The incomparable Ferdinand Bardamu has published the name of Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s accuser.
While knee-jerk progressives will condemn naming the accuser, read the following quotations, and then find me someone who can plausibly rebut them.
First, here is what the brilliant Prof. Alan Dershowitz once said:
“People who have gone to the police and publicly invoked the criminal process and accused somebody of a serious crime such as rape must be identified. In this country there is no such thing and should not be such a thing as anonymous accusation. If your name is in court it is a logical extension that it should be printed in the media. How can you publish the name of the presumptively innocent accused but not the name of the accuser?”
Second, here is an excerpt of a piece feminist superstar Naomi Wolf recently wrote:
"Feminists have long argued that rape must be treated like any other crime. But in no other crime are accusers kept behind a wall of anonymity. Treating rape so differently serves only to maintain its mischaracterization as a 'different' kind of crime, loaded with cultural baggage and projections.
"Finally, there is a profound moral issue at stake. Though children’s identities should, of course, be shielded in sex-crime allegations, women are not children. If one makes a serious criminal accusation, one must wish to be treated – and one must treat oneself – as a moral adult.
. . . .
"It is wrong – and sexist – to treat female sex-crime accusers as if they were children, and it is wrong to try anyone, male or female, in the court of public opinion on the basis of anonymous accusations. Anonymity for rape accusers is long overdue for retirement."
I typically find Prof. Dershowitz's comments to be compelling; and in this lone instance, I also find Naomi Wolf's compelling.