. Not sure if it’ll make the print edition of the magazines but it’s still an interesting editorial position -- does this mean that pictures of celebrity children will only be published if accompanied by their famous parents? OR is this a unique example, as we’ve certainly seen images of Suri Cruise, for example, on her own, without her mother or father framed in the shot?

As I’ve noted before, if celebrities really, really wanted to not be shot with their kids, supporting the funding source for the photos is kinda undermining their position, non? PEOPLE’s Celebrity Baby site is highly trafficked, and celebrities regularly grant interviews to the outlet for that section, sometime alongside a paparazzi photo of themselves with their children. But it’s not like PEOPLE wouldn’t respond to an edict, especially from the most popular and influential stars. Was this then an edict from the Brange, or an editorial decision so as to not piss them off? And if it was a deliberate move so as to not piss them off, does that mean that they actually would have minded in the first place? How many of them actually mind it?

Previous Article Next Article