The Freedom Bulletin

Norwegian right-wing radical and self-proclaimed resistance fighter Anders Behring Breivik went on trial today for the shooting spree and bombing last summer that killed 77 people. “I admit to the acts, but not criminal guilt and I claim self-defense,” Breivik said in an Oslo courtroom. He refused to stand as the judge entered the room, saying that he does not recognize her authority. According to news reports, he showed no emotion or remorse as prosecutors outlined the deaths and the evidence against him. But he burst into tears as a nationalistic video that he had posted on YouTube was played.

Breivik has never denied that he carried out the bombing of a government building and shooting spree at a summer camp for teenagers organized by Norway’s Labor Party. He claims that he acted in self-defense, as part of a war against communism, multiculturalism, and immigration, which he believes are destroying Europe. And he plans to call fellow right-wing extremists and, from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, radical Muslims, to provide support for his views. Not surprisingly, although Norway has a legal principle of preventative self-defense, experts are skeptical of Breivik’s arguments.

Whether Breivik is competent to stand trial has been a matter of debate. One psychological evaluation concluded that he was insane, while a more recent one found him competent. Breivik himself strenuously objected to the initial findings, saying that spending the rest of his life in a mental institution would be worse than death and that deeming him mentally ill would destroy the political message that he is trying to give voice to. If Breivik’s competence is upheld, he faces up to 21 years in prison, but the sentence could be extended as long as authorities consider him a danger to society.

I actually agree with Breivik on this. If he chose to do what he did, and wants to be judged accordingly, then he should be. To treat someone as “sick” when they break the law implies that they lack freedom of choice, and treats them as less than a person. Instead, criminals should be treated as people who have free will and chose to do wrong. In every legal case, defendants should receive whatever punishment, if any, is determined to fit their actions. To overrule Breivik’s expressed beliefs about his own mental state and his desire to be held accountable for his actions is not only disrespectful to him, but is unjust for the victims and the general public.

Sources: AP, Telegraph

I cam across an interesting article by Robert Zaretsky for Le Monde Diplomatique, comparing Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican candidate for president, with Francois Hollande, the Socialist candidate for president of France:

“Hollande, while the choice of the party’s establishment, has failed to inspire much passion, or even trust, among the voters. Like Romney, he is as ill at ease on the hustings, all the while evasive in his policy proposals. Yet on both candidates there is unrelenting pressure from their base to be not just more specific, but more radical. This places them both in the same unenviable position of making deeply dubious claims, whether it is Romney running against Obamacare (largely inspired by Romneycare) or Hollande promising to create a 75% tax bracket for France’s wealthiest citizens.”

Continue reading…

I guess Dominique Strauss-Kahn is allowed to leave France under his bail conditions after all. Today, the former director of the International Monetary Fund gave a speech about the economy in Kiev, Ukraine. Thankfully, this time there were no so-called feminist (but actually anti-feminist), anti-presumption-of-innocence people protesting or asking obnoxious questions.

Strauss-Kahn said that the government of Ukraine should implement austerity measures and try to raise household gas prices in order to secure loans from the IMF. About cooperation between Ukraine and the IMF, he said, “Much has been done, but sometimes this movement becomes reverse and due to this the process is so difficult…This program was initiated for your benefit.”

On the subject of the French presidential election, he said, “I see many differences between the two main candidates [Francois Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy] but not that much when it comes to the role of the state…They all do the same thing. For example, they both believe that taxes are useful for correction of some kind of inequalities.” But neither, he said, is “proposing the nationalization of big industries as it was the case in the past.”

DSK looked happy speaking and later walking around the city with steel magnate Victor Pinchuk, whose organization hosted him. After the bad news that he got last week, I am glad that he is still able to share his views as an economist and have a public speaking career of some sort.

Photo via International Monetary Fund

This has been a busy week for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and not in a good way.

On Monday, he was put under preliminary investigation (basically the same as being charged) for “aggravated pimping in an organized gang.” DSK never made money off of prostitutes, as the word pimp would suggest, but he did attend “libertine soirees” where he enjoyed their company. These soirees were paid for by two businessmen who were friends of DSK, allegedly out of company funds. The big dispute in this case is just how involved DSK was with planning and organizing these parties, and how much he knew about their financing. He says he didn’t even know that any of the women were prostitutes, but investigators theorize that he was involved enough to be considered part of the conspiracy.  The good news is that he was not (knock on wood) charged with receiving embezzled funds.

His lawyer, Richard Malka, criticized the decision, saying:

“No one could understand the application of the notion of pimping in his situation…On the basis of his behavior alone, which should concern only himself and those close to him, Monsieur Strauss-Kahn finds himself here in large part due to his renown, thrown on the pyre. Colossal police and judicial means were deployed to crack and dissect his private life to an infinite degree, with the only goal being to invent and then castigate what can be considered a crime of lust.”

Another lawyer for DSK, Henri Leclerc, added:

“Certainly Dominique Strauss-Kahn has attended a certain number of parties with women, libertine parties with female friends and women who were friends of his friends…They are trying to ban a sort of crime of lust. He’s being attacked over his libertine behaviour.”

And Club DSK, a (semi-official?) group of Strauss-Kahn supporters, made a great point in their press release:

“We are worried about the dangerous drift for public liberty of the unbelievable decision to want at any cost to inculpate a man on the sole grounds of having practiced free trade without asking for prior authorization from a judge. Since there is no shadow of a criminal infraction in the behavior of Dominique Strauss-Kahn in a private soiree between free and consenting adults, one can be astonished at the willingness of the judge to want to institute a police of morals and to advocate a return of the moral order which constitutes a dangerous slide in the protection of public liberties for each citizen! Liberties of morals and religion constitute one of the pillars of our secular and republican society.“

Yesterday, DSK was supposed to give a speech at the European Parliament in Belgium, but he was forced to cancel it. At first I thought he had caved in to lawmakers who demanded that he be barred from speaking. But it turns out that he actually couldn’t go, as under his bail conditions, he is not allowed to leave France. I suspect DSK knew significantly in advance that the decision about whether to charge him was going to be announced Monday, and he probably had an inkling of what the decision was going to be.

Today, a motion hearing took place in DSK’s civil case in New York. As you may remember, hotel maid Nafissatou Diallo accused him of sexual assault last May, but the criminal case was dismissed because she lied numerous times and there wasn’t enough evidence. She is now suing him for damages. His legal team argued today that the case should be thrown out because, as the director of the International Monetary Fund at the time, he has diplomatic immunity. Unfortunately for him, according to news reports, the judge sounded skeptical of this argument, but he did not make a ruling yet. DSK’s lawyer, William Taylor, said that he was “in good spirits.” I hope that’s true, as he still has a long legal road ahead of him, and I hope he can emerge from it with some sort of vindication.

While his two legal cases wind through the courts, the media is being as merciless as ever to Strauss-Kahn. Le Monde released a transcript of DSK’s interrogation in the prostitution case last month, which purportedly show his “disrespect” for women. The transcripts also show that he and his legal team have a consistent defense to the charges, but the media, naturally, doesn’t devote too many lines to that. He is filing a complaint against Le Monde for selectively quoting him.

Also on the topic of media, a special mention must go to Beatrice Legrain and Dominique Alderweireld, the reputed bosses of a prostitution ring that DSK is accused of patronizing. They recently gave one of the trashiest interviews I have ever seen or read (which I am not going to dignify by linking to it) in which they disparaged DSK and shared intimate details of his sex life. Shame on them for gratuitously insulting and invading the privacy of a man whose reputation is already in tatters.

My take on DSK’s latest legal developments:

First of all, the laws about prostitution in France are confusing and conflicted. Prostitution itself is legal, as is being a customer, but soliciting, directing prostitutes in an organized enterprise, and making money off of prostitutes are all illegal. It seems that by banning so many prostitution-related activities, the legal system is trying to get rid of prostitution, but without criminalizing it per se. Personally, I support legalizing all of these activities, as long as they are consensual, but in any case, the laws as they are now seem to be too unclear, to have too many gray areas, and to make it  too difficult to tell whether a given action is legal or not. It certainly seems to be a stretch to call DSK a “pimp” when he was nothing more than a client, and possibly an unknowing one at that.

Ultimately, it seems that DSK is being persecuted for his sexuality by the media, by protesters at Cambridge University and the European Parliament who have tried to use intimidation to prevent him from speaking, by former allies who turned their backs, and by the legal systems of both the United States and France. There is no evidence that DSK sexually coerced anyone into doing anything they did not want to do – the New York case was (correctly) thrown out, and a separate case in France was thrown out due to the statute of limitations (although as I explained in an earlier post, there was really no evidence in that case either). He hasn’t been charged with corruption or embezzlement. So all that he has done is engaged in various consensual sexual encounters (some possibly paid, some not) with various women. And because of that, the majority of people seem to consider him unfit for any type of political, economic, or public speaking career.

That is un-libertarian. As long as no acts of aggression are committed, a person’s private sexual life is not anyone’s business. It’s wrong to discriminate against gay people for their sexual orientation, so why is it considered any better to discriminate against a person who chooses a libertine lifestyle instead of being monogamous? DSK’s critics are also anti-feminist. Those who condemn the practice of “slut-shaming” are often the very same people who actively condemn DSK for being…well…a slut. (Or whatever the male equivalent of that is.) Feminism is about equal treatment of men and women, and this double standard is the opposite of feminism. If you want to help the cause of women’s rights, it would make a lot more sense to actually advocate against sexist policies than to bully men whose sexual behavior you happen to disapprove of.

It saddens me that, if his legal woes had ended with the New York criminal case, DSK’s story could have been the perfect victory for defendants’ rights, and the perfect example of a wrongful conviction in the court of public opinion. But alas, his trials and tribulations go on. Good luck, DSK; I have a feeling you’re going to need it.

Photo by Tom Adams, via Flickr, cc ASA 2.0. 

Julian Assange just keeps getting more awesome. While he tries out his skills interviewing world leaders such as the president of Tunisia, and his website, WikiLeaks, continues to release secret emails from a private intelligence company, Assange has announced that he is running for Senate in his home country of Australia!

WikiLeaks tweeted the news, saying, “We have discovered that it is possible for Julian Assange to run for the Australian Senate while detained. Julian has decided to run.” They added, ”We will also be fielding a candidate to run against [Prime Minister] Julia Gillard in her home seat of Lalor (Vic).” Which seat Assange will run for has not yet been announced.

Even though Assange has spent much of his life traveling abroad and hasn’t actually lived in Australia for a while, and even though he is under house arrest in England as he fights extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges, he is still eligible to run according to AP because he is on the Australian voter registration rolls. WL Central gives a detailed explanation of why he could run and what could happen if he succeeds.

A majority of people would vote for him according to at least one (unscientific) poll at ABC. If you support WikiLeaks and freedom of the press, why not vote in the poll?

H/T: The Humble Libertarian

Last night, Dominique Strauss-Kahn braved hordes of angry protesters and gave a speech about the global economy to students at Cambridge University. According to the New York Post, he spoke about the European debt crisis and his tenure as managing director of the International Monetary Fund. But because no cameras or members of the press were allowed at the event, there are unfortunately few details about what Strauss-Kahn actually said.

According to the Guardian, one student asked what Strauss-Kahn thought of the protesters. He responded, “That’s their freedom. They can do what they want. I think they are wrong.”

And according to the Telegraph, another student asked him to explain why the New York hotel maid who accused him of sexual assault suffered from “bruising…the day after you met her.” He replied, ”I’m not quite sure that’s the topic of this evening. New York dismissed the case…What more do you want?” (If he had chosen to, he could have pointed out that that particular piece of forensic evidence can be attributed to the fact that she reportedly had sex with an unknown individual the night before she met Strauss-Kahn.)

Aside from that question, all of the students’ interactions with DSK reportedly were respectful. He remained calm and collected throughout and even allowed the rude questioner to finish speaking when security tried to remove him. It sounds like Dominique showed a lot of bravery and class.

The same cannot be said of the protesters who tried as hard as they could to disrupt the speech. And unlike the actual substance of Strauss-Kahn’s talk, they got plenty of media coverage. It seems like there were somewhere between 100 and 200 protesters, led by the same people who circulated a petition calling for DSK to be uninvited. (The Cambridge Union Society, to their credit, refused to do this.) Failing that, they held signs, chanted, yelled into megaphones, scuffled with police, attempted to forcibly enter the hall by pushing or climbing metal barriers that police had put up, and tried to physically block DSK from leaving. Worst of all, they vandalized buildings with anti-DSK graffiti, including “Women deserve better” and ”DSK die,” which can be seen here.

First of all, I resent the fact that these protesters (and vandals) claim to speak for all women – what about women such as myself who think DSK is innocent, or who simply would like to hear him speak?

Second of all, yes, someone actually decided to spray paint the words, “DSK die,” on a building. I’m not sure how defacing beautiful, historic buildings and making death threats against an aging economist who is attempting to give an economic speech helps the cause of women’s rights. I’ve written before that I disagree with, and actually find anti-feminist, the message of these protests, which seems to be that sexual aggression is inherently something that men commit against women, and that male rape defendants should be presumed guilty. But “DSK die” is wrong on a different level entirely. It is violent, illegal, and simply appalling.

The good thing is that these acts of vandalism, violence, and intimidation should, hopefully, hurt the image of the anti-DSK movement. Five people reportedly were arrested, two for vandalism and three for clashing with police and disturbing the peace during the speech.

There was also at least one brave counter-protester who held a sign that read, “Let DSK speak! Just because he may be a sex offender doesn’t mean he’s not listening to.” I second that.

Update: As I read more news coverage, the anti-DSK demonstrations seem more and more violent, barbaric, and unreasonable. The name of the courageous pro-free-speech protester is Anton Bruder. According to Varsity, the angry mob snatched his poster out of hands and stomped on it. Videos show huge mobs of people, not just one or two, physically assaulting police and attempting to forcibly pull down the barricades that separated them from DSK…to do what exactly? Trample him to death? I have witnessed a good number of protests, either as a participant or an observer, including Tea Party rallies, anti-Obama demonstrations, and Occupy protests, and I have never seen anything this bad. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the fact that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is giving a speech makes these people so angry. There are plenty of things that make me angry, but an economic speech by a man who has lost almost everything and is trying to rebuild his career is certainly not one of them. There is nothing brave or honorable about what these mobs did last night, either in their cause (a warped version of feminism that is actually anti-feminist) or their methods (violence, death threats, vandalism, and intimidation). They should apologize to the Union Society, DSK, Bruder, and all the people who they assaulted and whose property they destroyed.

3/11 update: The Cambridge Union Society has posted a video of DSK’s entire speech and Q and A session. I’ll admit that I don’t know enough about economics to say whether or not I agree with everything he said. But it is great to hear his ideas, and I am impressed with his confidence, charisma, and professionalism, especially after the rude question.

Photo by International Monetary Fund via Flickr

They have got to be kidding.

The people who launched a petition demanding that Dominique Strauss-Kahn be uninvited from giving an economic speech at Cambridge University have now invited the lawyer for the hotel maid who is suing him to give a speech the same day. And, apparently unwilling to turn down any opportunity to harass his victim, he accepted.

At the invitation of the Cambridge University Students’ Union Women’s Campaign, Douglas H. Wigdor will be speaking at 1:00 on Friday, March 9 about “how legal systems can systemically disadvantage both women and immigrants.” Strauss-Kahn is scheduled to speak about the financial crisis at 7:30. But naturally, not before the Women’s Campaign stages a protest against his speech at 5:30.

Wigdor said, ”I was really stunned that such a prestigious institution as the Cambridge Union would let itself be used by Strauss-Kahn’s team to resurrect his image.” Actually, Katie Lam, the president of the Union, has said that she invited Strauss-Kahn because he is a fascinating figure with exceptional knowledge of the economy, and in fact has been inviting him since 2010. What gives Wigdor the right to say what the Union’s motives are, more than the Union members themselves? Clearly, he disagrees with their choice of speaker, but he should at least acknowledge that those who disagree with him might be freely, thoughtfully making the decision to disagree with him, instead of assuming that anyone who disagrees with him is being “used” or manipulated.

I am all for free speech, but there is a difference between speech whose intention is simply to express an opinion and speech whose intention is to harass, intimidate, and bully others from expressing their opinions. Inviting Wigdor or his even more obnoxious law partner, Kenneth Thompson, to give a speech on any day but March 9 would be one thing. But for the speech to be on the same day as Strauss-Kahn’s is designed not merely to present an alternative viewpoint but to harass him.

There is nothing feminist about assuming that all men who are accused of rape are guilty, and there is nothing brave about denying the presumption of innocence. For 700 + people to gang up on a 62-year-old economist who has been abandoned by almost all of his friends, has suffered horribly, and has no political future, is simply mean.

I wish strength and courage to Mr. Strauss-Kahn.