VIDEO: High Crimes and Misdemeanours

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

With Friends like Mia Farrow, who needs a murdering dictator as enemy?

The media, coupled with Naomi Campbell’s obvious bad temper, has made her the ‘hated one’ in the trial of alleged war criminal, Charles Taylor, the former Liberian leader. But is Naomi Campbell really at fault? Or is she being targeted for past misdemeanours with lazy journalism?

I, for one, actually understand Campbell’s anger in the instances I’ve heard of… after all, two of my greatest pet peeves is stealing and lying. If someone needs something from me, ask for it. Regardless of how many millions I may have, that does not give anyone the right to take my things… my grandmother could’ve given it to me… and those things may seem frivolous to others, but to me they are sacred.

All of the stories I’ve heard of Ms. Campbell’s staff stealing from her, and her going off the edge, were unfortunate; but I actually sympathized with her, because I’ve been there myself; no I don’t lash out, spit or throw things at people, but it is very angering when someone you trust betrays that trust by stealing or lying.

Contrary to media assumptions, it is not unheard of for someone of Naomi Campbell’s fame to receive gifts from admirers. And her fame does not automatically make her a great connoisseur of world history, but simply highlights her shortcomings and unfortunate ignorance to the suffering of people in a region she has visited. But none of that warrants her being subpoenaed and dragged into court for a gift she received from an admirer. She’s not the criminal in this case. It begs the question: if Naomi Campbell was a corporate entity or the daughter of some King or Queen, would she still have been “ordered” to court? Nothing she ‘testified to’ on that stand, couldn’t have been done in a lawyer’s office with a court reporter; essentially they took advantage of her celebrity.

mandela dinner party group photo 500x293 VIDEO: High Crimes and Misdemeanours

President of Liberia between 1994 and 2003, Taylor is alleged to have taken diamonds in exchange for arming the rebel Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone. So, what was he doing at Mandela's party?

And, at the risk of ruffling a few feathers, it may have been an absolute inconvenience for her… I can’t judge her on that. She’s obviously very good at what she does. The millions she is still paid to this day… regardless of temper tantrums and whatever other opinions people may have… is obvious evidence to the integrity of her commitment to her profession and all that comes with it.

The atrocities in Liberia are not her doing. And why was Charles Taylor invited to a dinner party at Nelson Mandela’s house, anyway? I have learned in my years on this earth, that we [as individuals] cannot take on every fight… it can consume and derail you. We can all help when and where possible, but one’s life shouldn’t always have to come to a halt to appease what other people feel you should and shouldn’t do.

I am not for one minute excusing Naomi Campbell’s bad behaviour, but I do know she’s done great charity work on both sides of the Atlantic, in Jamaica and other Caribbean islands, and have heard of possible contributions to Oprah Winfrey’s projects. Miss Campbell does have a temper and obviously needs to check herself… especially given her public persona. I hope she is getting the help she needs in that regard.

Mia Farrow 300x168 VIDEO: High Crimes and Misdemeanours

Mia Farrow contradicts aspects of Naomi Campbell's testimony, but cannot remember crucial details about the event at Nelson Mandela's house, or who was there 13-years ago.

As for Madam Farrow… I certainly wouldn’t want a friend like that. According to recent reports on the Guardian website, ‘Farrow said she and Campbell “became friendly” and that they had discussed organising a party with supermodels, including Kate Moss and Christy Turlington, to raise money for Mandela’s charity. Farrow said her children “adore” Campbell. She was “very maternal” with the children and lent a dress to her daughter Malone. “She was just great,” Farrow said.’ So, there you have it.

Mia Farrow’s activism is well-documented and she should be [and has been] commended for her efforts. However, friendship is a very dear thing and should not be taken lightly. If a ‘friend’ speaks to you in the course of conversation about a gift which turns out to be from a person of ill-repute; knowing full-well that your friend meant no harm or intentionally broke any laws, would you make a statement to the media implicating your friend, knowing fully the consequences of making that information public?

Even Farrow says she didn’t know who Taylor was 13-years ago, and “shamefully” she didn’t know about the war in Sierra Leone, either. That’s my major problem with Mia Farrow. She’s been in these regions for much too long to not know the horrific consequences of sharing private information about a gift her ‘friend’ received from a man who was harmless enough to be invited to dinner at Mister Mandela’s house. That’s like Linda Tripp taping Monica Lewinsky and then producing the tapes as evidence. Makes one cognizant of the fact that one letter changes a ‘friend’ to a ‘fiend.’

I have few close friends, but cherish the ones I have because they’ve proven their unconditional friendship. Such friendships are a big part of one’s happiness and contentment with life in general. I can’t imagine how lonely someone like Naomi Campbell must sometimes feel when you have friends like Mia Farrow.

Related Blogs

Jasmine Brathwaite

Pingback: Tweets that mention High Crimes and Misdemeanours | The Colorful Times -- Topsy.com
http://colorfultimes.com/ Paul

White women in the British media have always been especially vindictive toward Naomi Campbell, the burden of being black, British, beautiful, and much more rich and famous than them. But now with these latest personal attacks in the media over the 'blood diamond' affair, the press have really gone overboard. And what is Ms Campbell's crime? Being too dark in their eyes to be given diamonds.
Mobola

I agree with you, Naomi is not responsible for the war crimes. My understanding is that her testimony about receiving the diamonds was meant to demonstrate that that Charles Taylor was handling blood diamonds at the time (and all that goes with that). In any case, it seems clear that Mia is/was not really a friend of Naomi's… an acquaintance at best. I always hope that famous people have a few true, close friends who they can trust to have their back.
gbengoos

paul i dont really agree with you that this is completely a media creation,or that it has anything to do with racism.the section of the media that is castigating naomi campbell has their reasons and i dont think its entirely racist,not every disagreement between two people of different color should be tagged racist.my only issue is that we are loosing sight of what this trial is all about.how do u equates charlse taylor’s actions,which affected millions and the handling of a few diamonds for a few hours which turned out to be blood diamonds?at that time,charlse taylor was on trial for any crime.

and dont forget,he was still being hosted by other leaders in the west.
Pingback: Tweets that mention VIDEO: High Crimes and Misdemeanours | The Colorful Times -- Topsy.com
Jasmine

I agree that that was probably the prosecutor’s intention of calling on her, but I still think it could’ve been handled better. Even more egregious is the question of, if Ms. Campbell would’ve been of any importance at all had she not been the ‘well-known’ Naomi Campbell. I guarantee she’s not the only ‘celeb’ to have received such gifts from him, so why must she remain the focal point when she didn’t commit a crime in this case.

The fact that they seemed to be good friends (at least good enough to have breakfast the following morning) is exactly what saddens me. True friends are rare and a true gem, especially when one’s in the lonely world of celebrity-dom. Thanks for your comment.
Jasmine

Isn’t it saddening that the focus is being taken away from the ‘real’ trial, the true atrocities of that region, and the part Charles Taylor played in the big picture?

It’s almost as if Naomi Campbell has been deliberately chosen as a decoy to finding the real truth. If the prosecution really wants to prosecute this case successfully they need to re-focus on the the case at hand and the bigger picture, which is not the super-model Naomi Campbell or her pretend friends.

They now know where the stones/pebbles are, but have little concrete evidence as to where they came from… unless the delivery guys testify to Charles Taylor asking them to take them to Naomi Campbell’s room. Right now all we’re getting is hear-say testimonies which is not much in a court-of-law. If they don’t refocus very soon, Charles Taylor may very well become a free man… if he has a good enough defense team.
http://colorfultimes.com/ Paul

You’re obviously not reading the same newspapers that I’ve seen in Britain with the most obnoxious reports, especially those calling Ms Campbell “ugly” or “stupid” or saying things like, it’s just as well she makes a living “with her body” because it wouldn’t be “with her brain,” and so on. Nor are these attacks on Naomi Campbell anything new in the British tabloids. The anti-Naomi brigade have been at it since the 1990s, hence the piece I first wrote some years ago now, called Everybody Hates Naomi.

I’m not in the habit of seeing racism everywhere, but I can read between the lines, and rather like the baseless attacks on President Barack Obama in the United States, pretty soon you begin to wonder, what’s all this really about? With Naomi, the resentment began with jealousy many years ago, and the general feeling among certain sections of the British press, that a black woman from Streatham hasn’t the right to be so uppity. They’ve been trying to bury the woman’s career for years, it’s so transparent, it just pisses me off, and further highlights the road still to be travelled as Black Brits after all these years.

And, yes, this fuss is largely a media creation, a media circus. It’s supposed to be Charles Taylor on trial for war crimes, not the attack of a defenceless supermodel, who is easy pickings, and I guess, must sell newspapers. In the focus on celebrity, and any absence of real investigative journalism, Taylor will probably walk off scot-free.
http://www.dyslexiaa2z.com Bonnie

If I can say it in here, a lot of the discussion about Tiger Woods will be put to bed now that his divorce, which we were kept in the dark about, is over and done with and he can continue with what he does best – playing golf. Go Tiger!