In Which Pigs Fly, and I Defend Lindsay Lohan's New Trafficking Documentary

It's Passover this week, a time when our minds turn to thoughts of slavery and wine.

Speaking of which, did you hear that Lindsay Lohan made a documentary about child trafficking in India for BBC3?

This clip leaked online a few weeks ago, but journalists in the UK have apparently just gotten a look at the full-length documentary, and have wasted no time in tearing LiLo to ribbons. Here's Amelia Gentleman, in the Guardian:

"There are a lot of contenders for most uncomfortable moment in Lindsay Lohan's upcoming BBC documentary about child trafficking in India, but I think the bit that will have most viewers kicking their televisions is when Lohan is hugging a very young girl on her knee, listening to her describe a life spent begging on the streets of Calcutta.
The shaven-haired girl is explaining that her parents would beat her unless she went out every day to earn money, but it's hard to concentrate on what she's saying because what's happening behind her is so distracting. Lohan is rubbing her already-red eyes, spreading mascara around the place, twitching her eyebrows.
"Um. Um. Oh my God," the film star says, her lips wobbling uncontrollably. A disembodied hand pops into the screen to pass her a tissue. "Um. How did she feel? Um. How did they treat her?" she asks, beginning to sob.
The small girl turns to look at her in bemusement. The translator gives an embarrassed laugh and says to the girl: "She's crying for you. Why don't you comfort her?" So we watch as the puzzled child dutifully strokes Lohan's long mane of golden hair."

Xeni Jardin pronounced this a "celebrity advocacy fail," and BBC3 Controller Danny Mair was grilled on Britain's Radio 4 last week about his decision to use Lohan in the documentary.

But I have to say, I don't think it looks so bad. (Stop the presses: Wronging Rights is being less snarky than the rest of the internet about something!)

I only know what I've seen in the clip above, and read in Gentleman's article, but as far as I can tell, Lohan behaved as any interested, kind, and previously-uninformed person would have in that situation. Reading between the lines of Gentleman's eyebrow-wiggling and mascara-smearing prose, it sounds like Lohan, upon hearing the small child on her lap describe a life of exploitation and suffering, began to cry. And we're supposed to think this is a sign of what, exactly? Weakness of character? Crying when faced with tragedy is hardly a reaction limited to hard-partying starlets.

Likewise, I'm not inclined to pounce on Lohan for stumbling over her words a bit in the confrontation with the trafficker that's shown in the clip. Yes, it's hardly the case that only "the attractive ones" need to worry about being sexually abused, or forced into prostitution. But Lindsey Lohan isn't an expert in human trafficking, or women's rights. If she'd parroted the talking points perfectly, then we'd know that she'd been well coached. But as it was, she had an awkward, slightly weird, somewhat inaccurate conversation with a woman who admitted to selling children. At worst, that's an interesting thing to watch. And at best, it offers the similarly-uninformed viewer someone to identify with. (Hell, the informed viewer, too. There but for the grace of not being followed around by a video camera during my intern years go I.)

In other words, Lindsay Lohan is kind of a weirdo, and a layperson when it comes to trafficking in children, and acted accordingly. I fail to see the problem with that. It seems far, far preferable to the alternative mode of celebrity causemongering, in which stars opine on substantive policy matters, and are treated like the experts they are not.

Your thoughts?

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

Happy Blogiversary, Here's Some Vitriol

A few days ago, on what happened to be the second birthday of Wronging Rights, we got an email from Bill Easterly asking us to participate in the Satire Wars currently underway over at Aid Watch and Owen Abroad. We were thrilled, because really, is there any better way to celebrate our blogiversary than by condensing all our rants of the last calendar year into one conveniently-numbered response?

So, without further ado, here is our not-at-all-satirical Guide to Super-Effective Human Rights Advocacy.

1. Proper accessorization is key. If your cause is not associated with sufficient numbers of t-shirts, thong underwear, jewelry, and pet-food bowls, then the children will suffer. Think of the children!


2. Convince the public that their overconsumption of <hipster luxury item of your choice> is directly responsible for brutal atrocities inflicted on far away poor people. Note: act soon, before all the cool ones have been taken. Cell phones, diamonds, iPods, and gold have all been nabbed already, but leggings, noise-canceling headphones, handlebar mustaches, and ironic burlesque remain available.


3. Identify a villain early on, and then work from the assumption that everyone else is a helpless victim. If anyone questions that assumption, accuse them of not being sensitive to your victims' "need to tell their story," and of having no idea how "devaluing" it is to be "forced into silence." Note: for your purposes, there is no difference between "forced into silence" and "not being quoted and/or pictured in the Western media."


4. Talk about sex whenever possible. Violent rape is optimal (see #3, above), but lurid tales of multiple wives will do in a pinch. If no sex angle initially presents itself, don't get discouraged! You'll find a way. Until you find your groove, just follow these handy rules of thumb: (1) If women are forcibly recruited, it's as "sex slaves," not "soldiers" ('cause we know that's all that girls are good for); (2) when discussing rape during wartime, make sure to give the impression that rape is a strategic element of the armed conflict, and/or just a common hobby in that country rather than opportunistic violence arising out of instability (3) include impossible-to-verify statistics about the prevalence of rape (adding "as many as" before the number will insulate you from responsibility, but if philistines demand that you produce such rights-undermining items as "evidence" and "research methods," accuse them of hating women and being secret iPod-owning mustachioed burlesque afficionados). Under no circumstances should you ever acknowledge that rape happens quite often in developed countries too.


5. Volume, not accuracy, is the goal when it comes to press coverage. Don't question quotes that suit your villain/victim narrative, even if they come from sources whose existence is wildly improbable. Half-truths and misleading statements are just peachy, as long as they're made during a special episode of 60 minutes.


6. Never forget that awareness is your goal. Your plan should be (1) raise awareness, (2) ???, (3) problem solved! (This works in business, too! Cf. Underpants Gnomes.) Try to avoid detailed policy prescriptions (boring!), action plans that would take a long time (if your plan is so awesome, why not do it all at once, right now?), or any suggestions that victims appeal to their own government for assistance (passive objects of violence can hardly be expected to do that, and anyways our government is way more awesomer than theirs).


7. Add celebrities. As many as possible. (No explanation necessary. Celebrities are awesome, and this way you might get to hang out with them, and possibly even have sex with them. There is no downside here.)


8. Lather, rinse, repeat as needed until all pain is gone from the world.

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

WTF Friday, 12/18: Celebrity Edition

The latest brilliance from the indubitable Intern Chris, (with the help of several of our beloved readers):

• Nicholas Cage wins UN humanitarian award for "Global Citizen of the Year." Yes, it's actually called that. To be fair, after seeing both National Treasure movies and Bad Lieutenant, I kind of saw this coming. (Hat tip to Jared. Thanks, Jared!)


• The Guardian's Marina Hyde, previously known to me for writing snarky soccer articles, lays into the BBC for sending Lindsay Lohan, a person who cannot spell "trafficking," to make a doc on human"traffiking" in India. Keep the snark coming, Marina. (Hat tip to Mark. Hooray, Mark!)


• Another hat tip, this time to Molly, who proposes that Madagascar's current dj-turned-putschist Andry Rajoelina get the WTF Friday treatment: "After seizing the country by coup in March, he now calls Southern African Development Community (SADC)-brokered negotiations with opposition parties "tantamount to a coup," and has blocked planes carrying opposition leaders, and his own prime minister, Eugene Mangalaza, from returning from negotiations in Mozambique." Definitely a WTF. (Nice one, Molly.)


• I'm not going to link this because it seems way too messed up, but the strangest thing just happened. HuffPo had a link to a story about a Somali man being stoned to death for adultery, (incredibly sad), with a warning that it contained graphic images, which I didn't really want to see. But get this: below that link was a link to an op-ed by Jamie Lee Curtis about how bad we should feel for looking at graphic images. So, HuffPo, your plan is to post horrible images, then have Jamie Lee Curtis try to guilt people who look at them? Strange way to run a website, Arianna.

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

"The idea is simple: as you tear open the sachet you also rip through the child’s leg and the ketchup inside pours out like blood."

Every time a yuppie tears open a packet of ketchup in a trendy cafe, a child loses a leg. Or at least I assume that's the intended message of these snappy little items that Publicis Mojo designed for CALM: New Zealand Campaign Against Landmines.

Oh, no, wait: it's our old friend "awareness." I haven't been able to find the press release, but according to The Daily What, it includes the following quote:

"Using a ketchup sachet, we demonstrated the horrific nature of living in a land mine affected country and how much a part of everyday life that horror is. The idea is simple: as you tear open the sachet you also rip through the child’s leg and the ketchup inside pours out like blood."

This is amazing. It's like some sort of super-meta badvocacy: so bad that it shines a light on badness everywhere, and almost becomes good - nearly becomes a clever satire on the idea that encouraging people to think that they are squeezing the bloody viscera of a maimed child onto their french fries is really what need to happen to make the world a better place, because really, how could that not be a joke? Almost. Nearly. Teetering on the edge. Only falls short one tiny smidge.

(The smidge? That the net effect of the campaign was almost certainly to ensure that, when Kiwis hear about landmines, they develop an instant craving for french fries.)

Mmmm, french fries. Maybe I'll buy some for the fabulous Nina, who alerted me to this campaign in all its ketchupy glory.

(Lucky charms will be awarded to any readers who can find me a link to the full press release, or explain to me why this campaign is suddenly all over the internet now, even though it's actually from back in 2006.)

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)