Angelina Jolie’s BBC keynote speech on refugee crises was amazing


Yesterday, Angelina Jolie went the BBC headquarters in London and delivered an absolutely incredible speech about the ongoing refugee crises in the world. This speech was announced more than a month ago – the BBC organized a day full of special programming, all focused on refugees and humanitarian crises around the world. Angelina was the keynote speaker. The speech was… amazing. In the past 15 years, she’s done so much work on refugee and humanitarian issues, she’s considered one of the most prominent and respected advocates for refugees in the world. This speech reflects that – she offers the historical context for the current crisis, takes the UK and other nations to task for their (at times) bungled efforts to deal with refugees and she offers concrete solutions for dealing with refugees and humanitarian crises in the months, years and decades to come. Here is her whole speech:

As you can imagine, some British news sites are already saying that Angelina “blasted” British people for even considering Brexit (the British exit from the EU), and there are some claiming that Angelina is slamming the EU’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis. The word that I kept thinking was “measured” though – Angelina is making reference to terrible reactions to refugee crises from America to Europe to the Middle East to Asia. She’s arguing for an acknowledgment that we live in a global community, that what happens in Syria affects someone in London, someone in Stockholm, someone in Toronto, someone in Philadelphia.

I also believe Jolie was making several references to Donald Trump’s increasingly intolerant, ignorant and offensive hate speech about migrants, refugees, Muslims and more. After the speech, Jolie did a Q&A session and she was asked point-blank about Trump’s attitude towards Muslims. She said: “To me, America is built on people from around the world coming together for freedoms, especially freedom of religion. So it’s hard to hear this is coming from someone who is pressing to be an American president.” Fun fact: Trump is tight with her dad, and Trump has specifically said nasty sh-t about Angelina in the past. Angelina has never engaged with Trump directly, and my guess is that this is the biggest “anti-Trump” message she’s going to give.


Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News, Fame/Flynet and WENN.

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

157 Responses to “Angelina Jolie’s BBC keynote speech on refugee crises was amazing”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sam says:

    I absolutely love and adore this woman. I am 22 years old and while I love some of the female actresses of my generation, I wish more of them would be like this woman.

    • Pamels says:

      Well, she wasn’t like this in her early 20s..

      • Emma - The JP Lover says:

        @Pamela, who wrote: “Well, she wasn’t like this in her early 20s.”

        Well, she wasn’t still ‘in’ her early 20s when she began her Humanitarian work, was she? She was 25 or 26 years old–depending on whether she started in 2000 or 2001–when she began her Humanitarian work.

      • cr says:

        I don’t understand this line of reasoning, whether it’s aimed at AJ or a certain ginger prince. I think it’s a wonderful thing that she’s become the person she is now, instead of staying the one she was 15-20 years ago. Were you hoping she didn’t grow up?

      • paranormalgirl says:

        And I wasn’t a settled down psychiatrist in my early 20’s. Your point?

      • Jaded says:

        I wasn’t a Reiki therapist treating cancer patients for free in my twenties. No need for snark when she’s clearly devoted to her humanitarian work.

      • Brittney says:

        No, but even before she gained perspective & devoted herself to helping others, she was still in a league of her own. Say what you will about her self-destructive past or what (may or may not have actually) happened in her romantic life, but she has always been incredibly honest and true to herself.

        I, for one, am *thrilled* that my young teenage self had a proud bisexual role model who threw herself into her creative projects and didn’t feel the need to conform to sexist standards about how pretty women should dress and speak and behave. No, she wasn’t making healthy choices in her early 20s… but I’m not ashamed to say that she made it possible for me to love myself and find my own identity in the late 90s, when society was still hostile to women like us and NONE of her peers even came close.

      • Maleficent says:

        I don’t understand the seeming attacks on Pamels comment. I think the posts point was, in response to the previous posters statement that she wished more actresses her age were as “woke” as Angie, that AJ had to grow into becoming the person she is today. It’s true, at 22 she wasn’t as selfless and involved in the state of refugee affairs as she is now.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Just wanted to sneak in here and thank you. My hospital offered free Reiki therapy when I was having six weeks of radiation, and my eyes are filled with tears as I remember how comforting and helpful it was. Please know that you are truly helping people overcome their fears and find their strength When they really need it. Bless you.

      • Kimbers says:

        Love her speech. Ive listened to a few small businesses talk about leaving the EU, and the reasoning was pretty shallow, and had nothing to do with politics or business. It was a pride thing. Similar to what you hear a sports fan say about their favorite team. To each their own. We all have opinions.
        Love her speech.
        I can believe how many self-centered & entitled people are out there, because they make others shine brighter. The world isnt dark yet and hopefully wont ever. Fear mongering works until the people realize that they’re being played.

      • Nike says:

        My Mother loved and admired her. Said she could tell Jolie was a kind and classy lady.

        My Mom had good instincts.

      • Aimee says:

        Very few people stay the same as when they were teens or young twenty somethings. It’s called growth. Still, she was always, even as a child, someone with a huge heart who supported those without a voice and those oppressed. Her dad has told stories about helping a worker at her school to get his job back. Also she had a great role model in her mom, Marcheline. Her mom was big on helping others and giving back.

      • Belle Epoch says:

        I got the same reaction from someone else: “well this is proof that SOME people can change.” I suspect there are a zillion Christians out there who had her on their Naughty List because she did some “wild” things in her youth. She had a lot to work through, especially because of her father, who seems to be a total jerk. Like many young women she was probably looking for love in all the wrong places and probably showing off a bit. Who among us hasn’t done that in our 20s? She did some dumb movies, made a zillion dollars, then assembled a United Nations of children and went on to spend YEARS AND YEARS doing philanthropic work we don’t even hear about. I saw a film of her meeting with an old woman refugee and listening to her story of horror, and she was clearly genuine, kind, concerned, and distressed. AJ is one in a billion and I adore her.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Maybe I read Pamela’s comment wrong…but to me it was saying that those 20-something actresses out there now might not seem like they have this potential, but great things can come from unexpected people. I read it as Angelina grew, the other actresses from Sam’s generation might grow as well. I didn’t read it as a dig on AJ.

      • Neil says:

        I liked her a LOT when she was in her early 20’s because of the crazy girl she was then. I was a guy in his 40’s then and so I think I understood something about growing phases and I loved that she did all the stuff one is ALLOWED to do when that age. The idea is that you don’t pretend you’re middle aged when you are in your 20’s and pretend you’re still in your 20’s when you are middle aged. She has “been there, done that” and now she is somewhere else living loud and unafraid.

    • lisa2 says:

      I’m a fan too.. and no one hopefully is like they were in their 20’s It is a hope that we all grow up mature and become more aware of the world and ourselves.. Something she has done..

      Sadly there are still people that can’t move beyond her past.. She has but some just keep going back to 15-20 years ago.. pretty much a life time in some ways.

      • Maleficent says:

        I agree. Hell, I’m not like I was in my 20s!

        Still, I took Pamels’ comment more as a positive statement rather than putdown. I don’t think it was criticism on Angelina, just a comment on today’s 22 year old actors and where they may be in time.

    • CornyBlue says:

      I think the new generation of teen actresses are very much aware and so damn intelligent about social issues like Amandla, Zendaya etc. I mean of course they are not at her level and probably will never get there but they give me hope

  2. Greenieweenie says:

    “I therefore put my thoughts before you with humility and respect, seeking to understand all points of view”–yeah, that sounds like “blasted.”

    I do research in a closely related subfield and the reason why this is an excellent speech is because it was clearly crafted alongside someone with a background in the field–probably one of her partners. Yet she has also considered her role and how she can leverage her celebrity to some good. Two points: this is a field where a lot of people think they don’t need an education in order to opine (so bravo to anyone who gets one first, eg. Trump vs Angelina) and I don’t know what more you could ask of an actress. At this point, I wouldn’t call her an actress; she really has earned the title of humanitarian.

    • lower-case deb says:

      i think Arminka Helic was the one who was smiling and clapping enthusiastically at the end of the video? i’m sure Angelina wrote it with at least Helic, especially to get a feel of the British public so it’s not too much of a fail?

      i find her comment interesting about the economic migrant vs. refugee and whether these labels are important. i wish more time can also be spared for this discussion–the Afghani girl made some good points.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        The labels are important just because in order to make policy happen, you have to have administrative channels. Plus, economic migrants are being used as a reason to not respond more to the crisis by the press/politicians so I’m glad to see she made the distinction. And there is a real distinction: global poverty issues fall under different global governance schemes. She’s talking about the int’l regime for refugees only. Avoid mission creep!

        Principles for action, a call for coordination and enough specific detail to make her points policy relevant–good job.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Under US immigration law, economic migrants are not refugees unless they can prove that they have been persecuted in the past (or have a well-founded fear of future persecution) by the governments of their native countries (or by forces these governments cannot or will not control) on account of one or more of the following factors: race/ethnicity; national origin; religion; political opinion; or membership in a particular social group. Simply wishing to immigrate because one’s country is in the midst of a civil war and/or one cannot earn a living does not make a person a bona fide refugee.

        The US adheres very strictly to this. Many of the large groups of Central American children who crossed the border in 2015 have actually been determined to NOT meet this definition of refugee (an absolute prerequisite for granting asylum in the US). Sadly, when interviewed by USCIS asylum officers to determine if they had a credible fear such that they should be allowed to apply for asylum, many of these children said they crossed the border to reunite with their relatives in the US or for better school or work opportunities instead of saying they were scared of gangs like MS-13 or their home countries’ corrupt and persecutory governments. Family reunification and better standards of living are not reasons to declare them as refugees. But fear of gangs their countries’ governments cannot control is a valid ground for granting them protection from deportation.

        So yes, the distinction between economic migrants and refugees matters quite a lot. It can literally be the difference between life and death.

      • Jauet says:

        BearcatLawyer – same thing in the EU.
        Refugees- they go by the Geneva Convention of 1951; it states the requirements needed to be considered a refugee (persecution because of race, religion, etc…) and they have the basic right of “non refoulement” or not being sent back to they country they are fleeing from. It’s international Law here.
        Economic migrants come to work. The Member States decide who they let in based on economic considerations – national policies apply.
        So, agree with you: the distinction matters an enormous amount and I think part of the animosity towards refugees stems from the fact that the media doesnt clarify this sufficiently.

  3. Sarah says:

    Her speech has had a very split reaction here in the UK. Some people feel that an American actress should not be lecturing Brits about the Brexit.
    She has not been universally praised over her involvement in this, like she has when she gets involved with other issues.

    Many comments about her speech are along the lines of “How many refugees are you going to be housing in your many mansions Angelina?”

    I understand her point, but she should be ready for some backlash in the UK, as many people want a Brexit.

    • Fa says:

      Like you & other British people didn’t understand her speech she was not talking abt brexit the media twist her speech & make it about brexit & UE. She was talking nations/country in general & as she said Europe host a fraction of refugees, lots of poor countries host more refugees than rich European countries

      • Sarah says:

        I’m not bashing her, but any mention of Brexit (no matter how minor) will make headlines in the UK. I was commenting on the reactions to Angelina’s speech, more than her actual speech. The Brexit debate has caused a divide here in the UK, and any public figure expressing an intention to vote leave or remain will be a target for both sides.

      • IrishGirl says:

        How many refugees will America who caused this crisis take in? How much Aid will you pay the EU to clean up your mess? Get educated

      • Sixer says:

        Brexit debate is toxic, Fa. Approaching Trump levels of toxic. Plus, the populist media are mostly for Brexit, so the reaction was entirely predictable. I wouldn’t bother engaging with it if I were you. Sarah’s is probably the most reasonable response you’re likely to get. Amirite, Sarah?!

      • Sarah says:

        @Sixer – hahaha. Even I can have moments of rational thinking.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        I didn’t hear references to Brexit. I heard references to policy fragmentation and lack of coordination–this is a common problem throughout the history of the int’l system. If Brits heard a Brexit critique, that speaks to their own myopia.

    • lisa2 says:

      Sadly some people in the UK didn’t actually listen to her speech. They read articles and took what was in them and posted uninformed comments. She never talked about Brexit.. she in fact talked at length that Countries have a first obligation to their citizens. That there does need to be registration and that Refugees have an obligation to follow those procedures that have already been in place.

      I think it is smart to read or hear what someone actually said instead of some biased interpretations of it.

    • DianaM. says:

      People are really saying:”How many refugees are you going to be housing in your many mansions Angelina”??? After years and years of her giving millions of dollars for different refugee causes and building schools in refugee camps and visiting and speaking for refugees around the world, they think that she is not doing enough or that she does not have the right to speak about it? My God.

      • Sarah says:

        Any mention of the Brexit by any public figure will cause a host of reactions. Some good and some bad.

      • lisa2 says:

        It is such a throw away comment. Like children use. This is such a uninformed way to respond.

      • Brittney says:

        EXACTLY. She has given more of herself — her money, her time, her physical safety, her entire career and public image for f’s sake — to refugees than anyone else with her amount of fame. And half of her children were refugees!

        Those comments need to be turned right back around on the commenters. If no one spoke out about people in need until they filled their homes with those people (a very short-term strategy, might I add), then nothing would ever get accomplished.

      • B n A fn says:

        In some people’s mind Angelina will never do enough in this world. I believe the hate comes from a place they don’t even understand. I’m just happy that she has give so much of her time, money, she gives 1/3 of her salary away each year. I’m not going to talk about the schools she has built ect.

      • TheOtherMaria says:

        TBF, I don’t think it’s about her doing enough and more xenophobia/racism from the British.

        People (mainly whites) don’t want a bunch of brown people coming into their area from war torn areas because Islam, fear mongering, blah blah blah…

        We (Americans) hear the same kind of crap about Latinos all the time–I mean how do you think Trump got so popular 😳

        I always laugh when non Americans point fingers at us and saying you should do better because this debate is proof that Europe isn’t exactly brimming with open arms– the hostility and rhetoric spewed is VERY familiar to Americans (white people are the same ANYWHERE when their numbers start to shrink).

        I do wish my country would do more than send money, we need to take in more people, especially with our role in this whole mess—sadly, it won’t happen, we’ve got too many gun nuts and the end result could be tragic.

        I’m glad Angelina found her cause, I watched her speech, she did indeed come from a place is humility and respect.

      • Pinky says:

        You are so right. As is she. But a speech is not going to change anything. I hope it is followed up by action across the globe. But the best way to prevent anything from happening is to nitpick one small point and then dismiss the whole thing and every other valid point she made out of hand because of it. It’s a strategy people use in order to maintain the status quo. Good job, Brexiters.


    • CornyBlue says:

      People who make comments like how many refugees are you going to be housing in your mansion Angelina obviously are not very bright and probably not someone Angelina should be bothered about.

    • Tarsha says:

      I actually think it’s quite sad that after all this time, some people only see her as an actress. I see her as a Humanitarian, first – and foremost. Her acting is a side venture. That’s how I see it anyway.

    • Aimee says:

      But she didn’t mention brexit At ALL. Why is it things she didn’t say or do(blasts, slams) is reported rather than what she does say in so many places in the media? People should listen to her actual words, then comment.

    • holly says:

      I took her comments very personally as an Australian; we have the most appalling policies regarding refugees, who most politicians refer to as “boat people”. We “house” these people offshore, sometimes for years, and then try to resettle them in Cambodia or New Guinea, neither of which have the infrastructure to deal with the needs of traumatised refugees. I am ashamed of our government policies.

  4. Maya says:

    Now that is how you answer back to a bully, racist and male chauvinistic a*se.

    Trump will now blow another fuss because another inteligent, powerful, beautiful and independent woman has put him in his place.

    As usual Angelina has delivered an amazing, on point and heart touching speech.

    She didn’t say anything about Brexit and only said that if you neighbour’s house is in fire then it is not enough to just close your doors.

    But as usual the media (Dailymail) twisted her words to get those angry Brexit supporters to attack Angelina.

    • lilacflowers says:

      Does he have time to go after Angie? What with his attacks on Elizabeth Warren (for which he is clearly getting the script from Scott Brown), I wouldn’t think he would have much time left over.

      • lower-case deb says:

        i for one think that Trump won’t really engage in any meaningful conversation with Angelina citing his good pal.
        along the lines of “you know i have words for you, but because you are the daughter my good pal, Jon Voight i’ll refrain.”

        thus putting himself as though he’s taking the high road; that he values the Machismo Bro Code; and putting Angelina in a “you’re a woman. no you’re a Girl. shoo and look pretty.”

        i think this is not outside the realm of possibility with Trump.

    • Pinky says:

      You know he’s behind closed doors with Jon Voight begging him to find a way to get his daughter Angelina to sleep with him. That’s our Trump! “He’s just being Trump.” Cue laughter.


  5. Capepopsie says:

    She has more dignity and integrity
    in her little finger than some people. .

  6. CTgirl says:

    Actually, the U.S. was built on the bodies of the conquered Native Americans. Angelina should visit a Native American reservation in the western U.S. and consider concentrating her considerable influence to solving the humanitarian crisis of the indigenous people in her own country.

    • lisa2 says:

      Brad and his Make it Right Foundation which Angie supports with MONEY TOO are building homes on Native American Reservations..

      Is that apology enough or what else would you have them do. I mean I guess you expect them to take care of every problem in the US.. And they do pay taxes so there’s that.

    • Greenieweenie says:

      Classic red herring logical fallacy

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Yep, parents who adopt children from outside the US deal with this too — “Why couldn’t you adopt an American child?” “Why did you have to go THERE?” — they usually know nothing about anything to do with adoption, domestic or non-domestic. It’s just an opportunity to sound off against anything remotely non-native.

      • isabelle says:

        Find people that always fall back on things like this, mocking those that help a lot, do the very opposite. Rarely help people but sure love to talk about others doing it and then judge their actions.

    • DianaM. says:

      Well, her mother was a supporter of Native American causes thought her life with her friend John Trudell, and Angelina donated and supported that monetarily and spoke about it in her interviews before and after her mothers death. Should she also solve wars and famines around the world, cure cancer and tackle global warming?

      • Neverwintersand says:

        Well, no one can argue the points she made in this brilliant speech. And the only way for the narrow-minded individuals and media to negate the effect that these words have is to attack the speakers personal flaws or missteps. A very common practice, that; it’s easier than to live with a guilty contience.

    • Tarsha says:

      How do you know she hasn’t? And why don’t people ask other American celebs the same question? I am so sick and tired of Americans being so self-absorbed and insular. America is the richest nation on earth. Even Native Americans are far, Far, FAR richer and better off than poor war-torn refugees. But all you hear is wah wah ‘what about ‘merica’ wah wah. Angelina focusses on WAR-TORN people. That, is HER specialty. There are more than enough AMERICAN Hollywood celebs to focus on any Native American plight. More than enough. It’s like asking Native American advocates why they don’t care about war-torn women and children from Syria. Or why an organisation for disabilities in America don’t care about those with disabilities in Swaziland. Angelina’s specialty is war-torn refugees. Is that so hard to understand? Or must *every*thing be about America? smh

      • Greenieweenie says:

        I appreciate the sentiment but that isn’t quite accurate. Last I checked, Native American tribes and Haitians have the lowest living standards in the Western Hemisphere (not all tribes, some have done well for themselves). Look at Pine Ridge reservation–poorest county in the United States with Third World levels of poverty. Only Haiti has lower levels of life expectancy than Pine Ridge.

        I agree that no American has some unspoken obligation to address humanitarian crises in their own country–which already has a wealth of resources to do so–before they look elsewhere. Feel the same about adoption. A human life is a human life, anywhere.

        Arguing over who has it worse is somewhat poor taste. Some tribes have it very bad and no avenues for recourse unlike some refugees–but what’s the point of these comparisons? Injustice is injustice is injustice.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Oh hey Greenieweenie, that was nice of you to add your thoughts about adoption. A human life is a human life!

      • Josephina says:


        Angelina has set up a foundation to help Haitians…years ago BEFORE the earthquake.

        How much more do you want ONE woman to do to devote her time, money and resources for others?

        Every time a person points their finger at someone, they need to remind themselves that there are still 4 other fingers pointing back at themselves. Before anyone else asks the question, ‘what else can she do?’, they need to ask themselves FIRST, ‘what am I doing to contribute? How much of my own time do I give to others?’

        How about allowing her journey to spur you into action? I am highly appreciative of anything she does because I am fully aware she does so by choice. She finds the time, she makes an effort. She is consistent, and effective. Helping extremely disadvantaged people is far more than just an assignment for her.

      • Tarsha says:

        You cannot possibly compare the plight of Native Americans to those fleeing bombs. Seriously, you just cannot. To do so, is absurd. Native Americans have running water, and live in relative peace, they aren’t fleeing bombs, cradling a child who has had limbs blown off, or worse. Have you seen photos of parents cradling bits and pieces of their children? Because I have such graphic images, some with children with an arm or leg smashed and half brown off, or half their head with brain matter missing, and you cannot possibly understand until you see those images. You just cannot compare, it shows gross insensitivity and ignorance of the issues to do so. The Native American the most worse off, is better off than any family fleeing from bombs.

    • CTgirl says:

      America has a great many privileges. However, there is this great big fallacy that Native Americans are getting rich on money from casinos. They aren’t, either as individuals or tribes. My comment wasn’t meant to shame her work overseas. I think that she has provided a great spotlight on some terrible conditions. My comment was aimed at shining a spotlight on a terrible conditions here in the U.S. This isn’t an “us or them” issue. But how can anyone criticize their neighbor when their own house is neglected?
      @Tarsha, you have obviously never been to a reservation and are unaware that they are living in war torn conditions. There is an epidemic of suicides among young people with children as young as 12 killing themselves. Yet you don’t hear about it in mainstream media. The average wage for an entire family on Pine Ridge reservation is $8,000 per year. The housing, schools, healthcare and infrastructure are subpar. And I do care about the women and children in war torn countries. But we have to take care of our war torn populations first.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Some Canadians have said “Us first” when the government announced it would accept a much larger number of Syrian refugee families than the previous government. The government responded that it’s able to handle both, and was trying to set up community supports to enable the new Canadians to become more economically self-sufficient as soon as possible.

        It really seemed as if a lot of conservative-leaning people took an instant interest in the plight of the existing poor Canadians — a plight that they had shown little attention to prior to the announcement about the refugees.

        There are no easy answers, but it’s not an either/or situation.

      • cr says:

        It’s not an either/or situation and I think focusing on AJ for not doing something about it, instead of doing what she’s currently doing something is going about it the wrong way.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        @Ctgirl, Hm, I disagree. I think you have to go where you can be most effective first. I definitely think the Native plight is really THE great injustice that has had so little redress (unlike women and black Americans, who have made some headway). And in my opinion, a lot of land should be ceded back to tribes and there should be truth and reconciliation commissions, as well as restitution from the federal gov’t. I think Natives need another social movement to command that attention and get the concessions they want–one that brings in other minorities and women too.

        But refugees are stateless people. They have no representation in home or foreign governments. Angelina is literally giving them that representation. I just do not see what you can knock about this.

        ^^ I was floored the first time I heard someone say people should only adopt from their home country first–I have adopted siblings from elsewhere and I do not get how you can look at an imaginary line on a map and be like, “yeah, my allegiance is here to these children–and all these ones on this side of the line are somebody else’s problem.” That’s placing nationality over the equality of human value–just no, IMO.

      • CTgirl says:

        @Greenieweenie, I understand your viewpoint. For me it’s not about boundaries. It’s about taking care of the injustices that we have at home. We placed Native Americans on reservations on land that the federal government didn’t want. Native Americans have very little representation, and based on some of the comments to my original comment, very few people here have a handle on the living conditions of Native Americans. Someone of Angelina Jolie’s stature could make a huge difference in starting a constructive dialogue regarding our own third world country.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        @ Greenieweenie thanks re: adoption, you found the words for it – putting nationalism ahead of human value. I’ve been running into nationalism in another form in my personal life and it’s just so difficult when minds are closed and unaware. It feels like Deutschland Uber Alle in a way. Uncomfortable. And the updated version of “My country, love it or leave it.”

      • Amelie says:

        The lack of attention to Native Americans is one of my pet peeves, so if I may sneak in a comment…

        The U.S. until as recently as the 1960’s was removing NA children from their homes and sending them to boarding schools. Why? There was a planned/executed effort to eradicate the NA culture and language specifically. Not a proud moment in US history.

      • Josephina says:


        The U.S. has been CONSISTENT in NOT taking care of their own very poor people. The U.S. is quite comfortable and unbothered by the facts that you have mentioned. The comment about “we need to take of our own” is crap. WE DO NOT TAKE OF OUR OWN because we have politicians, backed by its citizens, who write laws against what you are asking. The people that you are talking about are to remain invisible and the dominant culture prefers it that way.

        Furthermore, the U.S. citizens do not want to acknowledge that the U.S.’s wealth and power was built on the early settler’s/colonials stealing or removing the indigenous people of this country out of their way to “settle” and escape from their previous oppressor, Great Britain/England. Because of greed and thirst for wealth, the new settlers went further and stole/shipped as well healthy Africans for centuries to rapidly build an economy off of …cotton. Of course they wrote policies back then as well to support their decisions.

        Given the longstanding insensitivity (i.e. Columbus Day) of today’s American culture for its indigenous people, what were you expecting? We do not celebrate the indigenous people of this land on ANY national level.

    • isabelle says:

      Its lot more complicated than laying all of the blame as “Americas” feet at the time. When the slaughters began America really wasn’t even America. It was a country being claimed by many people from other nations. Immigrants. There was so such thing as an American at the time we began taking over land. Many people form other nations participated in it. The wiping out of Native Americans began long before the 1800s when the government did endorse the moving and scourging of them. Of course America has that dark history. Other countries also have their own dark & deadly history, every single country has a history of wiping out native tribes or immigrants. England & Spain have a lot of blame in laying down a lot of those bodies of those Native Americans.

      • Kitten says:

        This is what I find so hilarious.

        When America was formed there were the Native Americans who’s land was invaded and then there were settlers. The settlers didn’t just magically rise out of American soil lol they came from European countries and SETTLED.

        I guess most Europeans like to believe that they didn’t have a hand in shaping the foundation of this country. Feels like a whole lot of cognitive dissonance if you ask me.

      • artpunk44 says:

        I concur, Kitten. This rings true, especially with the cognitive dissonance.

    • Aimee says:

      Angelina and the JoliePitt foundation have helped native Americans in the US. People would be very surprised by how much they do that doesn’t get talked about in the press. Her UN work with refugees is in the news, of course, as well as Make-it-Right….those have to have press, understandably. But they do much more under the radar.

  7. Sixer says:

    Damn you, Kaiser. Don’t you know that I come here to escape Brexit talk?!

    • lilacflowers says:

      And there’s no cake.

      • Sixer says:

        No frickin’ cake on this topic, I assure you!

        If you’re actually interested, this article comes closest to my position. I’ll be voting to stay in. Avoid the comments!

      • lilacflowers says:

        That’s an interesting article. I too would be voting to stay in.

      • Sixer says:

        I know you guys have your issues with an executive done down by a legislature, but the EU really is a case in point of the dangers of an overly powerful executive. That’s my main objection. But I agree with Mason. Now is not the time to leave and, in any case, we are only half in – no euro, no Schengen, etc.

        But – when the Brexiters talk about sovereignty, some of them use it as a dog whistle for xenophobia (see responses to Jolie) and others really do mean the imbalance of branches. And the latter have a point.

      • GreenieWeenie says:

        Is Boris Johnson the guy who said Obama was being a hypocrite because he was encouraging the UK to sacrifice its sovereignty to the EU when the US would never do the same?

        That was such a bad comparison. Talk about apples to oranges. US has 5 times the GDP/population as the UK, and no country even comes close to spending on military the way the US does. There’s good reason why Washington wouldn’t want to cede sovereignty over the world’s most expansive military resources/largest economy to some supranational legislative body–I was really struck by how dense that comment was.

      • Sixer says:

        He is. Never listen to Boris. He is ruled by ambition. He doesn’t even really want to leave the EU, I don’t think. He just sees it as an opportunity to maximise his chances of being the next leader of the Conservative Party here.

        The EU *does* have democratic deficits. But I doubt this has much to do with Boris’s positioning. He invoked Hitler this week. Cos. Y’know. It’s the fashion.

        However, to be fair, a common citing for Brexit is the looming TTIP deal, which does have some worrying provisions on sovereignty. I believe that’s what he was talking about and nothing at all to do with defence.

      • GreenieWeenie says:

        I do kinda pity you all for having to suffer through what is clearly a lengthy period of transition before (with a little luck) the whole regional government thing sorts itself out.

        His strategy is working–I now recognize his name and omg, his face. He looks like Gerard Depardieu 30 years ago with a bad bleach job.

        ETA–not following Brexit at all, just watched the Obama speech in London and caught wind of his reaction.

      • Sixer says:

        Don’t start me on the idiots from our 1% who get parachuted into important positions despite having no discernible talent whatsoever! This is Boris. We have more like him and I think we should turn them into refugees and demand that some other country takes them off our hands.

        I wouldn’t mind if the debate was informative. It isn’t. It is a toxic mix of scaremongering and dog whistling and it is debasing us all, whichever way we lean on the issue.

      • Marty says:

        Thanks for the link Sixer! I’ll definitely be reading this on my break.

    • BritAfrica says:

      IKR? There is no way you can mention the word ‘Refugees’ without conjuring up Brexit! Whilst not one and the same, they are very interlinked at the moment.

      It’s amazing how some posters who do not understand the EU/Brexit debate are going ‘but she didn’t mention Brexit’. AJ didn’t have to.

      There is a refugee crisis in the EU at the moment which is why some Brits want to leave the EU. Simples. Add immigration from the EU into that and the Brexit debate unfolds magically….

      BTW, why isn’t there a Brexit thread?

    • BritAfrica says:

      @ GreenieWeenie & Sixer

      As for sending Boris and his ‘chums’ somewhere, well America springs to mind in Boris’s case. He is a US citizen afterall. We could just send him back.

      Although I heard a vile rumour that he gave up his US citizenship when they sent him a tax bill. Well….that’s Boris for ya…..!

      • Sixer says:

        He’s gone full Trump/peak Boris today. I think the least the Americans could do is take him off our hands. I mean, they’ve got more room. What’s American-speak for “back end of beyond”? Wherever that may be in the 50 states, they can put him there.

      • antipodean says:

        @Sixer, I am with you on that, beyond the black stump is also a suitable destination for our man Boris. His entertainment value only goes so far.
        By the by, has Mrs B and her collie “come clean” yet? And is her husband still allowed to play in the skittles team? He should be drummed out for their sins, at least bring back the ducking stool I say. We could set it up on the Village Green, and the “locals” could throw rotted vege at them! What say you?

      • BritAfrica says:

        @ Sixer: ‘He’s gone full Trump/peak Boris today….’

        Not surprised. It’s call desperation. No one in the Leave camp expected the ‘economics’ debate to be so convincing. I almost feel sorry for Boris.

        People want their sovereignty back but erhh………they would like to keep their jobs and homes first! How selfish….lol!

      • Sixer says:

        BritAfrica – I’m having a teeny tiny moment of happiness because Krishnan Guru-Murthy is hosting the C4 minorities Brexit debate and it’s actually constructive! Well, less ridiculous, anyway. Seema Malhotra for the win!

        antipodean – Mrs B is keeping a low profile and I haven’t seen her. Husband still skittling though, so far as I know. She can go in the stocks… AFTER Boris!

      • BritAfrica says:

        Thanks Sixer. I’ll have to catch it on 4OD later.

  8. Anett says:

    She made a huge speech here!!! So true, every words!

    On a sidenote: What is going on with her face? Or is it only a camera angle? I can’t decide. But she looks so different to me.

    • MrsBPitt says:

      I think she looks tired and a bit older, but still beautiful…I don’t see any “work” that has been done…

    • Greenieweenie says:

      I thought maybe a makeup artist did her eyebrows differently? They’re usually pretty thin and they look more filled in on top/higher? I think she looks so much like Shiloh (vice versa, actually).

  9. realitycheck says:

    This is a great example of how a celebrity wirh money can actually use her influence for good. If they actually care and want to make a difference this is how you do it.

    Take note Leo.

  10. CornyBlue says:

    I love this women. I love love love this women. She utilizes the true power of celebrity like no one else.

    • Greenieweenie says:

      Yeah, I do to. And I love that she earns respect while apologizing for nothing.

    • Kitten says:

      …and yet people here still manage to find a way to criticize her.

      • Carmen says:

        To some sad, pathetic people, no matter how much good she does in the world, she will always be “that husband-stealing b*tch”.

      • I Choose Me says:

        Yup. Business as usual. Sigh.

        She is an incredible woman, clearly not without flaws but who is? I will always be a fan.

    • Coconut says:

      I admire her energy – she could just chill in a mansion these days and enjoy her family – but on the celebs endorsing non-celeb issues in general, it’s not a good thing in the long run. See that old Tanya Gold (who’s not a fan of AJ) article in the Guardian where she talks about charities and ngos nowadays spending a lot of money on celeb partnerships just to get people interested and mobilised and donating. It’s more a reflection of our celeb obsessed culture (yes, I’m posting this on a celeb goss blog) that we’re need someone in the entertainment industry to point us to the important issues. AJ did this one it in a very non-celeb me-me-me way though – kudos to her. And yes, at least she’s using her celeb status for something other than selling water or alcohol or coffee capsules.

  11. serena says:

    People are always going to take offence for something, because they feel guilty or because they don’t understand or for whatever reason, it doesn’t mean she’s wrong. She really right, the world isn’t doing enough.
    I admire so much her efforts and humanitary work, she is really amazing.

  12. Jayna says:

    delete. Wrong place in thread

  13. Bettyrose says:

    “Especially freedom of religion..”. I get that this comment is specific to Trump’s hostility to Muslims, and at the risk of sounding like I skipped high school civics class, is this even true any more? Yes, religion is at the heart of many refugees crises , but so is oil. The freedoms people come to the U.S. for are economic opportunity and basic human dignity. Practicing your religion without fear is part of human dignity, but so is the right to an education and chance to live a financially secure existence away from a war zone. In short, non-religious and religious people basically want the same things. The freedom to be who you are. So, can’t we just say that?

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      All true but I agree she really is targeting Trump’s policies. And she’s using the Bill of Rights to say it, which is really smart and tactful. In the end, social mores may seems as if they’re changing, but the document is still the document so she’s using a respected “third party” and holding him to that independent standard.

      As for the more general discussion, which is a great one, ‘Freedom of religion’ (which the founders meant as freedom FROM religion, no theocracy – something with which the US is still struggling) still seems to mean a lot to members of minority religious groups who are persecuted overseas. Religious persecution may be a cover story for the fight for power and resources, such as control of the oil, but on the face of it, if someone can jail or kill you because of your practices, those layers fall away. That freedom to practice without government interference is one of the many attractive things about the Bill of Rights, so yeah, I think that’s still part of why some people come, and what they find when they live the reality of the USA is another matter. The xenophobic policies endorsed by Trump (and most of the Republican party) threaten at least one item in the Bill of Rights. Survival, then dignity, then economic opportunity. But you have to be alive first to get the other two.

      If we had the chance to rewrite things to reflect the modern era, let’s go after that clumsy Second Amendment first.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Who are,
        All valid points, and I agree with everything you’ve said. The first amendment is generally used for good (and attempts to use religious freedom abusively have largely backfired in recent court cases) . The 2nd amendment is far more problematic. AJ is being very strategic. But I dream of a secular world where people can hate each other over more tangible things, like the neighbors watering their lawn in a drought. That’s the devil’s work right there.

  14. Love live Mrs PittJolie says:

    Now that the queen has given her speech I am fully confident that refugee crisis will solve itself. But I’m rendered speechless by Angie’s extreme skeletal, gaunt ,dazzed appearance. Those ropey nerves scare me and her pupils flabbergast me. I hope the poor dear is OK. This refugee crisis is getting to her.

  15. Amelie says:

    There is much in this speech that I can commend.

    Firstly, I want to say that Angie was very dignified and had so much presence in her speech delivery. It was done well.

    Second, although another comment here suggests that Angie may have worked with a professional to draft this speech, I still found gaps in it…there are root causes underlying the migrant crisis and refusals of major players to assist the migrants that she did not mention. Briefly, root causes include age old ethic/religious/tribal feuds in the Middle east specifically. An example of refusal to assist migrants includes the five gulf states (Saudi Arabia, UAE,Qatar,Kuwait and Bahrain). Although some of these countries have contributed funding, they refuse to allow entry to any migrants. There has been a huge failure to call out these countries.

    Third, many countries in eastern Europe are rather homogeneous….this is not a result of racism, but from insularity connected with being part of the eastern block for so long. It is though a reasonable question to ask about the lack of willingness to accept refugees by more westernized European countries. It is also a reasonable question to look at how specific groups of migrants have integrated or not integrated with their new culture/homeland.

    Fourth-the EU has been struggling with the migrant issue for a number of years and I think the basic question exists re: the reasonableness of resettling entire populations versus providing safe zones near the refugees’ country of origin and humanitarian assistance still exists.

    Fifth-the issue with accepting migrants from Syria specifically includes valid security concerns. Both James Clapper and James Comey participated in a House Homeland Security hearings some time back and stated specifically with regard to Syrian migrants that the infrastructure in Syria was decimated and because records no longer existed that this group could not be properly vetted.

    Sixth-Angie’s # of 66 million seem exorbitant to me. The Syrians account for 4 million for example…I suspect the 66 mil is a total of both refugees and economic migrants.

    • lower-case deb says:

      from High Commissioner Gutierez’s speech last year october:
      – 60+ million encompasses refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons due to persecutiom and conflict.

      meanwhile according to UN SDG:
      the total number of migrants (those living not in their birthplace): 244 million.
      of which 20 million are “pure” refugees.

      so, refugees make up around 1/3 of the number Angelina gave?

      • Amelie says:

        @lower-case deb says:
        Thanks much for the info…perhaps Angie was doing this for rhetorical reasons? I recall Amal Clooney stating on a U.S. Network show that the Maldives produced the highest per capita # of ISIS recruits. Her statement,like Angie’s, was made for other than factual reasons. “caveat emptor”

    • Boo says:

      Excellent thoughtful comment. That’s what I heard her asking for…an honest, ongoing discussion on these crises and how to prevent them, what’s causing them, and to be accountable in all measures taken consistently as dropping the ball halfway exacerbates the problem. These are human lives. Every life matters.

      I’m very interested in further discussions on this and need to find a place to have an ear on same. If you find one, you should be there. Your comment is exactly what she’s asking for and it’s true – discussion, let’s talk about this and stop ignoring or picking at bits of it and get something done and consistently.

  16. really says:

    Great speech- those saying she “blasted” Trump or brexit clearly didn’t listen. Angie has always been a clever, articulate off the cuff speaker (her red carpet interviews are terrific), but her speaking to these schoolkids is another level of amazing- I love it when adults don’t talk down to kids:
    Special Envoy Angelina Jolie Pitt says her children often give her presents for refugees.

    • lisa2 says:

      I’m glad you posted this. I know many people on get info about celebs from gossip sites. Sadly if that is all you know then you are not getting all the info. The interview she did with these kids was great. She spoke to them as intelligent individuals. If you listen to her answers you would think she was talking to a group of adults. That is how you talk to kids. As if they have a working brain. I would imagine this is how she talks to her own children. Open and honest.

  17. MaryJo says:

    She is an amazing woman.

  18. Goo says:

    “I also believe Jolie was making several references to Donald Trump’s increasingly intolerant, ignorant and offensive hate speech about migrants, refugees, Muslims and more.”….. Oh, gawd, how I so wish people would STOP misquoting Trump and go and look at what he has REALLY stated. He ONLY wants Syrian/Muslim refugees vetted. Period! The Liberal media has taking this far beyond anything he “quoted”. It’s tiresome!

    We live in a very scary world today, with ISIS knocking on our (USA) door and cells having already planted themselves firmly. Remember San Bernardino? When all is said and done, how does one vet those who have fake passports, names etc…?

    I’ll say it one more time… There is a LEGAL way to gain entry into this fabulous Country. Many, many of our ancestors DID it!

    • Colette says:

      Trump initially called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

      • Joannie says:

        You forgot the last part of what he said.”until we figure out what is going on”.

      • Carmen says:

        By which he means, deport the ones who are already here.

      • Joannie says:

        Carmen that’s not what he said. I think he’s a jerk but he never said to deport the ones that are here.

      • Carmen says:

        His supporters sure are saying it. Howling it from every rooftop, and don’t think Trump doesn’t agree with them. If I was a Muslim living in the US I would be scared shitless.

      • Goo says:

        Carmen, that is utter BS! Shouting it from the rooftops? If one is a terrorist and living in the US such as, that lovely family in San Bernardino, you should be scared shitless….

      • Tiffany :) says:

        He did call for a “ban” on Muslims entering the country (yes, he used that word), but he said it would only be temporary…which is still HORRIBLE! Discriminating on the basis of religion is what our country was founded on. Additionally, it wouldn’t address the actual problem.

        In reality, a ban would halt the vetting system.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Oh goodness, major typo in my post! “Freedom from discrimination based on religion…”

    • cr says:

      I’m pretty sure my ancestors, who started arriving from Europe in the 1630’s, all the way through the 1880’s, did so without papers.
      As for ISIS, oh yes they’re scary as hell. And they do want to target the US (but even more so other Muslims). But the reality is for Americans, the greatest threat from violence is still other Americans.
      You could turn off Fox News, or any other US news station really, and stop giving into fear. But something tells me that you don’t want to.

      • doofus says:

        “But the reality is for Americans, the greatest threat from violence is still other Americans.”

        PREACH! this CANNOT be stated enough. along with the whole “black people kill police” crap. of all the law enforcement killed in the line of duty so far this year, OVER 71% have been killed by…yeah, you guessed it…WHITE PEOPLE.

        will Fox “News” and other people blasting the Black Lives Matter movement report this?…NO F*CKING WAY, because it goes against their narrative of “black people = anti-police”.

      • Goo says:

        .cr,..and you might try watching occasionally, just to broadened your views!

      • cr says:

        @Goo, oh, bless your heart. But I get enough Fox blared at me from tvs at work, and watching them isn’t broadening, it’s watching propaganda. Turn off your tv and stop reading Red State and that crap and get actual, factual information from people who know what they’re talking about. And once again, stop allowing yourself to be terrorized by your news and pay attention to what’s actually happened and what is happening.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Well said, cr.

    • B n A fn says:

      It would be nice if some people stop living in fear of people who do not look like them. I remember when Timothy McVeigh brought down office building in Texas several years ago. That building housed a day care center also with children present that time of day. TMcV was a white American and he was a terrorist. DT is pandering to people’s hate and fear. DT, IMO, is a very dangerous man.

      • cr says:

        In 1995 McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, not in Texas.
        But the point is correct, it’s fear of people who don’t share your skin color/religion/politics. Fear of ‘the other’. And it’s usually misplaced, and also easily manipulated.

    • Carmen says:

      You want to know how some of my ancestors got here? Chained up on a slave ship. I’ve read the accommodations weren’t exactly on the level of the QE2.

      • BritAfrica says:

        Agree…………but let’s broaden the narrative to include that some were only on those ships in the first place because they were ‘sold’ by their own race who were doing ‘business’ along the West African/gold coast where I still have relatives living to this day.

        We sold ourselves to the white slavers who were eager to pay for human beings not just minerals. To me, acknowledgment of this fact is important. No one comes out of this smelling good.

    • Goo says:

      Carmen, you might want to do a little “fact” checking.

    • Tarsha says:

      It does not surprise me in the least that Goo is a Trump supporter. With about 4 exceptions, the vast overwhelming majority of Aniston loons I’ve come across on the internet, social media and real life, have all been full on racists. Trash is as trash does. Immoral subhumans. You are all who you hang with, or who you as a celebrity, attract. Goo’s post is no surprise to me at all and I didn’t need any more proof of my hypothesis of Aniston fans. Joannie – hmmm doesn’t surprise me either. Even more proof.

  19. Elosaurus says:

    That speech was everything. The way she spoke about the ongoing issues left me really impressed with her and I believe she will fight till the end. It actually makes want to join her and others and yell: you are not alone in this fight! Pick me, I want to help! 😀

  20. B n A fn says:

    @cr, thanks for the correction. I guess 20+ years ago, I’m getting old😏.

  21. Brittney says:

    Warren/Jolie 2024, please.

    • Kitten says:

      Honestly, I know you’re kind of kidding but I don’t want either of those women to have to go through that.
      Angelina can’t even do good work without people finding something to criticize. Can you imagine what people would say if she ran for president?

  22. Ames says:

    Most Persian Gulf states, though incredibly wealthy, have steadfastly refused to help refugees in any way, shape or form. Go lecture them about not doing enough.

  23. HK9 says:

    With a topic that tends to get mired in circular arguments, it’s nice to hear the voice of reason one in a while.

  24. Guest says:

    Honestly, it doesn’t matter how she was 15 years ago. What matters is NOW. Right now AJ is one of the only actresses I truly respect and admire for her work. Nobody can point a finger at her and say: it’s all just for PR. This is AJ ffs. She doesn’t need PR. She has been to countries people are scared to visit. I love her for that.

  25. Joy says:

    Angelina is amazing. That is all.

  26. Guesto says:

    I was up a ladder painting while listening to this and had to stop painting and just listen. And then was so involved in the applause.

    And while I don’t think it was ‘amazing’ (only because my primary news source is al jazeera and I read/listen to ‘amazing’ every day of the week), I do really applaud her dedication and commitment to her ‘women and children’ cause.

    She is such a force for good and I love that she’s appreciated as that across continents.

  27. Gs says:

    Her speech is very good has insights for solving..
    I love her/them. Best wishes.

  28. Tiffany :) says:

    I finally was able to see the speech. So well done!!! She made so many great points. The differences between economic migrants and refugees, the point about locking your door doesn’t make you safe if your neighbor’s house is on fire. Very well done!!!!

  29. Brandy says:

    As she ages, she resembles her mother so, so much.

  30. Dingding says:

    Wow, I am impressed. Jolie said that there are more refugees nowadays than a few decades before and she managed to make it sound as if the wars which were started by the West had nothing to do with it.

  31. Joannie says:

    She’s out of her league. Why does a HW actress think anyone will take her seriously? As if the refugee crisis will affect her.

    • Tarsha says:

      She isn’t an actress anymore, she isn’t out of her league, she is a Humanitarian and she has been doing it for 13, that is thirteen years. That is just under a third of her life she ahs been associated with the UN. She is influential and well-respected in the area. She was promoted to Special Envoy by NELSON MANDELA. The professionals in the field all speak very highly of her and say she is well-educated and well-prepared. Many people over the years from these countries have come on here and said how genuine and how much help she has been. Clearly you have no idea. You really are ignorant and don’t know what you are talking about. Here is a link from the expert charity workers that laud her and show just how well-respected she is in the field:
      “former UNHCR-er remembers working with Angelina Jolie with misty eyes. “She knew more about refugees, and had been to more places than I had,” he sighs. “She had her own cameraman, so all I had to do was find the locations and the refugees.” Another long-standing project manager said: “I was impressed with her in Haiti, in Jordan and in Sri Lanka. She left experts speechless every time.”

      I wish more were like her. ”

      Joannie? You, are way out of your league.

      • Joannie says:

        Tarsha she’s telling people in Europe who are overwhelmed with the refugee crisis they should be doing more. Their infrastructure is crumbling and they are at their wits end. How hypocritical coming from someone who has grown up entitled and does not live in the real world. Only the world of the extremely wealthy. Tell me what gives her the right to tell these people they should be doing more when their lives and their children’s lives are being affected negatively? They are afraid to leave their houses. Have you spoken to people who live where the refugees have taken over? I have. Her life, her children’s life will never be affected by what is happening. Spending a few hours in a refugee camp surrounded by security and being filmed with a concerned look on her face does not make her an expert on world affairs. She’ll be the main beneficiary and while her heart may be in the right place her brain is out of touch with reality. For every fawning article you can come up with I can can find those that say otherwise.

      • Tarsha says:

        Her speech is to everyone around the world, not just Europe. I think she knows just how privileged she is, that is what lead her to help, in the first place. The article is not mere ‘fawning’. It comes from those there on the ground, who work with her. They are the experts, not the knockers. The experts are the ones praising her. They would know far more than people writing negative articles to cover up insecurity and guilt. I will take the word of the experts at every turn, over knockers who have no understanding of the work involved.