We reported yesterday what the world press is saying about the sexual assault claim against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. About how it could impact not only the IMF he heads, and France where is a presidential hopeful, but the global economy itself. It is widely believed that Mr. Strauss-Kahn's reputation has been marred beyond repair, regardless of the outcome of this affair.
To say this is morally grotesque does not capture the evil of what is happening to a presumptively innocent man.
Without knowing with any degree of certainty a single detail about the alleged incident, aside from the fact that it is a classic "he said/she said" rape allegation, the world has allowed an internationally prominent public servant to be destroyed by an unnamed hotel maid it knows absolutely nothing about.
On this site, we report daily how presumptively innocent men are arrested and subjected to intimate testing based on rape claims that turn out to be false. In many cases, their reputations are destroyed before we know a single fact about their accusers. Often, we learn after-the fact that their accusers had either an obvious motive to falsely accuse them or emotional difficulties that prompted the rape lies -- facts that would have been helpful to know before we were invited to prejudge the accused men as vile rapists.
If there is a running theme in this blog, it is this: we have handed anonymous women and children far, far too much power to destroy the lives and reputations of presumptively innocent men before even a scrap of evidence has been introduced to prove their guilt. We do this by allowing women and children to cry rape without serious consequence if the cry turns out to be false.
The incessant drumbeat of women's groups for the past four decades to "always believe the woman" has made the accusation its own conviction. News organizations treat any rape claim as if it either must have happened, or at the very least, likely did happen. Is it any wonder that in the court of last resort -- the world's dinner tables, where shreds and patches of the day's news are devoured along with the salad and beer -- the trial is over even before it has begun? It will not be enough for Mr. Strauss-Kahn to have the charges dropped; he will need to affirmatively prove them false before he can even begin to restore his good name.
One particular aspect of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's arrest warrants mention: he was subjected to a handcuffed, humiliating perp walk for the titillation of the world community. The term "perp-walk" refers to the police practice of intentionally parading an arrested suspect through a public place, like a war trophy of a victorious army in primitive times, so that the media may observe and record the event. (For instance, in the Duke lacrosse case, when the 46 white players willingly agreed to go to a crime lab to have their DNA tested, the police tipped off reporters, and a photographer was waiting for the young men. When some of the boys hid their faces, the front page of the next day's newspaper implied their guilt by stating they were concealing their identities.)
The New York Times is reporting that there is "outrage" in France about the spectacle Mr. Strauss-Kahn was subjected to. "While the so-called perp walk is a New York police tradition, allowing the press to get photographs of a suspect, a 2000 law in France tries to reinforce the principle of the presumption of innocence by criminalizing the publication of photos of an identifiable person in handcuffs who has not yet been convicted."
Read this next part: "The former French justice minister whose name is on the law, Elisabeth Guigou, said she found the photos of Mr. Strauss-Kahn in cuffs indicative of 'a brutality, a violence, of an incredible cruelty, and I’m happy that we don’t have the same judiciary system.' Ms. Guigou, a Socialist like Mr. Strauss-Kahn and a member of Parliament, told France Info radio that the American system “is an accusatory system,” while in France, 'we have a system that takes perhaps a little more time but which is, despite everything, more protective of individual rights.'”
On this point, France has got it exactly right, and America has got it exactly wrong. For more on the French reaction to our barbaric system, read what French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy has to say here.
For the record, Mr. Strauss-Kahn's humiliation was no worse than that experienced by many American and British men and boys. Is there anything more humiliating than being arrested for a rape charge at work surrounded by your colleagues, or at school with your classmates looking on, or in plain view of your children and neighbors? Presumptively innocent men accused of rape often lose their wives, their girlfriends, their friends, their businesses, their jobs, and their money defending the false claim. Some are beaten, chased, spat upon, and even killed. Some kill themselves.
This sums up our mission here: the power to cry rape is altogether too awesome. The presumptively innocent should not be treated as criminals based on the allegation of lone accuser before an investigation is concluded. And when the power to cry rape is abused, the abuser needs to be punished severely to deter others from doing the same. As Prof. Alan Dershowitz once said: “Rape is such a serious crime that deliberately bringing a false accusation of rape should be an equally serious crime and women are not being punished for those crimes. I believe that being falsely accused of rape is as traumatic as being raped.”
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/world/europe/17france.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
And now there is a woman in France saying the same thing about him, from an incident that happened....wait for it.... 9 years ago. Yeah, like that can be proven or disproven after this amount of time.
http://ardenforester.blogspot.com/2011/05/dominique-strauss-kahn-in-second-sex.html
On how to treat the older claim, perhaps we should take guidance from feminist superstar Susan Estrich. Here's what she said about the several year old sexual assault claim lodged against Al Gore:
Transcript of "Hannity," June 29, 2010.
HANNITY: But, Susan, it's one or two scenarios. Either what she is saying is true or she's lying, which in it of itself would be a crime, right?
ESTRICH: Well, yes, but, you know, the problem is we just don't know and there's no way to determine. All we know for sure is that the police at the time, who were charged with investigating things like this, did not think there was substantial evidence enough to move forward and she chose not to file a civil suit. So what have you got?
. . . .
HANNITY: . . . you have openly talked about you have been a victim of rape. This crosses a very serious line, these allegations. So the question is, what should we do with them?
ESTRICH: Well, you know, Sean, I'm the mother of a son and a daughter. And I would hate like heck for my daughter ever to be in a position where she faces an unwanted sexual advance.
I mean this is obviously not rape, but I mean I was scarred by being a rape victim, there's no question about it. But I'm also the mother of a son. And you and I both witnessed, for instance, in the Duke case, a number of young men whose lives were — for all intends and purposes —
HANNITY: Yes.
ESTRICH: — ruined by a false accusation.
. . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,595627,00.html
...back in the 1970s, after sugar ray won the men's light/feather weight boxing championship, suddenly a dozen or more women came forward declaring that he was the daddy of their baby...
atlas
We may soon be witness to an international travel alert for men traveling to the United States.
The issue may say something like, There is now a "culture of false rape accusations" that has evolved in America, of which there are no American law enforcement intentions to hinder at this point in time. So be careful and watchful of yer surroundings at all times, and if you must have sex with an American women, break out the video cam on yer cell phone to protect yerself. Better to be safe than sorry.
OT but related
http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Witnesses-defend-rape-charge-man/article-3561683-detail/article.html
An accuser (it stinks of FRA) sent a text to someone who she wanted to be a witness, saying basically "side with me or I will end our friendship"
The so-called free press of the West has already tried and convicted this man in the court of public opinion and The-Spearhead has absolutely nothing to say about it. When it comes to matters of sex, the media reveals it's true face - womyns studies 101. All men are guilty of possessing a body part that intimidates and infuriates large segments of the "progressive" class of female attorneys and so-called "journalists"
Anon 10:20,
Before you do any video taping, make sure of the laws on that in your area. In a lot of jurisdictions, both parties must consent to being video taped.
Although personally, I'd rather be charged with secretly recording, than with a sexual crime.
"Before you do any video taping, make sure of the laws on that in your area. In a lot of jurisdictions, both parties must consent to being video taped."
if one party did not consent to the video taping (therefore making it illegal) could the other party's legal counsel keep that proof from being shown in court as evidence?
i don't envy men who still choose to actively date, live with, or marry a woman. i keep my romantic nights very limited and selective...not that such a way is any guarantee of full safety for me.
btw, that french woman who claimed she was attacked by dsk nine years ago is a -- get ready -- novelist. of course a novelist can be raped too, just saying.
atlas
atlas,
I'm not an attorney, but I believe that it can be excluded.
Look at the Vladek Filler case. Mary Kellett sucessfully argued for exculpatory evidence to be ecluded, and that helped her obtain the conviction. Higher courts reversed the ruling, but it does happen.
The exclusion rule only applies to law enforcement. Evidence obtained by illegal means by a private citizen is perfectly fine. The only exception is when the private citizen was acting as an instrument of law enforcement. I think the most famous example is Unites States v. Kline where a hacker installed a Trojan horse on Kline's computer and found large amounts of child pornography. He turned it over to police and despite the fact it was obtained illegally the Ninth Circuit said it was admissible (the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, which implies they generally agree with the decision of the lower court).
However, the case of you recording her is actually slightly different. That would unquestionably be admissable, otherwise you can argue there was a clear violation of your right to due process. Merely because a crime was committed in obtained exculpatory evidence does not mean you are no longer entitled to your constitutional right to a fair trial.
There are many criticisms of the early Puritans and their heavy-handed tactics when dealing with minor violation of social mores concerning sex. Supposely, feminist thinking has moved us past the "Puritanical" views of sex.
Then again, perhaps feminism is not much different and a lot less merciful.
He described his sister, an immigrant from West Africa.
...............
Ted,
Thanks for the information. I don't get the Vladek Filler case then. The defense attempted to introduce evidence of the custody dispute and the fact that she had previous false accusations.
So I guess I don't see how it wouldn't be possible to exclude the info, as it wasn't obtained/provided by the police.
Who was that president who was commenting on the "American rape lynchings" of the black man,and said, If this rape lynching/ mob perversion mentality is left to its own perversion, It would eventually start lynching the white man also.
American gender-feminists "Empower" themselves by perverting law enforcement to persecute innocent men and boys. (They Empower" themselves off the manufactured and perverted statistics.)
I believe this case will bring the federally funded perversion of the American legal system to the light, for the rest of the world to see.
Isn't it amazing that nobody has an opinion on his guilt or innocense based on the facts thus far. Let's be honest==== it don't look too good, do it.
Anon at 5:48: the reason is that we don't know the facts is that no one knows them. There's been no trial yet.
@Steve Re Ted: I think the evidence in the Filler case was excluded as being unimportant and/or not relevent to the case.
steven and ted,
thanks for your replies.
atlas
anon 5:48,
the facts as painted by the mass media from the first piece usually appear to portray the male as guilty. i think it is a wonderful sign of the quality of the people here not to pre-judge.
atlas
but Atlas, the maid had been employed at the hotel for over 3 years, and she had NO idea who the man was, and she picked him out of a line-up, AND there's DNA.
Like I said, it don't look too rosy.
I don't have to tell you his background as far as womanizing do I?
If they can do this to someone as prominent as DSK - the system can do it to ANYBODY, ANYWHERE, ANYHOW- based on a few crocodile tears.
Anonymous - ” but Atlas, the maid had been employed at the hotel for over 3 years, and she had NO idea who the man was, and she picked him out of a line-up, AND there's DNA.
Like I said, it don't look too rosy.
I don't have to tell you his background as far as womanizing do I?”
His womanizing background, eh?
So, then why isn’t some sluts promiscuity allowed as “evidence” of her proclivity to have sex (in “he said/she said” date-rape scenarios, for example)?
Why not?
Well, it’s because what someone may, or may not, have done in the past DOES NOT MAKE THEM GUILTY OF ANY SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS. It may, at most, suggest a pattern of behavior which may make them more likely to repeat similar behavior.
The other claims of womanizing against him seem to involve women with whom he was better acquainted. That he would attack a maid, who he did not know, might well be seen as being “out of character”.
Additionally, if he was well known as a womanizer, that might also might offer political opponents an easier mode to set him up. You might have read that he had himself suggested the possibility of being thusly set-up. Given that he feared being set up in such a way, it also makes it seem odd that an intelligent man would chose to act in a way that would undoubtedly lead to such charges [hint at how to make an intelligent counter argument – he might have been hoping that his prior suggestion of being set up would cast doubt on any real sexual assaults he would chose to commit].
Still, given the well known hypergamous nature of woman, guys like him have never had any trouble obtaining willing sex partners – really hot ones at that. Why risk so much in attacking and older, less attractive maid? [your prior reliance on his supposed womanizing as evidence of his guilt throws into serious doubt your ability to make actual logical argument, so allow me to do it for you – Perhaps he has long relied on his position of prominence and power to allow him to take advantage of woman when ever he wished, and this is simply part of a pattern of behavior for him].
And, of her 3-year employment being the least bit meaningful, let me point out that some of the worst serial killers also had excellent employment histories, even while committing their crimes. [of course, given your belief in his guilt due to past behaviors, your assertion that the fact that she has a job making her incapable of wrong-doing should be no surprise].
anon @7:55,
true, it does look bad in the media based on what was released or known so far as portrayed by the big media. then again, the mass media is generally anti-male as are the criminal and divorce courts. so what that the maid has been with the hotel for three years? or thirty years? what do we really know about her background or record? he does have a reputation and has displayed poor immature judgement in the past such as having sex with subordinates. yet so what as it applies to this current case.
regular site visitors here have read of dozens if not hundreds of cases when the males were treated initially as criminals based on a single accusation only to be later on found innocent often with the facts indicating an intentional false rape report.
this is the last site on the internet when visitors and the site owner will upfront declare anyone guilty or innocent of a crime until the facts are accumulated and considered.
maybe he is guilty and maybe innocent. maybe it is a confusing he said she said case. maybe she or not has claimed false rape.
rapes do occur and so do false-rape claims.
atlas
@Anonymous (May 17, 2011 7:55:00 PM ):
You might also wish to recall that there was DNA evidence in the Duke LaCrosse incident. In the end, it was not what it was represented to be, now was it? And, given that Danmell Ndonye had unprotected sex with her four hook-ups, there was also “DNA evidence” that was collected (in a SANE exam) in that case as well. Without video proof of their innocence, that DNA could well have sent those guys to prison.
Of course when dealing with people who has such deep preconceptions/prejudices as you seem to have come here with, I wonder if there is actually any chance of carrying on a rational and intelligent debate/discussion on such matters.
There is the possibility that he is guilty of the allegations against him. Perhaps he took advantage of an unexpected intrusion by the maid to rape her, before hurriedly dressing and packing before checking out. Of course, there’s also the suggestion that he was having lunch with his daughter at the time of the alleged attack (claimed, but not substantiated, at this point). And we have yet to learn what the electronic evidence timeline shows (video surveillance and door key card use).
But, it seems that you are only willing to consider what has been reported that seems to line up with your preconceived belief in his guilt. We sometimes call that “cherry-picking”.
I’m not ruling out those elements which seem to point to his guilt. He may well have done it.
But this is a case which SHOULD give intelligent people the opportunity to take a hard look at issue of how rape allegations ought to be responded to. It even provides some nice “what if…” situational conundrums – his being a rich, powerful, and well-connected foreigner about to leave the country. We could be delving into how best to deal with such situations while still affording someone the presumption of innocence.
Instead we descend into tit-for-tat over his supposed history of womanizing and her employment history. Oh well! We also have ignoramus’ who claim that all false rape allegation arise from police creating a climate to allow them so that they can cash-in on some secret bounty system. If men on “our side” cannot rise above their own “anti-intellectual” suppositions, what should I have expected of some gender-feminist wholly predisposed to accepting the guilt of any man accused of rape based on nothing more than the unsubstantiated word of an anonymous accuser?
When she peeked into the room, and saw a naked man, why didn't she back out the door??
Something seems fishy here.
She didn't PEEK into the room.
Post a Comment