Posted on 12/06/2002 11:34:20 PM PST by MadIvan
Film star Vanessa Redgrave stepped in to help in the release of fellow actor Ahmed Zakayev, a Chechen rebel envoy accused of mass murder, who is seeking political asylum in the UK.
It is not the first time the actress has spoken out publicly on causes she supports. BBC News Online takes a look at the political episodes that have featured in her life.
Vanessa Redgrave, born in 1937, is a fully-fledged member of an acting dynasty.
She is the daughter of actors Sir Michael Redgrave and Rachel Kempson, sister of Corin and Lynn Redgrave, and mother of Natasha and Joely Richardson.
She shared another passion with her father, that of politics, but has gone on to become far more involved in causes than he ever was.
Serious
These causes have often been controversial.
And utterly stupid - Ivan
In 1977 during her acceptance speech at the Academy Award ceremony, she attacked "Zionist hoodlums" who had campaigned against her because she had defended the Palestinian Liberation Organisation.
She has supported the exploited and oppressed, from Sarajevo to Tibet.
Or in the case of Chechniya, the murderous and the vile - Ivan
She is also a Unicef special representative and takes seriously her role to be at the service of children from any country.
To use an old American expression, "gag me with a spoon" - Ivan
More recently, she was among several actors who voiced their support for the return of the Elgin Marbles to Greece.
Traitor too, oh well - Ivan
The Parthenon 2004 campaign pledged to make the British government and museum curators send back the ancient sculptures in time for the Olympics in Athens in 2004.
But Redgrave's left-wing politics have probably not helped her screen career, and some admirers have pointed out that most other actresses of her eminence have been made Dames.
Her Majesty is notoriously allergic to giving titles to people who are renowned only for their idiocy - Ivan
Sense of justice
It is debatable whether her political forays have helped her career in Hollywood.
Others admire her strong sense of justice.
Mark Rylance, director of London's Globe Theatre, was moved to cast Redgrave in the male role of Prospero in Shakespeare's The Tempest (2000) because "Prospero is a man with immense power who is moved to mercy. Vanessa understands that".
And the production was a flop. Tradition, old boy, tradition, Prospero's a bloody man! - Ivan
In an interview with the BBC's Women's Hour in 1991, Redgrave herself admitted that sometimes her forays into political causes, coupled with her acting commitments had taken its toll on family life.
But she said: "As a mother you have got to have a view for now and a view for the future."
She added: "The people I admire most are those who struggle for everyone ... to have their democratic rights (to say what they think).
Why would I want to do that? Do you want to ignore the fact that the Northern Alliance is back to their old tricks? They are producing heroin and selling it in the west.
Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it any less true. Hope that helps.
Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it any less untrue. Hope that helps.
This is simply nonsense. Reagan and Carter supported the Mujahaden terrorists because they were on our side. They were most definately terrorists and the CIA trained them to be so. They were dubbed freedom fighters because they were performing terrorist acts to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviet Union.
You trying to run around yapping like a demented poodle on amphetamines won't make it go away. You're a liar. It's been proven. Now you can either be quiet and hope that more people don't read this thread, or you can continue to post, and I will continue to prove again and again that you are a liar so that more of the FR community is aware of it than would be otherwise. Your choice.
Ivan
Yes, you are repeatedly lying. You said Reagan compared Bin Laden to the Founding Fathers - your words, not mind - and you've been proven a liar, in spite of repeated opportunities to prove the opposite.
You got the rope, tied it into a noose, slipped it around your neck, kicked away the chair. Don't blame me for pointing out that you're dangling in the breeze.
Ivan
I never said that and you know it. I said that he was praising bin Laden and he was. That is because at the time bin Laden was fighting for US. The point was made in conjunction with another statement I made - one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
There was no smear.
When did the mujahadeen hit civilians?
Try again.
Ivan
He did you idiot. bin Laden was fighting with the Mujahaden against the Soviet Union at the time.
He praised the mujadhadeen. Bin Laden may have been in with the mujahadeen, but praising the mujahadeen as a whole is not directly praising Bin Laden as an individual. That is the thread you were trying to draw with your original smear, and that is what you should be ashamed of.
But you have no shame, decency, dignity, nor honour.
Ivan
If this is the standard you are going to apply regarding whether nor not any particular act is terrorist or not, you had better be careful because you are about to hoist yourself by your own petard.
You are perpetrating a smear. It won't stand and it won't wash. Reagan was not directly praising bin Laden as an individual, and you trying to make it seem so is utterly disgusting.
Ivan
He was and you know it. He was never Mujahaden but fought along side them.
Bin Laden may have been in with the mujahadeen, but praising the mujahadeen as a whole is not directly praising Bin Laden as an individual.
I never claimed he directly praised bin Laden by name. He didn't have to for the statement to be true.
This from the idiot who just hanged himself with everyone who admires Ronald Reagan on this site.
Yes, yes, I know you are going to bring up the bombing of Nazi Germany and the other tired old left wing canards. Really, you people are utterly predictable.
Ivan
LOL. You really are too much. Give it a rest.
Let's look at your word choice - Reagan compared Bin Laden to the Founding Fathers. Not the mujahadeen, which would have been accurate. No, you attempted a smear by directly linking Reagan to Bin Laden, suggesting he praised him as an individual.
If you had said "Reagan praised the mujahadeen, which contained many objectionable people like Bin Laden", then perhaps you could claim accuracy. But no, you said Reagan praised Bin Laden, which can only be read as a direct smear on Reagan's reputation.
Keep going, the more you talk, the more you show yourself to be a degenerate.
Ivan
No. I am not going to let you get away with smearing a man I greatly admire.
Ivan
You have already admitted that bin Laden was trained by the CIA and fought with the mujahaden. Thus you know that there is no smear here. It is true. Reagan meant to praise everyone who was fighting against the Soviet's in Afghanistan. That includes bin Laden. Hope that helps. This is not an indictment on Reagan. He didn't know that bin Laden would later form Al Qaeda. The only reason you want to pretend this is a smear is for some sort of alleged rhetorical advantage. It isn't working.
I am not sure if slave trading and beheading of hostages are part of democratic rights. If it were so, then maybe democracy would not be so good idea.
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.