Some unanswered questions about Hilary Swank and human rights

Hilary Swank attempted a bit of reputation management at the weekend, using Jay Leno’s sofa to issue a fulsome apology for her recent paid appearance at Chechen dictator Ramzan Kadyrov’s 35th birthday party.

During the interview, which you can watch highlights of here, the actress claimed that the trip to Grozny was all a big accident. But she nonetheless accepted that it shouldn’t have happened: “Shame on me,” she said.

To show exactly how sorry she is, Swank pledged back in October that the money she earned from the trip, which is said to extend to six figures, will now be donated to charity. During Friday’s Leno interview, she added that she will also now be taking an active role in campaigning against regimes such as Mr Kadyrov’s. “The silver lining is that I’m actually working with Human Rights Watch now,” she said.

So far, so good. Except for two small points. Firstly, no charity, or non-profit, has yet come forward to confirm receipt of Ms Swank’s appearance fee. There is, as yet, no evidence that it has been handed over, as was originally promised two months ago.

Secondly, and equally curiously, Human Rights watch does not appear to have the slightest idea about what capacity it is now supposed to be collaborating with Ms Swank in.

On Monday, I emailed the noble organisation’s press office to ask whether it really was “working with” the actress. They replied as follows…

We have met with Hilary Swank twice after the Oct 5 gala so that she could educate herself about the situation in Chechnya.

I think at the moment, that is all we can say. I’m afraid we don’t have information about whether she has donated her money to charity…

So questions remain: is Ms Swank actually “working with” Human rights watch? Will her relationship with them extend beyond taking a couple of meetings? What charities have received her tainted money? How much were they paid? And when?

We are alas unable to put these queries to the actress, since she was dumped by her PR agency, 42 West, last month, in the aftermath of the affair. A few days earlier, as this newspaper revealed, she sacked her manager and let go of several members of her team at Hollywood talent agency CAA over the Chechen debacle.

Recent Posts on Arts

• Owen Howells: From the UK to Australia and back again (and again!)
• Brighton Fringe 2013 - Is everyone sitting uncomfortably?
• The Fall 'Darkness Visible' - Series 1, episode 2
• ‘Vicious’ – Series 1, episode 4
• Game of Thrones 'Second Sons' - Season 3, episode 8

• bigned

  ‘yes she was threatened
  you do this or we spoil your name 
  how fair is that’

  You are arguing with yourself.  First you say she was a victim of terrorist threats,  then you say she in fact she wasn’t.  You say instead that human rights groups  threatened to expose her “mistake’ unless she admitted her ‘mistake’

• BalqisDeCesare

  you keep going in circles assuming and a lot 
  If my views were biased I wouldnt be reading this newspaper which belongs to a family in open opposition
  I chose a wide range of media from foxnews to press tv then I filter and form my opinion
  the puppet, the torturer, the journalists in russia are not free
  lot of talk from think tanks and propaganda machines but no solid evidence 
  it is easy to spoil one reputation like this 

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3FJY4VQMDZZJTTPT747OOMUS6E cookemedia.co.uk

  I know where you are coming from, it’s just that many people go overboard with the guilt by association (not necessarily you mind) Hilary Swank is not Ramzan Kadyrov.

  ps Not sure you appreciate what Bush ‘n Blair have done…

• manwhosees

  Heck no !!

• http://twitter.com/snowmantweets Snowman

  According to the last ‘election’ the Russian Federation had, Chechens voted >90% in favour of Putin. 

  The fact that you forget to mention this statistic as you complain about pro-Putin Chechens having no voice shows that even you don’t believe the vote results.

• BalqisDeCesare

  I meant they have no voice in western media, and in fact the main comment to that, it was that frauds in the caucasus covered losses in other regions which is quite forced in my opinion There may have been frauds which will be investigated, but not so massive

• http://twitter.com/snowmantweets Snowman

  Oh, that sets my mind at ease. ‘Not so massive’. Just 80% or so.

• BalqisDeCesare

  we need to have evidences 
  Russia is a sovereign country and will act accordingly

• http://twitter.com/snowmantweets Snowman

  YOU may need ‘evidences’. I don’t.

• Nick_Grace

  Given the length of time between her receiving the payment & the point where she actually hands the money (IF this ever happens), then it MUST be ensured that she also returns any other benefits that she may have received from this incident – including any interest received while the money was in her account, any tax-allowances she may have claimed for putting on the performance, any additional ‘gifts’ or ‘benefits’ (such as travel, accommodation, or ‘personal gifts’), that she may have received for the performance. In general, the actual monetary ‘fee’ for most performances and appearances that people may put on are only a small part of the full package that they would actually receive.
  If she wishes to attempt to claim that she received no personal gain from this performance, then she must be seen to be shedding ALL forms of gain that she may have received from it.