The Freedom Bulletin

Last week, Francois Hollande, the new President of France, announced who he would be appointing to various ministerial positions in his government.

Among his new cabinet members are traitor Pierre Moscovici (Finance Minister), who was Hollande’s campaign manager and used to be a supporter of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, before throwing him under the bus when he became politically unpopular, as well as Aurelie Filippetti (Culture and Communications Minister), who once accused Strauss-Kahn of sexual harassment.

But more notable, in my opinion, is Hollande’s appointment of two ministers who have either been accused or convicted of serious crimes.

Laurent Fabius (Foreign Minister) served as Prime Minister in the 1980s and, according to the BBC, faced “accusations that his government had knowingly distributed blood products contaminated with HIV, one of the biggest public health scandals in French history. He was cleared of manslaughter in 1999.”

Additionally, according to the Telegraph, Jean-Marc Ayrault (Prime Minister) was convicted of favoritism in awarding a local government contract in 1997. Although the conviction was officially expunged from the record in 2007, he served a 6-month sentence and paid a 30,000 franc fine.

Considering the way Hollande has treated Strauss-Kahn (who has been fighting against criminal investigations, but has consistently maintained his innocence and has not been convicted of anything), it is hypocritical for him to give important government roles to people who have been accused, let alone convicted, of crimes. Hollande once said, “There are rules and principles. Dominique Strauss-Kahn will not be in a government I pick.” More recently, he made nasty comments about Strauss-Kahn when the latter had the audacity to attend a birthday party that he was invited to.

Additionally, Hollande said during the campaign that he would never appoint anyone who has been “tried and convicted” and told people to ”remind me of this statement if I fail to keep my word.”

It looks like Hollande failed to keep his word, and it looks like his “rules and principles” apply only to DSK.

As soon as I finish a blog post about Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a pretty significant new development happens. On Monday, as first reported by the New York Post, the man who arguably should be the new president of France filed a civil suit against Nafissatou Diallo, the hotel maid who accused him of attempted rape and sexual assault.

A year to the day after his shocking arrest and tragic fall from grace, it looks like DSK is seeking justice. He’s asking for $1 million for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false imprisonment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Good for him.

According to AFP, DSK’s lawyer, William Taylor, said that Diallo “is directly responsible for his being arrested, imprisoned, and subjected to extraordinary pain, anguish, and expense. He is not required to simply endure what she did and her effort to profit for herself without fighting back.”

In his complaint, filed in the Bronx Supreme Court, DSK calls Diallo’s account a ”malicious and wanton false allegation.” As a result of this false allegation, according to the complaint, he lost his job as head of the International Monetary Fund and missed out on other professional opportunities, suffered “grievous harm to his personal and professional reputation,” was “subjected to a degrading and humiliating strip search; photographed naked; and forced to provide penal swabs as part of a forensic examination,” and finally, was “paraded in front of international media in handcuffs as part of a ‘perp walk’ intended to humiliate him, even though he committed no crime.”

I am appalled by the way the New York Police Department and Manhattan D.A.’s office treated Strauss-Kahn (at least before they changed their tune and dropped the charges against him due to lack of evidence). As far as I’m concerned, if anyone was sexually assaulted in this case, it was DSK. It is difficult to believe that an office that prosecutes people for (alleged) sexual assaults can itself inflict what is described above on a person that it is prosecuting. Yes, these invasive and degrading searches might be useful in gathering evidence, but they equal sexual assault, and it is never, ever acceptable to sexually assault someone.

Strauss-Kahn will never be able to fully undo the damage that was done to him as a result of Diallo’s accusations and law enforcement’s response. But I hope that with this lawsuit, he might be able to obtain some semblance of justice. Even if his lawsuit doesn’t succeed in court, I admire that in addition to seeking justice for himself, DSK is also, in a way, taking a stand for defendants’ rights, human dignity, and freedom.

5/16 update: Thanks to David Bookstaver and Arlene Hackel of the NY courts communications office, you can read the document filed by DSK here:

Defendant Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s Answer and Counterclaims (PDF)

For reference, here is Diallo’s original civil complaint against DSK, filed last August.

Since Francois Hollande will be sworn in as France’s new president today, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arraigned in a New York courtroom one year ago tomorrow, I figured this was a good time to give my opinion on the French election. Or more specifically, my opinion about how French politicians have reacted to the trials and tribulations of Strauss-Kahn, the former frontrunner for the presidency.

Naturally, DSK’s political enemies have mercilessly bashed him. When he gave an interview about the sexual assault case that he faced last year, soon-to-be former president Nicolas Sarkozy of the center-right UMP party said that DSK “should have the decency to shut up. The fact that he dares to speak shows that he does not get it.” The horror! God forbid that an unpopular person be allowed to speak. I guess Sarkozy does not care about freedom of expression, or about the people who might actually be interested in what Strauss-Kahn has to say.

Continue reading…

This has been a busy week in various cases and trials that The Freedom Bulletin is following. I did not have time to post about all of them during the week, so here is a recap of some of the more newsworthy (in my opinion) goings-on that you may have missed:

The trial of confessed mass-killer Anders Behring Breivik continues in Norway. Last week, he described the massacre that he carried out in chilling detail, said that he would rather be executed than face the “pathetic” maximum sentence of 21 years in prison, and proclaimed that he has no regrets and “would do it again.” This week, testimony turned to a psychiatric report that called him legally insane, which Breivik strongly criticized, saying, ”To a political activist, the worst thing that can happen is to end up in a mental hospital. That would delegitimise everything you stand for.” Survivors of Breivik’s bombing of a government building took the stand yesterday, and survivors of his shooting rampage will likely testify next week. Time has an interesting comparison of the Norwegian and American justice systems as shown by this trial.

Pvt. Bradley Manning had three days of court hearings this week, which unfortunately did not go very well for him. Col. Denise Lind, the military judge in his case, denied a motion to dismiss the charge of “aiding the enemy,” rejecting the argument that the multitude of classified files he shared with WikiLeaks did not harm national security. She also denied a motion to dismiss four other charges for being redundant. However, Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, did win the opportunity to access government reports about the dangerousness of the leaked documents. Manning’s court martial is scheduled for September.

An anonymous commenter tells me that Alexander Pring-Wilson‘s civil case settled on Tuesday. This case involved whether a homeowner’s insurance policy on his home should be held responsible for the damages that were awarded to the estate of Michael Colono, whom Pring-Wilson killed in a fight back in 2003 (he’s always maintained it was self-defense). This week, the insurance company agreed to pay Colono’s estate, represented by executrix Cindy Guzman. This is a case that I’ve been following for a long time, and I am glad that both Colono’s relatives and Pring-Wilson can finally put this mess behind them and move on with their lives.

Sgt. Gary Stein was officially given an “other than honorable” discharge from the armed forces for creating the Facebook group, “Armed Forces Tea Party,” and posting criticism of President Obama. He vows to appeal, and he is also launching his own radio show. After the decision, Sgt. Stein posted on Facebook, ”Even though I will be discharged no one can take the title of Marine away from me… Today is just the start of the rest of my life. Semper Fi.”

Dominique Strauss-Kahn recently did an interview with Edward J. Epstein, who wrote an article in the NY Review of Books last year suggesting that the infamous attempted rape case may have been a set-up. DSK agreed with this sentiment in the interview and shared a few new thoughts and observations, which are interesting to read since he has rarely spoken publicly about the case. The interview is part of Epstein’s new book, entitled “Three Days in May.”

Lawyers for George Zimmerman disclosed that their client raised over $200,000 to help with legal bills via his (now defunct) website. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, this triggered a new dispute over bail, with prosecutors asking that his bond be increased, and a lawyer for Trayvon Martin’s family accusing him of deceiving the court by failing to disclose the sum earlier.

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.