The Pitt Factor and the Curious Case of Namibia

Consider the Angelina precursors: Juliette Lewis, Gwynneth Paltow and Jennifer Aniston. Once distanced from the Pitt factor, their tabloid and paparazzi quotients went down.  Entertainment magazines were still interested when they had a movie to publicize or when there was a major life event. But the constant fervor was no longer there.
 
Brad Pitt claims amazement; that he does not know why this is happening to him.  But Brad is far more conscious of what he is doing to affect such results than he would have the public believe.  He once said that he uses the fact that he is underestimated intellectually to his advantage in business. Nothing happens in Hollywood or Namibia by accident.
 
Somehow it is not Pitt's fault.  It is the tabloids and the paparazzi; the press and the photographers who are to blame.  They are out of control; not him.  His fans defend him and claim that he has no choice but to do what he does. But now all this nonsense has reached an international forum. It is one thing to misdirect and toy with the international press but quite another to put a country in the position of having to defend itself on matters of freedom of the press and human rights.
 
Take the curious case of Namibia.  The National Security of Human Rights "condemned the heavy-handed and brutal tactics selectively directed against local and certain foreign journalists" as "the security personnel of Pitt and Jolie and Namibia police members conducted unwarranted door-to-door searches of the homes of local residents for paparazzi and other media workers." Such actions are only constitutionally  "allowed on the grounds of inter alia national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country."  Yet they happened.
 
The unfortunate impression is, that Namibia, normally a democratic country, in a bout of temporary insanity brought on by the Pitt factor and Angelina's charitable donations and humanitarian work, had become Brangelinaland. A number of government representatives have generally denied that they were any violations of freedom of the press or human rights; the laws were simply enforced uninfluenced by Brad and Angelina. In particular the Deputy Minister of Environment and Tourism stated in an announcement last Friday that the two visitors had at no point influenced the actions taken against foreign journalists who invaded their privacy.
 
Namibia wants to attract tourism.  But what message are they really sending to the average tourist?  That there is a double standard. If you are rich and famous, they will close the only restaurant between Walvis Bay and Swakopmund. Other tourists can fend for themselves at the nonexistent grocery store. Do not even try to walk on the public jetty.  And you would think the local economy would benefit from the influx of tourist dollars brought by members of the international press. Yes, the paparazzi are not really tourists but who is to say they did not spend some of their time seeing the sights?  Then Mickey Brett, Brad and Angelina's security chief, was not a tourist either despite his claims of being "on holiday". Odds are he was working without a permit, but was he deported? Not yet.
 
Namibia has demonstrated a selective enforcement of their laws and statutes; one for the very rich and one for all others. Granted they were in a difficult position given the Pitt factor. Why does Brad Pitt do what he does?  Because he can.  He indirectly used the laws and resources of a country to control and mock the legitimate international press including representatives who were asked to leave or be deported. When will the press back lash begin?