Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan again stoked the fires of
controversy recently with some terse remarks and criticism of pop singer Rihanna. The remarks were part of a much longer speech as part of the organization’s annual Saviour’s Day celebration.
Over the years I’ve both praised and criticized Minister Farrakhan as his career has been full of moments worthy of both. The Mo’Kelly Report has acknowledged both. His reticence to inject himself into the campaign of then-Senator Barack Obama was admirable. The work of the Nation of Islam in rehabilitating African-American men is inarguable and also admirable. On the other hand, his most recent remarks of Rihanna’s performances being “filthy” and her “fans” akin to “swine” must be viewed in a critical light and acknowledged for their self-serving nature. He crossed the line.
Here’s why…
Minister Farrakhan can never and should never ever claim ignorance as to how the media operates. The remarks were made with full understanding of their inherent viral nature. They might have been made to a specific and particular audience but invariably were meant for a much wider consumption.
His criticisms of Rihanna were, in a word…”strange;” full of inherent contradictions. They were also troublesome and disrespectful for many reasons unacknowledged by the minister.
It seems more than just odd to single out Rihanna’s performances as being “filthy,” when hers typify the whole of popular music. Rihanna is no more or less sexually suggestive in her presentation than Nicki Minaj, Ciara, Lady Gaga or even Beyoncé once upon a time. If the minister is “knowledgeable” about the wayward performances of Rihanna, then surely he’s heard of all of them…right?
And speaking of Beyoncé, isn’t that the same Beyoncé presently receiving considerable criticism for having performed for embattled Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi?
Farrakhan has also criticized Beyoncé for her alleged negative influence on women but it also bears mentioning that praising Gaddafi and rebuking Rihanna in the same Saviour’s Day speech is inherently contradictory when done without criticizing also Gaddafi’s fandom of Beyoncé.
If we can agree that Rihanna and Beyoncé are more similar than not, and thus Rihanna’s “filth” is little different than Beyoncé’s “filth”…then how are the “swine” fans of Rihanna different from the “swine” of Gaddafi, who is an unabashed Beyoncé fan?
These are contradictions which can’t be ignored.
Maybe they are connected to the fact that Farrakhan not-so-coincidentally received the Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights in 1996.
Just maybe…
If a non-Black political figure made these same comments and only called out Rihanna in the process, we in the African-American community would be up in arms with chants of racism. The comments cross the line, irrespective of the orator and we should not lose sight of that.
This rant against Rihanna wasn’t “personal” was it? Either Minister Farrakhan thoroughly knows pop music and he can comment knowledgeably about all the pop “filth” or he does not and should not have in the first place.
It’s one or the other.
If the goal is bringing an end to the hyper-sexuality of pop music, does it really begin and end with Rihanna of all people?
Is the minister concerned only with Black female pop artists who are “filthy;”…given his omission of anyone and everyone else of a similar ilk? Does he even know Rihanna on any level or seen the multitude of her performances? “Filthy” is a quite personal and extreme adjective. I would want to know what concerts he’s attended and who exactly purchased his tickets.
Having an opinion on a subject opens the door for discussion as to how one managed to form it.
In addition, if we are going to discuss the social relevance of music and its impact on the image and self-respect of women; then we must also be honest enough to discuss Minister Farrakhan’s career as a calypso singer in the 50s and his songs such as Ugly Woman.
Comparatively and ironically, Rihanna is about the same age now as when Louis Farrakhan was originally best known musically as “The Charmer.” Minister Farrakhan could have offered wise words of counsel, speaking from one generation to another in an uplifting tone; yet instead openly disrespected her. He disrespected her as a woman in a way similar to his criticisms of her actions as a woman. Disrespecting Black women is not the pathway to increasing the cumulative respect of them.
It never has been and never will be.
His insults were borderline vulgar, to assail the supposed vulgarity of her performances. The fullness of the pop genre deserved the critique but it was unfairly levied at just Rihanna. The fullness of the hip-hop genre deserved the critique but it was unfairly and only levied at just Rihanna.
Just Rihanna.
I don’t get it…not even a little bit.
Conversely, where were the public remarks vilifying the reprehensible behavior in the BEATING of Rihanna in previous years? Should I take that to mean that the Honorable Minister cares less about who BEATS Black women and more about how ONE dresses and dances? It’s a reasonable question to ask in any discussion about any and all things “harmful” to Black women and the examples set.
I’m in no way unclear; beating a woman is worse than any widely viewed music concert by that same woman. So, shouldn’t fans of Chris Brown then too be akin to “swine?” Also, if we are to have any meaningful discussion about the negative influences impacting Black women; it requires being honest about the historical treatment of women within the Nation of Islam. That too is relevant. Rihanna is clearly too “free” and too single-minded in the minds of many in the NOI.
Don’t get Mo’Kelly started…
I’m all for cleaning up the imagery in pop music. But I’m more for intellectual honesty and consistency in the process.
If women are to be respected and protected, we must acknowledge that the remarks of Minister Farrakhan were neither respectful of Rihanna personally nor protective of the honor of women more broadly. Farrakhan should be consistent and also condemn the misogyny and buffoonery in hip hop as ardently as in his rebuke of Rihanna.
Publicly.
By name.
To offer “constructive criticism” of hip hop over the years but not singularly call out artists by name (as he did Rihanna and Beyoncé) for sending the image of African-American women straight to hell, it’s hypocrisy, plainly stated.
Gaddafi is praised, Rihanna is condemned and Chris Brown is summarily ignored in their respective behaviors.
I don’t get it…not even a little bit.
If Rihanna is setting a bad example for women in her music, what does that say about Lil Wayne’s and 50 Cent’s treatment of them in theirs…just for starters?
That’s not a rhetorical question.
Lil Wayne…jail, multiple and simultaneous baby-mamas, a career of musical misogyny.
No public commentary from Minister Farrakhan on the egregious behavior of Lil Wayne…for starters and he’s been around arguably longer than Rihanna. No personal insults about the nature of his performances or the alleged “pork” nature of the fans who support him.
If this is going to be roll call…then call all of the roll. Don’t only take convenient shots at one woman.
Minister Farrakhan historically has chosen to say little publicly and vehemently on the incessant and overt “filth” of misogyny in hip hop, other than bemoaning the supposed Jewish corporate influence on the industry; in effect excusing hip-hop artists for their behavior.
Farrakhan should attack any and all purveyors of “filth” consistently and with a consistent level of vitriol. Until he does, his remarks pertaining to Rihanna reek of chauvinism wrapped in misogyny. Hip hop has been far more harmful to women than anything Rihanna has worn or performed and that’s not even up for debate.
It is unfair, unrighteous and intellectually dishonest to present Rihanna as the largest and sole offender of Black female sensibilities and it needs to be called out for what it is.
Somebody has to do it; might as well be The Mo’Kelly Report. Somebody needs to defend Black women, might as well be The Mo’Kelly Report.
Send your hatemail to [email protected].
If the goal is respecting the honor of Black women, then the fullness of Minister Farrakhan public commentaries (both actual and absent) are worthy fodder for discussion. You can’t speak up for women while in the same breath disrespecting a woman and those who look up to her. He could have counseled, respected and also protected. Instead he opted for disrespect to get his message across. Minister Farrakhan needs to be held accountable for his actions, irrespective of his intentions.
The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published at The Huffington Post and EURWEB.com. For more Mo’Kelly, https://mrmokelly.com. Mr. Mo’Kelly can be reached at [email protected].
Free Subscription to The Mo’Kelly Report HERE
Follow The Mo’Kelly Report on Facebook Network Blogs HERE.
38 responses to “Farrakhan’s Rihanna Remarks Cross the Line”
Actually Beyonce does need to stop shaking her butt. She actually is getting older and she has done it so often…..when will it stop?
I don’t disagree with you on that point. But as much as Beyonce needs to stop shaking it, Hip Hop needs to stop disrespecting it. There’s room for equal and level-handed commentary from the Honorable Minister. I can’t honestly say Riri is more “at fault” than any rapper.
It’s not even close.
I read something defending Farrakhan’s words/actions this morning, and then I read this. I still think that Rihanna reacted out of emotion and, since I read the transcript of his speech, I don’t think he meant what he said to be as venomous as it may come across. BUT NOW, thanks to your entry, I have to agree with you – ALL participants in music ought to be called out. Thanks for giving me another spin on the situation.
Mr. Farrakhan needs to sit his racist behind down and stop trying to move into areas he has no business being involved in.
This is all about bringing attention to himself, so he uses a young/topical celebrity to do so.
Mr. F needs to work on his hate message, realize that his message is old, tired, and on the way out with most thinking human beings on the planet.
Although I appreciate your attention given to this “issue?” I am not moved one bit by your commentary. Contrary to your statement regarding Rihanna’s alleged victimization, many people believe that she received more sympathy than she deserved. She was a full participant in the fight that she had with Brown as she attacked him; but was made the victim because she lost the fight. This is not meant to condone violence; but bring a sense of reality to those who seek to capitalize on the Domestic Violence Industry’s propensity to unjustly vilify men who protect themselves from physical and emotional aggression.
I have no direct knowledge why the Minister selected her as an example, but I suspect that she was chosen because she publicly participated in the aforementioned farce which may encourage other women to do the same. The wisdom behind this selection of her is supported by data which demonstrates that retaliation from false accusations does far more damage to females and their families than actual DV. The Minister knows this as the NOI participated in DV studies.
Moreover, I would even argue that the Minister is on point in calling out those who supported her because of the incident with Brown. He may not have been very exact with his words, but I suspect that he was on target to those who are deserving.
Were you in the car with Rihanna and Chris that you can state categorically that she attacked him, and being made a victim because she lost the fight, if you don’t know what to say shut the frigg up, CB attacked Rihanna in a way that was short of brutality, how do I know this, because she told the story to us when she came home to Barbados, CB should have been locked up for the things he did to her, but you can sit on you high and mighty ass and chat nonsense………..LF should also go to hell in a handbasket because he is nothing but a K9.
MoKelly, I am so happy to be living to see the fall of AmeriKKKa, white supremacy and its imps which inlude the likes of you. It is time to call the swine without regard of who they are. Minister Farrakhan has more value to me and many on the planet than the whole of the white race who is out numbered 11:1 by the darker people of the earth. The U.S., Europe and its allies plan to kill billions of the darker people who reside on land filled with vital resources… Resources that will keep their demonic pockets filled. Riri and other entertainers help to keep the wool over 85% of the deaf, dumb and blind population’s eyes as the U.S., Europe and their allies kill and usurp resources from the lands of the darker people. Surely Minister Farrakhan had little time to explain his expose on Riri. History shows that God has little respect of personality especially a damn entertainer. Minister Farrakhan speaks for the salvation of the whole of the depised and rejected. God is going to wipe out the whole entertainment industry by setting it up to wipe out itself. Self destruct. The weapon is Youtube, twitter and other social networks. Your satellites will be next. You should know this by now ever since the appearance of Mahdi, Master Fard Muhammad, July 4, 1930. Make ready for your destruction with the devils. Baby Plane Pilot # 7, out.
Um…yeah. I could respond but why? The comments by you were hilarious all by themselves…I’ll let them stand on their own so everyone can enjoy them “Baby Pilot”…
“Baby Pilot”…for real?
Chris Brown’s “retaliation” was not in any way justified. He beat her silly. Unless she had a weapon (which she did not) his actions were in no way justified. We aren’t talking about one strike, we’re talking about repeated and raining blows to the face of a woman.
He could have walked away or called the police and had her arrested accordingly. It’s not hard to understand.
I’m not moved by your commentary either. There’s nothing “wrong” with the supposed point the minister was attempting to make…but specifically pointing at Rihanna while “conveniently” ignoring all like her within the genre and HISTORICALLY ignoring hip hop is indicative of more patriarchal gibberish ignorant of reality.
And how convenient of you to ignore Gaddafi in this. Would you like to elaborate on how he’s funded the NOI for these many years? Or how is it that a dictator has a “Human Rights” award named after him?
Yes, I too am unmoved by you for the same reasons I critiqued Minister Farrakhan. You ignore the obvious contradictions to suit your point of the moment.
LF you should be shame to critisize Rihanna, you don’t have any plans of returning to Barbados?
First of all; I never termed the incident “retaliation.” What I said is that she was a participant in the fight and lost. She was not some innocent victim who was abused by him. In fact, if she had been abused as she led folks to believe, don’t you think that there would have been a documented history of it? We are talking about “stars” here. And I don’t give a damn about her story of what occurred as manufacturing stories of abuse has become perfected by the DV industry. I look at the evidence and every indication suggest that she projected violence; just as much as he did. Neither acted correctly. But to ignore her aggression and make her a victim is the type of brainwashing that has led to the destruction of our community.
My use of the term “retaliation,” however is well documented in a NY times article. In the November 17, 2002 issue of the New York Times, reporter Deborah Sontag challenged conventional thinking about domestic violence by exploring the issue as reciprocal abuse. The article was named, “Fierce Entanglements.” “The New York Times reporter Deborah Sontag also wrote quote un-qoute:
“An experiment in 1984 in Minneapolis played a defining role in reshaping the police approach. On the basis of 314 domestic violence cases, a study conducted by the criminologists Lawrence W. Sherman and Richard A. Berk concluded that arrests discouraged batterers from committing future acts of battery. The authors cautioned that the sample size was small and the findings preliminary, but their caution was not heeded. Citing their work, a federal task force recommended that arrest become the standard response to misdemeanor domestic violence cases. It did; most states now have mandatory arrest laws. After his Minneapolis study, however, Sherman refined his thinking on the basis of further studies that revealed a far more complicated picture. He oversaw one such study in Milwaukee, which showed that arrest makes low-income men more violent than does a simple warning by the police. The low-income men in Milwaukee, most of who happened to be black, were three times as likely to be arrested than employed white men were. Therefore, by his study’s oddly precise calculations, mandatory arrest in Milwaukee prevented 2,504 acts of violence against primarily white women at the price of 5,409 additional acts of violence against primarily black women.”
I’m not attempting to excuse Brown’s behavior and I agree with you that he should have walked away if he could. But I also see that you promote men calling the police on women which puts us right back into the Willie Lynch syndrome. “Black men vs. Black women”
The police will not stop an ass whoppin from occurring. That is not their role in our society. Their role is to arrest and create a public record of criminal activity. However, family and friends CAN STOP abuse from occurring and before calling the police we should call them to step in to mitigate the situation. Bringing the police in has been documented to heighten hostility not diffuse it.
With your reference to Gaddafi; I don’t know enough about the man or his relationship with the NOI. I understand that he did provide funds but so what if he did? What’s the crime? Did the NOI use that money to sell drugs to its community? No! Moreover, the United states has a long storied history of funding dictators. The United States funded Saddam Hussein and the Taliban!!!
That also goes for a dictator has a “Human Rights” award named after him. George Washington who was a slave owner has numerous monuments named after him. But Gaddafi has awarded monies to the likes of:
1989 Nelson Mandela[1]
1990 “The children of Palestine”[1]
1991 The indigenous peoples of the Americas[1]
1992 The African Centre for Combating Aids[1]
1993 “The children of Bosnia and Herzegovina”[1]
1994 The Union of Human Rights Societies and Peoples in Africa
and others. Who did Washington provide humanitarian gifts for? So again, what is your point?
Brotha, I commend you on your efforts towards trying to make a difference but your message lacks true substance. It belongs more on the back page of People’s Magazine than any scholarly publication.
What “man” engages in a fistfight with a woman in the first place? You prove my point.
You mean OTHER than the photos, the police report and the guilty plea by Chris Brown? Other than that verified documented history of the event?
Yes you are, as referenced above. There’s never an excuse for beating a woman half your size who does not wield a weapon. You are not only excusing it but borderline condoning it.
Maybe not in Libya…but there’s a reason why the LAPD motto is “To Protect and Serve” and we have this thing called 911. If Chris Brown couldn’t “stop” from beating up Rihanna, you’re right…that’s not the LAPD’s problem. But if Rihanna had hit Chris, he could’ve called the police and had her arrested. That way, nothing else transpires which ruins his image. He made the wrong choice and you’re wrong for excusing it.
Never said there was any crime. I said Minister Farrakhan’s critique of those who are Swine by the fact that they are fans of Rihanna or those who perform in the same manner should also include Gadhafi for that reason. Please actually READ the editorial you alleged to be less than scholarly before offering an ill-informed criticism.
This coming from the guy who just said he didn’t really know much about Gadhafi or his relationship with the NOI? Substance? Yes, we’re all entitled to our opinions, just some are more informed than others.
I appreciate that…but I’m confused as to your idea of a “scholarly publication.” You’re clearly uninformed about the specifics of the evidence in the Brown/Rihanna case, the police report, the guilty plea and the photos…you admit having scant knowledge about Gadhafi the person or his relationship to the NOI (Google does exist you know)…and you offer an unsolicited comment as to the quality of my work…though you visited on your own and commented multiple times.
Please excuse the run-on sentence but that’s just funny.
I’ll leave it at that. I suggest becoming an authority on the subjects you’re trying to argue before coming here to chastise an editorial. Thanks for the chuckle nonetheless. And it is “People” magazine…not “People’s”…
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Again, I am imposing a sense of reality to this discussion which you apparently take as condoning Brown’s behavior. We do not live in a society of weak women. I have personally witness some women beat the living crap out of guys and in one case, a much bigger guy ended up in critical condition because he subscribed to the never hit a woman facade that you promote while the smaller woman continued to beat him. Ideally, no man should get into a fist fight with a woman, just as no woman should attack a man. Unfortunately that is not the world we live in. Particularly when data demonstrates that the demographic with the highest growth of enacting violence over the past ten years, as well as, the one who is most apt to unjustly call the police on her man, is the African American woman. I don’t say that, the data indicates that and until your commentary reflects this reality, it remains a substitute for real journalism.
Pictures do not tell the story of how something occurred. It sometimes depict the end result. But, for you to hang your hat on a confession or police report tells me that again your analysis does not reflect the reality of a criminal injustice system which manufactures convictions.
With reference to calling the police you refer to LAPD’s motto??? LOL. Now that is hilarious and again does not reflect the reality. The police have a storied history of doing any and everything but serving and protecting the black community. If a man is trying to hurt a woman or vis-a vis, do you actually think that the police would get there in time? More importantly, do you think that they actually give a damn about what happens to the couple? Your solution to addressing the issue does not empower us, it again propels us back into that Willie Lynch syndrome.
You still have not given any reason why Farrakhan should have criticized Qaddafi? Were you aware of the fact that the majority of those who are fighting for Qaddafi are of African decent and fighting against Arabs who discriminated, killed, stole and raped members of their community? I’m sorry, I just don’t simply accept mainstream media’s account of the conflict.
The difference between you and I is that you appear to promote propaganda without examining the whole picture while hanging your hat on emotionally charged theoretical positions. You accept the surface as the whole truth. I don’t.
P.S. Thanks for correcting me regarding; “People” magazine. You would be a better reference for that publication than I.
The law is clear, when he swings his arm to punch her, it’s assault. When he connects, it’s battery. That’s the law. Rihanna is literally outweighed by some 50 lbs at least. Whether we live in a society of weak or strong women, is neither here nor there. I’m not impressed by any man beating the snot out of a woman who is giving up 50 lbs. and some 8 inches in height.
I wasn’t dealing in hypothetical ideals. The reality is that the photos, police report and guilty plea verify everything I’ve said on the specifics of this subject, not an esoteric argument on who supposedly is more apt to “unjustly” call the police. I have a police report, a court case and a guilty plea on my side of this discussion. What do you have other than an unsupported opinion having nothing to do with the specifics of this case? I’ll wait all week for an answer.
What part of “he pleaded guilty” was unclear?
I did…it’s in the editorial. Read it again slowly.
Irrelevant to the discussion. I’m in no way concerned with whether he stays in power or whether he’s a sympathetic figure. I was only elucidating the fact that he is a dictator, not an elected official and a fan of Beyonce whose dancing style Farrakhan criticized, like Rihanna’s. You clearly never read my piece and it’s glaringly evident. You ask questions that are already answered in the piece. You have to go further than the headline next time.
Police report, court transcripts, guilty plea…nothing emotional about that. You have no facts to offer and you call my position an “emotionally charged theoretical position?” You’re in over your head “thinker.” Not impressed with flowery rhetoric or non-specific assertions. Either you have facts or you do not.
I totally agree with you. I am a black, 60 year old retired female located in Monroe, Louisiana. I don’t know about the law in the other states or the law in other parts of Louisiana, but if two people (woman/man) are involved in domestic violence here, both go to jail.
You have been able to put into words my thinking on this matter. Any Black person (rich or poor) that thinks “protect and serve” is inclusive of the Black race is insane.
Brotha; neither am I impressed with someone beating another. Just as I am not impressed with someone who relies on court documents from a system which has been trained and organized to dispel the truth in order obtain convictions. If your reference to documents derived from a system that was not bent on distorting the truth, then I too would be in support of your position. However, I am not as naive to believe that they represent the truth. You apparently have investigatory ambitions and I would suggest that you do a bit more research beyond the court documents before you assert them as “facts”. You are referencing what the court refers to as “legal facts.” Big difference between “legal facts” and the “truth”. Particularly in incidents of alleged DV.
If Farrakhan said that her fans are swine and Qaddafi (not Gaddafi) is in deed a fan of Beyonce (she and others performed for him) whose dancing style Farrakhan criticized, like Rihanna’s, then I don’t understand your point. Farrakhan’s mentioning of Qaddafi during his speech was related to the current unrest; not who Qaddafi may or may not be a fan of. It seems as though you are attempting to connect unrelated dots here.
As far as him being a dictator and not an elected official, so what? Mayor Dailey signed a 75 year contract with a company which imposes unjust fines on citizens of Chicago for an amount of money that can not be accounted for. The citizens had no say so. Bush and Chaney enacted a war at the expense of lives and trillions of tax payer money that has never been justified. I assess by what is done, not by titles.
Bottom line, you seem to be upset with Farrakhan because he criticized Rihanna and did not criticize other people who you think that he should have. That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. Conversely, I’m entitled to believe that Rihanna is no helpless victim and Farrakhan; by the virtue of his previous thoughtfulness has earned the right to criticize who he sees fit.
Whatever dude…I don’t do conspiracy theories. There are such things as facts. I have more than you do on this issue. Please come back when you have some.
If you have nothing to offer to either discredit or rebut my evidence then you have no evidence.
It is irrelevant your level of supposed distrust of the system generally or Rihanna specifically. You have no evidence to support your point on this case. You have nothing.
This is too easy. You have nothing to rebut my legal facts, including a non-coerced guilty plea. You have NOTHING other than conjecture.
Oh please…now you’re reaching. Don’t confuse corrupt politicians with dictators who won’t leave, even under threat of military coup after 30 years. That’s called grasping at straws. Reagan did some ill stuff too 30 years ago, it doesn’t make him akin to a dictator. It’s called term limits. Not only that, you’re not forced to live in Chicago. You can’t come and go from Libya as you see fit.
Nope, not upset at all. You keep attributing emotion where it does not exist. I provide facts and instances of hypocrisy. You provide conjecture. If anyone is living in the world of opinion it is you.
Nobody said she was helpless or a victim. Neither word came out of my mouth and once again, you’re making stuff up. Nobody needs to be “helpless” or a “victim” for someone else to be charged with a crime against you. This is basic stuff “thinker.” I need you to live up to your moniker.
I can put my hands on a cop and I will be arrested for assault and battery on a peace officer. Not only would I be rightfully arrested, the officer is neither “helpless” nor a “victim.” It’s called violation of the law. Chris Brown willfully broke the law. he entered his plea. He even did community service and domestic violence counseling. And you have NOTHING to submit to discredit the evidence as to something else deservedly happening in its place.
NOTHING.
Not only is that statement ridiculous, it’s purely subjective. Nobody “earns” the right to criticize who he/she sees fit. Either something or someone is worthy of criticism or it is not. Otherwise the first amendment doesn’t exist. This is really easy to understand “thinker.”
You’re too personally invested in loving Minister Farrakhan that you’ve lost all objectivity. You eschew facts for conjecture and opinion. That doesn’t work here. Come back when you have facts. The historical unfairness of the judicial system is not a worthy response to Chris Brown. Believe it or not, there are some brothas who did crimes and should justifiably do the time.
There was never a time in which the evidence presented was ever questioned, rebutted or refuted by Brown’s high-priced lawyers of his choosing. Nobody twisted Brown’s arm to enter a guilty plea…and it’s laughable you come here and deny these facts and also empty-handed and suggest you’re on equal footing with me in this discussion.
You have NOTHING. When that changes…come see me.
And it’s not like Chris Brown entered a “not guilty” plea. If you don’t want to take him at his word that’s on you. He entered a GUILTY plea. Forgot to mention, not only are there photos, there is a MEDICAL report. YOU HAVE NOTHING to support your thesis other than conjecture.
Not one scintilla of evidence as to the contrary.
NOTHING.
What it comes down to is you don’t personally “feel” Brown did something wrong. That’s irrelevant. You don’t “feel” that Brown should have been punished as harshly because you “feel” Rihanna was somehow culpable. Irrelevant.
You don’t know the law and somehow want to come in and try to debate it? Incredible. The only “mitigating” factor in assault and battery cases is self-defense. You can only claim self-defense if you are in immediate danger. Not only that, the amount of force used in response to defend yourself must not be excessive and only for the use of gaining safety. Nothing more.
Meaning, even if Rihanna punched Chris in the mouth “first,” the evidence shows his response was excessive. You may or may not be from California, but judging how much you love Farrakhan and your recitation of issues related to Chicago, you’re probably from Chicago and about Brown’s age.
The law in California (the only law that matters in the Brown case) is clear. The photos (irrespective of what you say), combined with the medical report are enough to convict Brown regardless of his plea. But the guilty plea did happen. I have facts on my side.
You have nothing.
According to the law; not policy, but law, in order to be charged with a crime, there must be a victim. If you unjustly put your hands on a police officer, or anyone else, then s/he is considered the victim. The existence of a victim is an essential element in any crime. That however does not mean that policy does not supersede law; which is how you came to your conclusion with your example.
You even quoting the self defense laws in an attempt to establish credibility of the court here demonstrates to me that you are truly idealistic to say the least. To those who don’t know better, you may appear to be on solid ground. To those who do know better, your position is weak as water. I would again suggest that you do some REAL investigatory work on the subject matter and I believe that you will not be as steadfast with your position. A guilty plea does not necessarily mean the truth or even that a crime was committed. There are thousands of people who have plead guilty for crimes that they did not commit because the prospects of loosing the case at trial was far more damaging then what was being offered. Trust me, if Rihanna was victimized as depicted in those pictures, Brown would have been put under the jail and he would have deserved it. This is not what I “feel”, it is based upon extensive research.
I think that we both can agree though that the violence which occurred between Brown and Rihanna was not only tragic, but should never occur.
With reference to Farrakhan, I’m not blinded either way. I simply know that he is aware and has knowledge of the issue of DV, and Qaddafi that you are ignorant of. I also know that he is thoughtful enough to avoid laying undue criticism on anyone. Is he perfect? No. But, he is not known for simply running his mouth without having knowledge.
Oh, FYI: Folks from Libya; and others who should be considered illegal immigrants would have an easier chance of moving to Chicago than most US citizens who have a felony conviction would have of moving to Libya.
You’re all over the place. Solicitation of prostitution? Ever heard of that? You’re making up things. Driving above the speed limit is in violation of the law…no victim.
Driving twice the posted speed limit gets you arrested. No victim.
Public intoxication gets you arrested and charged…no victim.
Not filing an IRS income tax form can get you arrested. No victim. And that’s different from tax evasion.
You really don’t know the law and are making things up as you go. The only thing necessary to be charged with a crime is breaking the law. Not all laws have victims. The definition of a “victim” in a crime is an INJURED person. By definition, not my opinion.
Who is the “victim” in a conspiracy to commit murder? Nobody has to die to be charged with the crime. All you have to do is plan it with someone.
Not at all, it’s the statute under which he could have been found not guilty. He did not meet it. That’s not idealism, that’s realism. You’re trying to argue the case yet you have no statute or law in which to stand on. You have no facts about the case in which to create a defense and I’m arguing on idealism? I provided the actual law. You’re continuing with the esoteric “hypotheticals.”
That’s an opinion. And you can’t even verify you KNOW him personally. And before you ask, I’ve met him at least 5 times and spent ample time with him. To allege in effect that “if he criticized them…they deserved it” is beyond laughable.
I won’t even write anymore…that takes the cake. I’m done. I won’t even address the Libya stuff, you’ve discredited yourself enough. You’re 22, new in the NOI and live in the Chicago.
Got it.
In Warren County, Pennsylvania, persons arrested
on a charge of domestic violence are given two
options: Go to jail, or sign a pre-printed form that
says, “I have physically and emotionally battered
my partner.” The procedures eliminate any
possibility the defendant will be adjudged as
innocent.
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-VAWA-Promotes-Civil-Rights-Abuses.pdf
The U.S. Justice Department definition includes “extreme jealousy and possessiveness” and “name calling and constant criticizing.” For such “crimes” men are jailed with no trial. In fact, the very category of “domestic” violence was developed largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes. A study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found innocent, since every arrestee received punishment.
Here, too, false accusations are rewarded. “Women lie every day,” attests Ottawa Judge Dianne Nicholas. “Every day women in court say, ‘I made it up. I’m lying. It didn’t happen’ — and they’re not charged.” Amazingly, bar associations sponsor seminars instructing women how to fabricate accusations. Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal, expressed his astonishment at “the number of women attending the seminars who smugly — indeed boastfully — announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!” He added, “The lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants.”
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-VAWA-Promotes-Civil-Rights-Abuses.pdf
Absolutely NOTHING of what you posted applies to the Brown case.
False accusations? Uh…police report, medical report, court plea. If he pleaded “not guilty” then you can make that assertion.
You citing cases in Warren County proves my point. You have no evidence. You’re wasting both of our time. You have no evidence in the case of Rihanna Fenty V. Chris Brown to corroborate your contention that either Rihanna lied or the beating was justified.
That’s like saying, because White women have lied elsewhere about being assaulted by a Black man, therefore in any case involving a Woman and a Black man, it’s suspect.
Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
You still have no evidence. You’re citing cases in an attempt to bolster your conspiracy theory. But you have NOTHING in regards to Fenty V. Brown. In fact, you’re not even citing CALIFORNIA law in this discussion.
I said come back when you have evidence.
You still have none.
Have you ever heard of Jeffery Dahmer? He was killed with another man while incarcerated. That man; Jesse Anderson, played on society’s inclination to accept black on white crime by killing his wife and blaming it on a black man. The only reason why he did not get away with it is because there were witnesses who had evidence that contradicted his story. This is only one instance; but data establishes that more Black men are victimized by false accusations that any other demographic. So it absolutely works that way.
You present your evidence and not only do I show that they don’t apply, I show you why they don’t apply. You indicate that I do not know the law, when in fact you use failing to file taxes as an example of there not being a victim. Check case law and you will discover that the government is considered the victims in the examples you gave.
Again you attempt to apply a self defense statue to suggest that he could have used it; I in turn provide data establishing that current policy has been shown to essentially negate self defense in DV cases. I hope that you never have to find out. Never the less, “Rihanna Fenty V. Chris Brown” by its title is not a criminal case. A criminal charge would be titled, “State of California vs. Chris Brown.” That’s basic and suggest your lack of depth when it comes to this issue. You stay on the surface and attempt to evoke emotion without applying critical analysis. But hey, who am I to compel to conduct a deeper analysis; right?
You are the one who is coming to the defense of a young lady who is actually being exploited; but allows her imagery to degrade black women while I suggest that a man who had dedicated his life to the uplift of people has earned credibility. And you are suggesting that I’m on the wrong side? OK.
Most people would consider me to be learned man as I posses quite a bit of diverse experience including in the legal profession; in addition to a Master’s degree and numerous certifications. I’m however not beyond learning anything new and was hoping that this discussion would offer some enlightenment but that has not been the case here. While I attempt to provide a broader and deeper understanding of the issues, you make personal attacks. If you believe that it strengthens your position than more power to you. Good luck bro.
Is that your flowery way of saying you still have no evidence? And in “naming” the case Fenty V. Brown I was being sarcastic. The case was prosecuted without Rihanna’s blessing. See, I actually KNOW the case, you’ve never even read the legal brief or referred to the facts involved.
You do not need to provide a “deeper” understanding of the issues, you needed to stay on topic. There’s only one case here, the Brown one…the wider issue of domestic violence wasn’t on trial.
Don’t get “emotional” on me because you have no facts to back up anything you say.
You still have nothing…
And there are plenty of people who are 22, live in Chicago and part of the NOI. So when you respond with your “academic” achievements in response to my profile of you…that probably means I was spot on.
Let me see if I have this right ~ Rihanna is filthy, but there is no problem with the Minister being photographed “cheesing and grinnin’” next to Karrine “Superhead” Steffans?
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Ambrose Bierce
Yes, it’s not hard to understand but it’s “improper” to criticize Minister Farrakhan while he criticizes others…or so it seems.
I’ve met Farrakhan’s wife.
She ain’t no joke.
I am sure Farrakhan was admitted to the emergency room after she saw that photo with SuperHead.
I kinda wonder if he is on the “down low,” near 80-year old man always telling his young, male (ex-convict) followers how to run their sex life.
The truth is Rihanna is selling her sexuality more than her vocal talent. While his criticism was harsh it was rooted in truth. “Inconsisties” in ones application of truth does not make the correct application invalid. A similar criticism could be made against Trey Songz – he is selling the oversexed male image. Its ironic that no one speaks out about the hyperbolic negative images of black men in hollywood but as soon as a man makes a legitimate observation about a female artist he is castigated. I guess Adam had to eat that apple, one way or another.
Like Ciara is selling vocal talent? Destiny’s child was selling vocal talent? Name ONE popular rapper who was selling talent and not vulgarity in the past ten years other than Common.
It’s about the inconsistency in critique. And if it is inconsistent…it is disingenuous. Farrakhan had to step over too many people for too many years just to get to Rihanna and that is the salient point. You can’t turn a blind eye for DECADES to the “filth” of hip hop and get brand new on people and call out Rihanna by name.
Selective morality and indignation is not a good look on any minister of any faith. Just because a broken clock is right twice a day it doesn’t mean that its opinions on good time management are therefore valid.
Consistency in critique does matter.
By your argument, Rush Limbaugh calling someone in the Democratic Party “racist” is valid…even though he steps across each and every Republican operative and his own actions along the way to make the statement.
No, inconsistency and intellectually dishonesty matters and is relevant to the discussion. Don’t talk about “filth” if you are going to blithely ignore the biggest offenders.
When you do…you deservedly get called out too.
How ’bout the exceedingly over-rated Beyonce just leaving the game altogether? Cripes she’s tired and uninteresting!
Farrakhan needs to retire. Has a double-standard, admits male rappers like Snoop Dog into NOI. Criticizes young female entertainers. I think he choses safe targets like BlackWomen to make the enemy, he’s scared of Jews and White folks. He needs to keep his eyes on his own wife or got to the Middle East where REAL Islam is practiced. I miss the old civil rights types like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
[…] rihanna beat up pictures Feb 14, 2009 … Rihanna Beat-Up and Battered: Contusions, Black-Eye, Bruising. Update: Compare the two images above … […]
I wish everyone peace and blessings on here and do not wish to start [or rehash] any argument(s). I was simply passing by and found this article and would like to say something. I am not intending to speak from a highly intellectual perspective; just a man of a little experience. Thank you, respectfully.
I believe Thinker and Mo’Kelly have valid points but not in the same context with one another. I believe Mo’Kelly is aiming for a logically valid stance, while Thinker is speaking more so the heart of the matter (if you will). Both have a place but funnily enough just didn’t seem to fit in this same space at the same time.
I happen to be in the audience at the Minister’s speech on the bottom video, and also watched a live airing of the Minister’s speech on the top video. I have also witnessed the Minister repeatedly announcing harsh punishment for men who abuse women (including for his followers). I have also witnessed the Minister speaking much harsher to his own following of sisters than he would ever speak to any sister publicly. I have witnessed the Minister criticizing rappers for years over the lyrics and videos that have come out hurting the Black community and hurting the art form of music. The Minister has even criticized people while in their own country, as to the negative things they were doing to their women. [Please remember that this is not intended to be a highly intellectual perspective, therefore I feel no impulse to provide dates, places and titles for each speech or statement I am referring to above. Readers here can either believe me or not; it makes me no difference and will not invalidate my thoughts.]
I have witnessed the Minister say in speeches and on television (and talk show) interviews with his own mouth that he is not above criticism and he is not perfect (on more than one occasion). I bear in mind that there is a time and season for all things. Jesus in the Bible was a forgiving gentle man for a time. But then further reading shows he was a vengeful figure. Does that mean he was inconsistent with his dealing of his people and/or humanity? [I am using Jesus as an example because most here are probably familiar with him in some way.] Parents will sometimes deal with children in certain ways based on certain circumstances; but the parents still love the children and want to see them grow into maturity and become productive members of society. [Note: I have no intention of defending or explaining any of my thoughts. I am just a man passing by.]
This article and the discussion challenged me, both logically and emotionally. Part of your [Mo’Kelly] tagline says to “incite meaningful discourse.” You have certainly done that for me; even 7.5 months later. I thank everyone for their comments to allow me to grow in my own thinking and analysis.
I read your article with great interest and also the discourse between you and Thinker. I agree with the poster, YBP, I feel that both you and Thinker made great points but were some how missing each other. I wonder, Mr. Mo’Kelly, in light of the recent “remix” that has been released between Rihanna and Chris Brown, if you have different thoughts now?
Different thoughts how? The actions of Chris Brown haven’t changed. That’s a bell that can’t be un-rung. Farrakhan’s commentary hasn’t changed. What would change on my part?