IT APPEARS Mr Exclusive or an accomplice was following Rodney Plett around. In a segment posted by Quaanitah Hunter’s Debrief Network, we hear the Muslim influencer or an accomplice stating: ‘Israel killed babies, this is the Jewish community’ to which Plett responds: ‘You raped’. This is what lead up to the incident in which ‘content-creator’ Abdur Rahman can be seen aggressively pursuing Plett to a Shul, where the incident occurred on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. It is obvious the two men know each other, thus the response from Plett is a continuation of the ‘what did you say’ theme following an earlier provocation calculated to gain a reaction. (see fuller chase sequence below)
Clearly Mr Exclusive was hunting another ‘exclusive’ and has framed this as ‘road-rage’ in order to boost his audience and to further his own campaign. The result is a fabrication, a concoction. Two wrongs do not make a right. Instead of resorting to vulgarities and threats in the face of repeated slurs on camera that include allegations of ‘baby-killers’ and ‘genocide’ leveled at the Jewish community, Plett should rather have sought assistance from security and dealt with the incident in a law-abiding fashion. I note that in a similar instance with a quite different outcome, PSC were interdicted from making such accusations in their boycott campaign involving Kravitz and Cape Union Mart.
The rapid response from both Chabad (who issued a statement and appeared on television), as well as SAJBD has been unequivocal — both condemn the use of vulgarity and threats by the member of a Norwood congregation and affiliate. Taking issue with their response, as IOL commentators like Iqbal Jasset do, is not based upon any rational standard of inquiry, but rather the desire to lecture and pontificate on the subject, and without having access to all the facts, (nor even bothering to conduct such a cursory investigation).
It appears the Debrief video was cut from a longer segment, and has the words: “The man allegedly hurled insults at Muslim residents in the area before’. This text is calculated to impress upon the viewer that the alleged Islamophobia encountered by a Muslim influencer outside a Norwood Shul, is a repeat pattern, however the evidence does not support the allegation, quite the reverse and can be considered an ‘own-goal’.
Hunter has been known to issue statements that are quite the opposite of objective journalism. If anything, the incident is an example of how easy it is to decontextualise and reframe a conflict on social media, repackaging the result as ‘road rage’. Rahmen’s explanation unless proven otherwise, that he was merely cut-off in a motoring incident in which Plett then ‘followed him to his house and threatened his Muslim family’ which is why he raced to the Synagogue to confront Plett, as merely an innocent victim, should therefore be rejected as a fraud. The explanation is improbable to say the least, given the hot pursuit and the individual’s professed vocation as the bearer of an ‘Exclusive’.
The narrative appears contrived, baked to fit the later reaction, instead of being an honest retelling of events. We are asked to believe Plett’s vulgarity and resort to the IDF is damming — he said something he regrets, therefore everything else that he allegedly said must also be true?
Those seeking to juxtapose their religious identities via such abuse of the camera and profession, with known triggering statements, should know better than to stir up hatred and enmity in order to boost viewers