I think I am entitled to claim some wisdom in what I wrote about the DSK rape allegation, which was this:
The allegations against Dominique Strauss Kahn are of a different order as they do seem to involve violent assault and non-consensual sex acts. Plainly there is a very serious case to answer, especially given his known highly charged sexual history.
But I have been given pause today by learning that the police have amended their accusation to say that they were one and a half hours mistaken in the time that the rape took place. Given that it was reported pretty well immediately, how can there have been this confusion about when it happened? A ten minute mistake would be natural, but one and a half hours wrong in a period of three hours?
The difference is very significant, because the police were alleging that he raped her, then rushed from the hotel to the airport to flee. They now acknowledge as true the defence statement that he actually went to a lunch engagement quite close to the hotel before going to the airport. Given that his alleged hurried running away was a major factor in not granting him bail, this seems to me inportant. I repeat – how on earth could an investigation make such a very fundamental mistake?
My feelings of unease were then increased by US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner coming out to lead international demands for DSK’s replacement – as the prosecuting authority, surely it would behove the US government to shut up until he has been found innocent or guilty? Since then I have been listening to Ghanaian radio (I am in Accra) where callers are more or less unanimous that as the woman is from Guinea, in Francophone Africa, the Sarkozy connection is to blame. That fact is certainly a boon for conspiracy theorists.
DSK deserves the benefit of the presumption of innocence for now. We just don’t know what happened yet. The failure to grant him bail appears to me completely unjustifiable – where on earth do they think he will vanish, and how? There seems something peculiarly vindictive in the handling of this – of which his bail appearance without being allowed clean clothes or a shave was a stark symbol.
I have added the emphasis because I had got hold of absolutely the key point. It turns out the woman lied to the police, and in fact had gone back to cleaning rooms after the alleged assault, before reporting it – but then not told the truth about that. it also turns out that the woman – who you may recall we were told at the time was a very quiet religious Muslim – has a long term relationship with an imprisoned drug dealer and had received US $100,000 in recent months, largely from him. It is also the case that she had admitted to a flase claim of gang rape in her political asylum claim, and she has been taped discussing how much money she might make from the case.
Here is part of the prosecutor’s letter to the court:
“Additionally, in two separate interviews with assistant district attorneys assigned to the case, the complainant stated that she had been the victim of a gang rape in the past in her native country and provided details of the attack. During both of these interviews, the victim cried and appeared to be markedly distraught when recounting the incident. In subsequent interviews, she admitted that the gang rape had never occurred.”
Actually, for me the scariest and most evil thing about this entire episode are the warped feminists at the Guardian who conflate the terms “men” and “rapists” as though they were the same thing. As in this:
How do we get men to stop raping lesbians or independent or highly sexual women as a “corrective act” rather than addressing the forces and powers they are truly angry at? How do we get men to understand the impact of rape: how the external bruises are internalised and remain for ever?
The hate speak involved in conflating “Men” and “rapists” in this way is a vital insight into the viciousness of the militant feminist movement.
None of that, of course, makes it impossible that DSK raped her. But I considered it unlikely before, and I consider it still more unlikely now. Fascinating that the Guardian chooses to lead the first of their articles I link to with the ludicrous bluster of her lawyer, rather than the damning facts about her which come right down later.
It is an unfortunate boon to the Daily Express tendency that it turns out this case plays right into so many of the stereotyped categories Black Americans still have to struggle against – lying asylum seekers, convicted drug dealers, out to make crooked money. But in a criminal trial, Strauss Kahn, wealthy white banker though he is, still has as much right to have his story heard as her. That is what the equality of human beings means. And bluntly, from what we know at this moment, his side of the story seems a great deal more believable than hers. That may change as more evidence emerges; but the public bluster of her attorneys to date outlines an extremely weak case.
Talking of which, yet further evidence of stunning illiberalism by the coalition was revealed in Teresa May’s unjustified – in the literal sense of the term – action against Sheikh Saleh. What precisely is Sheikh Saleh alleged to have done that made his visit to the UK so harmful? Is there any evidence of any Lib Dem influence in any direction that can be described as liberal, in any area of government policy? Answers on a postcard please.
It is worth noting that in the two occasions I have stood for parliament, just as independent me with no party behind me, no organisation except this little blog and definitely no Deputy Prime Minister to back me, I have always obtained more votes and a higher percentage vote than the Liberal Democrats did at Inverclyde in the early hours of this morning. Unless the Scottish Lib Dems abandon the hard line unionism they have adopted – which would not have been supported by either Jo Grimond or Russel Johnson, and certainly not Rosebery – they are going to be annihilated.
Well, I’ll let other folks here be the judge of that, but seeing that you’ve not replied to them satisfactorily here either, I suspect I know what they think already. On previous occasions I recall it has been much the same – as the comments record will attest for anyone wishing to check.
.
Your dilemma is that you have a passionate cause, but are not willing to argue cogently and respectfully in its service. Instead, you presume that everyone will reject your view and lash out at anyone who engages with you. Still, my reasonable questions remain if you feel inclined to try them. Better yet, post them on your blog, and then answer them in detail, as I imagine you might be asked them often.
.
As one commentator mentioned in one of our past ding-dongs, you don’t seem willing to concede anything, even though your material is poorly referenced and full of baseless assumptions to start off with. It doesn’t survive the amateur peer review it gets here, so it would hardly make a journal. It might be worth taking *some* views on board, and perhaps incorporating them into your theory.
.
Anyway, that’s my advice. I’m not trying to patronise – just genuinely interested in your motivation.
I suppose “manginas” just means “cunts”.
.
JimmyGiro, I’m opposed to masses of boys being dosed up on ritalin. But your writing gives a strong impression that you have a hostile attitude towards women in general, and this strongly detracts from your argument; you won’t get me as an ally, writing like this. You should decide which of these issues you consider to be more important.
Yes, I understand it as a term of abuse, but I think it also means “feminised man”, in particular one who has been “fooled” by the feminists.
.
I’ve done a bit of reading on what might be termed “modern day man’s studies” and it seems to be a backlash against the perception that feminism is out to get its revenge on men (I imagine one or two are!). Some of the material is quite reasonable, such as the advertising portrayal of a man as a hapless oaf contrasted with a smart woman who gets the better of him. On the other end of the spectrum, a very aggressive – though perhaps mainly subconscious – misogyny appears to be at play.
[Jon/mod: spambot deleted!]
Hey, Suhayl, are you spawning clone bots !?
Yeah, that must’ve been a spambot, Jimmy.
Well, well. well! Whadayaknow.
.
DA set to drop charges vs. DSK
Investigator: Dismissal a ‘certainty’
By LAURA ITALIANO
.
Last Updated: 3:56 AM, July 5, 2011
. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/da_set_to_drop_charges_vs_dsk_RWftbQcr6Xw3clMsm6zNWJ#ixzz1RDyAOsIL
.
They will make a film next. Suggestions for the cast please.
Hollywood exec. mulling-over Mary’s suggestion: ” Yeah, Mary, that’s not a bad idea! Julia Roberts, or perhaps Sandra Bullock, as the girl-next-door; the sassy American friend of the hotel maid and the one who persuades her to go to the cops. Gerard Depardieu as DSK. Gary Sinese (as in SCI NYC, bereaved from 9/11) as the prosecutor. Susan Sarandon as the defence attorney, who, as an Ivy League feminist from Westchester with a backstory, handles the brief reluctantly yet professionally. Sam Waterston as the judge, kind of Gregory Peck-with-a-speech impediment. But who would play Sarkozy? We’d need a Cassius-like French actor, lean and diminutive, steeped in Carla and cocaine… shouldn’t be too difficult to find. But who would play the maid? Oh, just get Halle Berry to do it, she’s black, she’ll do. Yes, she’s a great actress, so what? She’ll do. She’s black. Book her. Just get her to put on a Frenchy African accent – that’s kinda Nelson Mandela with snails – anything will do, the audiences won’t know the difference and need the voice recognition. And swing her hips, and consort with junkies, we need conflicted here. And get her to cry a lot, yeah, she’s real good at that. The main axis here is b/w Sarandon and Depardieu (though there are a couple of tasty tete a tetes b/w Sarandon and Berry, yeah, kinda class-race-gender. You know, suck up the good stuff from black directors. What we have here is bang-bang-bang and moral dilemma. High political intrigue from bad French guys in NYC. Skyscrapers outside, skyscrapers inside. But really, forget the scenery. Oh, and Mary, don’t forget a coupla evil Arabs!”
DSK accuser sues NY Post for “prostitute” report
.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/05/us-strausskahn-lawsuit-idUSTRE76449I20110705
.
The Post reported on Saturday that the Sofitel housekeeper “was doing double duty as a prostitute, collecting cash on the side from male guests.” An article the following day reported that the housekeeper “continued to work as a prostitute in a Brooklyn hotel where she was stashed by prosecutors.”
.
“All of these statements are false, have subjected the plaintiff to humiliation, scorn and ridicule throughout the world by falsely portraying her as a prostitute or as a woman who trades her body for money and they constitute defamation and libel per se,” the suit said.”
“Oh, Mary, I forgot. We need a kid and a dog. Kid, dog. Okay, so Roberts has a dog and Berry has a kid – all-American Bed-Sty, wisecrackin, you know, maximum hip-hop. White woman has dog; black woman has kid, Big Frenchie has everything. NYC has… goodness, redemption, justice and… skyscrapers.” Hollywood exec then goes off to snort some coke and screw an aspiring actress.
How about Juliette Binoche to play Tristane Banon? I’d suggest Gene Hackman for DSK, Mary — he has the craggy face and he’s great — but unfortunately he’s retired. Wrong accent too, but that’s neither here nor there in Hollywood …
.
The housemaid’s lawyer made a point which I haven’t seen elsewhere (after seeing it live on Sky News). He said that an aide in the NY prosecutor’s office is married to a lawyer of DSKs. He said he had asked the prosecutor to show him “the email” which had gone to all staff recusing this person from the case, but that no such communication existed. He hadn’t been informed either.
Surely this is madness?
.
Anyway, if she’s suing the NY Post, it looks like she’s not going to go quietly.
Suyahl, you’re daft as a brush. I always knew it. 🙂
Suhayl – Hilarious. You are wasted on this site. Good job we can laugh sometimes.
“He said that an aide in the NY prosecutor’s office is married to a lawyer of DSKs.” Dreoilin. Wonderful! Oh, now there’s a drama, right there! If you wrote it as drama, no-one would believe you, they’d say that’s too pat, the audience won’t buy it, it’s kind of Bollywood. But in my experience, reality is always more ‘extreme’ than fiction or drama. Gene Hackman, btw, comes out of retirement (spies never retire, they just write for The Sunday Telegraph) is the guy on the outside, endlessly trying to get the real story, but he’s being bugged and followed by powerful forces everywhere he goes. Craig could have a cameo appearance, as a whistleblower. Bill Clinton could have a walk-on part, as a Cialis salesman and in a kind of ‘Goddard’ sub-plot, Angrysoba could come on to argue the philosophical aspects of the case. Thanks, Dreoilin and Mary. Now we have a full-blown parody of what is already a parodic – almost a pantomime – situation. A serious one, of course. But you’ve gotta laugh sometimes, the world is so very, very crazy.
Original post: “that it turns out this case plays right into so many of the stereotyped categories Black Americans still have to struggle against – lying asylum seekers, convicted drug dealers, out to make crooked money.”
How incredibly dumb. I can think of several horrible stereotypes that African Americans have to deal with, and perhaps a few that immigrants have to deal with … but being lying asylum-seekers and convicted drug dealers are not among them.
In a strong field, that is perhaps the most stupid thing I’ve seen written on this blog, in part because it reflects extreme arrogance. When was asylum-seeking a stereotype for anyone in America? Jesus, you’re shamelessly imaginative. And you’re not even wrong.
“In a strong field, that is perhaps the most stupid thing I’ve seen written on this blog, in part because it reflects extreme arrogance…” Yugostiglitz
Was that a Freudian projection? It rather aptly depicts much of your own input herein. We all do have utmost sympathy for you, from the very bottoms of our hearts.
“Respect to your son, Dreoilin.” — Clark
.
Thanks Clark. He’ll have more choices facing him when he finishes this Ph D. Where he’ll head then I have no idea.
.
“If you wrote it as drama, no-one would believe you, they’d say that’s too pat, the audience won’t buy it, it’s kind of Bollywood.” — Suhayl
.
There are more strands to this than I can keep up with! I hear that the NY prosecutors said last night that the inquiry into the rape allegations is going ahead. This thing is far from over, apparently.
Larry from St. Twiglets chips in on a dead thread to demonstrate his anti-racist credentials. And in other news, I bought a flying pig today.
Obviously not dead, as you are here. Besides, I was on vacation.
[mod/jon: Abusive, non-constructive; hence deleted]