Posted on 01/06/2007 7:44:37 PM PST by blam
Diamonds are no longer a girl's best friend
By Chris Hastings, Stephanie Plentl and Beth Jones, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:29am GMT 07/01/2007
Diamonds have been synonymous with Hollywood glamour since Marilyn Monroe declared them to be a girl's best friend in the film Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. But now a new generation of Hollywood stars is shunning the stones as a new film exposes the darker side of the international diamond trade.
Blood Diamond tells the story of forced-labour diamond mines
For the first time in the 79-year history of the Oscars, certain kinds of diamond will be absent from the annual prize-giving ceremony. Normally the awards, which will take place on February 25, are awash with sparkling stones, with some stars even choosing to wear them on their shoes.
But now many of the biggest names in Hollywood are asking agents and diamond experts to ensure they are not photographed wearing illicit diamonds.
The backlash against the stones has led to diamonds being dubbed the "new fur", as stars increasingly try to make sure that they are not wearing anything that might be regarded as unethical.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly, the stars of Blood Diamond, as well as Kayne West, the rap artist, the models Iman and Erin O'Connor – the face of Marks and Spencer – are leading the backlash. Blood Diamond, part of which was filmed in London's Hatton Garden diamond district, is set in civil war-ravaged Sierra Leone and tells the story of forced-labour diamond mining companies.
The success of the film, which has already opened in America and comes to UK cinemas at the end of the month, has led to an upsurge in demand for so-called conflict-free diamonds, which carry a certificate of confirmation that their trade is not connected with war, civil strife or human rights abuses.
Gaia Geddes, the jewellery editor at Harper's Bazaar, said: "You have the Oscars and Baftas coming up, and that's when the stars wear very big rocks. This year there will be a lot of focus on conflict-free diamonds and a lot of people will take a stand, just like they did with fur."
Connelly, 36, who plays a journalist in the movie, made a point of wearing "conflict-free" diamonds to the film's American premiere last month.
"I think what I got out of the film is a desire to be a more ethnical consumer," she said. "I did some research and there are companies like Bulgari, like Tiffany, that are striving to be clean and accountable and that provide written guarantees that their diamonds are conflict-free.
Iman pulled out of her contract as the face of De Beers
"No one is saying boycott diamonds but [buyers] can be pro-active and go to their jewellers and say, 'Can you show me a certificate? Can you give me a verifiable warranty that these diamonds are conflict-free?'"
Jane Fonda, the double Oscar-winning actress and friend of the film's producer, Paula Weinstein, has also revealed how she has made sure she only wears conflict-free diamonds.
African tribes in conflict with the diamond industry are actively targeting the world's celebrities in a bid to win them over. Last year, Bushmen in the Kalahari in dispute with De Beers wrote an open letter in Variety to DiCaprio, seeking his support.
Eileen Kelly, the manager of Abiba, a jeweller in Hatton Garden, said: "Recently we have had more and more customers come into the shop because of publicity about the film and ask where the diamonds have come from. We can say that we do not sell conflict diamonds. For the past year we have quite clearly printed on our receipts that our diamonds are conflict-free."
The campaign against the diamond trade had been building up even before the release of Blood Diamond. In 2004 Iman, who is married to the singer David Bowie, pulled out of her contract as the face of De Beers in protest at what she claimed was the company's eviction of tribespeople from their land in Botswana. In 2005, the actress Julie Christie joined a protest outside the Natural History Museum in support of the same tribesmen.
De Beers denies all the allegations levied against it in connection with diamonds. The company declined to comment last night, but a spokesman for the World Diamond Council, the representative body of the diamond industry, said: "We don't have any issue with the film. The important thing is that the movie is based in the past, in 1999, and the situation now is that the vast majority of conflict is over.
"The diamond industry contributes over $8 million (about £4.5 million) per year to local African economies, which helps to build schools, hospitals and provide employment."
Well said. This is more liberal hypocrisy. Just like the phony AIDS ribbons.
Hollywood stars are dumber than uncooked Ramen noodles.
Having been married twice, and given two diamond engagement rings, I am pretty cheesed off with the institution.
I would suggest that any woman who needs a diamond ring to put out is a prostitute, married, or now.
Of course, most US women are more sexually active before they are married, than they are after they are married. Odd thing, that. Some women feel the need to sink the hook before marriage, and only have the psychological freedom to get that "headache" after marriage.
What is the old saw: What substance is guaranteed to take away a woman's sex drive?
Wedding Cake.
Having been married twice, and given two diamond engagement rings, I am pretty cheesed off with the institution.
I would suggest that any woman who needs a diamond ring to put out is a prostitute, married, or now.
Of course, most US women are more sexually active before they are married, than they are after they are married. Odd thing, that. Some women feel the need to sink the hook before marriage, and only have the psychological freedom to get that "headache" after marriage.
What is the old saw: What substance is guaranteed to take away a woman's sex drive?
Wedding Cake.
Twice!
Thanks for your kind words.
"Did your wife buy this argument??? Where did you get her wedding ring??? Out of a box of cracker jacks???"
I just want to go back to this little gem one more time (no pun intended). First of all, what I got my wife is none of your business, nor is it anyone else's other than my wife's.
Secondly, my wife and I scrounged up our savings for a down payment on a house shortly after we got married some ten years ago. That house has since tripled in value, for a profit of $500,000 on an initial outlay of less than a tenth of that amount.
Does that make us rich? Not by a long shot. But it has kept us from going broke. More importantly, it has allowed my wife to stay at home and be a full-time mother. Thanks to that investment, we can afford to send my son to a private school, and my wife has plenty of time to help him with his schoolwork.
Had we used a good chunk of that downpayment for a diamond rather than buying a house, my wife would be forced to fight traffic every day to work outside the home, and she would have little time to help her son with his homework. I'll just bet she's happier without the diamond!
You are also baited and flamed and personally attacked several posters, which you admitted doing in your post #104. That is also against posting rules.
Unlike you, I have done none of that, nor am I the one who is a liar.
Since when, exactly, are hard, cold facts "baloney"? You repeatedly said erroneous things and when refuted, all you have done is to come back with smarmy insults and personal attacks; with one exception...when you were told the same facts by a man!
It is you, and you alone, who "can't stand the heat"! Me? I'm doing just fine.....thank you very much.
Oh please.......playing the "victim" card and carrying on your silly vendetta against diamonds ( tell me, do you hold the same views against sapphires and rubies and emeralds and couture clothing and anything else that you can't afford? ), is just childish.
"Did your wife buy this argument??? Where did you get her wedding ring??? Out of a box of cracker jacks???"
I just want to go back to this little gem one more time (no pun intended). First of all, what I got my wife is none of your business, nor is it anyone else's other than my wife's.
Secondly, my wife and I scrounged up our savings for a down payment on a house shortly after we got married some ten years ago. That house has since tripled in value, for a profit of $500,000 on an initial outlay of less than a tenth of that amount.
Does that make us rich? Not by a long shot. But it has kept us from going broke. More importantly, it has allowed my wife to stay at home and be a full-time mother. Thanks to that investment, we can afford to send my son to a private school, and my wife has plenty of time to help him with his schoolwork.
Had we used a good chunk of that downpayment for a diamond rather than buying a house, my wife would be forced to fight traffic every day to work outside the home, and she would have little time to help her son with his homework. I'll just bet she's happier without the diamond!
Oh my, you really have been burned, haven't you?
"Oh please.......playing the "victim" card and carrying on your silly vendetta against diamonds ( tell me, do you hold the same views against sapphires and rubies and emeralds and couture clothing and anything else that you can't afford? ), is just childish."
I never said anything about those other stones.
And how do you know what I can or cannot afford? Or did you just pull that out of your rear end like everything else your write?
Oh, and "friggin" is "profanity"? I suppose "darn" is profanity too, eh. You are a loser -- and yes, that is an insult. Go ahead and report me -- but don't forget to report yourself too, whiner. And don't forget to tell them that a mean man is picking on a poor helpless little woman.
If you live in the house, it hasn't put any money into your pocket, no matter what its valuation is, vis-a-vis what you put into it as a down payment.
You keep talking about "feeling social pressure" and then bashing anyone and everyone who may have a diamond or many... none of whom have told you that YOU MUST BUY THEM. That "pressure" you feel is all in your own mind; it certainly isn't on this thread, except from you.
No, you didn't mention those other stones, which is why I asked the question. I also mentioned other things, which, again, you have also chosen to ignore.
I know that you can't afford the things I said you can't, from what you have said in your posts. It comes through loud and clear and you proved my assumption to be correct in your previous post; the one about your house.
No, "darn" isn't profanity; however, what I pointed out to you, that you have already used, and now, that bit about "pull that out of your ass" is too.
I am neither "poor" nor "defenseless"; unlike you. And I am able to debate without using your low class, guttersnipe, juvenile, puerile tactics.
"If you live in the house, it hasn't put any money into your pocket, no matter what its valuation is, vis-a-vis what you put into it as a down payment."
Now, *that* has to take the cake for the most clueless posts ever. You don't know the first thing about personal finances, do you.
First of all, have you ever heard of a home equity loan? Could that "put money in my pocket"? Secondly, has it not occurred to you that I would have to pay rent if I did not own a home? And let's not even get into tax benefits and retirement.
"No, "darn" isn't profanity; however, what I pointed out to you, that you have already used, and now, that bit about "pull that out of your ass" is too."
You know darn well that is not what I wrote. You are a friggin' liar. Are you left-wing college student by any chance?
Apparently, I know and actually understand far more about personal finances than you do, from what you've just said. Evidently, you imagine that loans are some kind of "free" money" and have no bearing on your assets or net worth. And as far as your retirement is concerned, here's hoping that when that time comes, you don't have to sell into a down or collapsed housing market. Of course, by the time you've paid off all of the loans you keep taking out, your final profit won't be as great as you hope they will be.
You just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper!
I've only had it a little over a year, and have never polished it . . . I guess I should look into that! I don't recall my mother ever caring for her opals.
Maybe that's 'cause we live in Houston, and it's pretty darn humid here. :)
Your level of ignorance is truly incredible. So borrowing against equity in a home is no different than borrowing against nothing?
Listen genius, the equity in my home is *mine.* It's something I would not have if I had squandered the money on a diamond instead of a home. It's like having money in the bank. Getting the home equity loan is like taking my own money out of the bank. Yes, of course I have to pay the loan back, but I can always sell the house to pay it back if I need to.
Yes, of course it is unwise to take a home equity loan if you are going to squander the money (on an expensive diamond, for example). It is also unwise to take your money out of the bank if you are going to squander it, but does that money in the bank is useless?
You are truly clueless. I suggest you quit while you're behind.
Okay, so you said "rear", not "ass"; same thing and still disallowed.
Please do try, even a wee bit, to get control of yourself and stop reacting with such emotionalism; it is not becoming and so babyish.
Let me give you my honest opinion of people like you. You disgust me. You get on a discussion forum and you dish out insults but then you cry foul when you get insulted back. Then you try to play the gender card and claim that I am "denigrating women." You misquote me to make my posts look vulgar. Then you make some remark about how little I can afford without any basis whatsoever, just to insult me.
You have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the diamond ruse. You've already proven that by implying that I must be against the diamond ruse because I am "cheap" or poor. Grow up and quit wasting the time of the adults on this forum.
Math and logic are not your forte. You really should take your own advice and quite when you are lagging so far behind. But here's a hint....your "equity" is less than you suppose, because you have to repay the loans. Please get someone to explain debits and credits to you.
You've played so many different "cards", one needs a score card to keep track of them all.
Oh, so "schumck" which translates to the word penis, isn't vulgar? How about your constant use of the word "friggin"? When you manages to pull yourself up out of the gutter and are able to write as an adult, instead of like a low class 12 year old, then, and only then, reply to me; sweetums.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.