The Freedom Bulletin

In our society, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other self-proclaimed experts have been labeling an increasing number of things as “addictions.” For example, people who spend a lot of time online are often diagnosed with “Internet addiction,” and people who eat a lot of sweets are accused of having a “food addiction.” And whenever a famous person ends up in a sex scandal, self-proclaimed experts will inevitably pontificate about how this person “suffers” from “sex addiction.”

This is what happened to John Edwards, Tiger Woods, Anthony Weiner, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and more recently, former Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos. Mihos’s wife accused him of domestic violence and of being “addicted to hiring prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars for sex.” In the aftermath he issued a statement saying, “Andrea and I have been married for almost 38 years and I cherish the perfect wife she has always been…I am now seeking the proper course of treatment to make myself a better husband, father and person.” In addition to being a terribly sad end to the career of a quirky, independent-minded candidate, it is sad that Mihos has succumbed to the majority view that his sex life makes him “sick” and in need of “treatment.”

As David Ley points out in an excellent piece in the New York Post, to label someone’s actions as an addiction denies their individual responsibility and unjustly absolves them of blame if they have done something wrong. Even more harmfully, it classifies actions as bad when there is nothing wrong with them at all.

It might be true that food, sex, and surfing the net increase dopamine activity in the brain, which drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroin also do. But this is true of all pleasurable things. What makes drugs addictive is that they act by physically affecting the body, and there are physical consequences to using them or ceasing to use them. According to the logic of the mental health police, people should avoid doing anything that they find pleasurable; in other words that we should deliberately be unhappy and have a bad quality of life. This is not only wrong, but defeats the purpose of life.

Why do some people feel that they have a right to describe others’ preferences and actions as an “illness”? Why do they feel the need to attribute other people’s actions to some brain defect or trauma? It’s bad enough to condemn and look down on the way another person lives their life, but it’s even worse to treat them as if they are sick and need treatment. Instead of looking at others as equals, with whom they might disagree, people who think this way deny the personhood and rationality of others. This is the ultimate in arrogance and disrespect.

This attitude is embodied by Dr. Drew Pinsky of reality TV fame, who actually said in an interview, “It’s foolish that we don’t help people more. There’re a million pathologies that are excused under, ‘hey, whatever you’re into.’” In other words, he thinks that our society has too much freedom, and not enough telling people who differ from the norm that their preferences and lifestyles are unhealthy and defective. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Far too many people today, especially in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, believe that everyone should conform to an arbitrary standard and that any preference, desire, life decision, or character trait that differs from the average is an “illness” that requires “treatment.” This belief is the greatest assault on individual liberty in the world. Our society pays a lot of lip service to diversity, especially in the areas of race, religion, and sexual orientation. But in order to truly support diversity, society must accept all ways of living, as long as they do not involve trampling on the rights of others.

Some people have sex a lot, some people don’t have sex at all, and most people are somewhere in between. The same goes for eating, gambling, web browsing, video games, and any activity a person might choose to do. People have all different preferences and choose to spend their time in different ways. That is not something to be “treated,” but something to be celebrated.

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.

Today Anne Sinclair, the editorial director of the French version of the Huffington Post, and the wife of former presidential hopeful Dominique Strauss-Kahn, released a book about her grandfather, the famous art dealer Paul Rosenberg. In an interview with Le Parisien, she took the opportunity to explain a little bit about her book, as well as making some great comments about feminism and the media.

This is what she said about the work of the press during her husband’s ordeal as he faced sexual assault charges in New York:

It is legitimate to make a big deal of an event of which I don’t minimize the political importance. But I find that the limits of voyeurism and of the inquisition were crossed.

And this is what she said when asked whether she thinks there has been a return of “conservative morality”:

Like in any society in crisis, one witnesses a withdrawal. People have fear of the future, and from there, a more moralistic tendency. Words themselves diverge from their meanings, like that of feminism. Feminism is the fight for women’s freedom. Self-proclaimed feminists transformed it into a machine of questioning to dictate to each person how it is necessary to live.

I agree with her. The media unquestioningly describes as “feminists” all the people who assumed that Strauss-Kahn was guilty and demanded that Sinclair divorce him. But to judge a person as guilty merely because they are a man accused of a sex crime is the opposite of feminism, as is telling other women what they must value in a husband. Just because people call themselves feminists doesn’t mean they are.

Source: Le Parisien

Photo by International Monetary Fund via Flickr

Former chief of the International Monetary Fund and former French Finance Minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn is scheduled to give a speech about the financial crisis on March 9th at Cambridge University. Not surprisingly but still wrongly, self-proclaimed “feminists” are protesting his visit because, in addition to his many legitimate and very impressive accomplishments, he was also accused of attempted rape two times, but beat both cases because there was not sufficient evidence that he had done anything wrong.

There are still many, many people who treat Strauss-Kahn as if he is guilty and who are now criticizing the Cambridge Union Society for inviting him. The Cambridge University Students’ Union Women’s Campaign, for example, launched a petition calling for DSK to be uninvited. In their letter, they write that DSK’s speech would show an “abhorrent disregard” for the rights of sexual assault survivors, which, throughout the letter, they seem to assume are all women. The way I see it, this attitude is not feminist but quite the contrary. By assuming that sexual assault is always committed by men against women, you are not treating both genders equally but treating women as inherently weak and vulnerable and men as inherently aggressive. And by assuming, whenever a woman accuses a man of a sex crime, that he is guilty, you are choosing to believe one person and disbelieve another based on their gender. Not too feminist in my opinion.

The Women’s Campaign also misinterprets the Union’s motives for inviting DSK, accusing them of having “a callous desire to exploit gender crime allegations in the service of controversy.” Later they demand that the Union cancel DSK’s speech in order to demonstrate that ”sexual violence is not ‘racy’ material with which to pull in the crowds.” It’s awfully far-fetched to assume that inviting one of the world’s best economists to give a speech about the economy is an attempt to be “racy.” In fact, the Union has been inviting DSK to speak for a while, and understandably he only now has the free time to accept the invitation.

They also write that DSK ”has been able, because of institutional sexism in the legal system, to evade court,” having “benefitted from a concerted media character assassination” of one of his accusers. This makes me wonder, what newspapers have these people been reading?? Apparently they missed the dozens of New York Daily News articles that branded DSK as “Le Perv,” as well as the growing number that refer to him as the “rutting chimpanzee.” They also missed the glee with which nearly every publication (that I have seen, at least) plastered DSK’s perp-walk pictures on their front pages, crowing about how great a country America is for arresting him right away and refusing him bail, wringing their hands about why powerful men behave so badly, criticizing the culture of France, insulting DSK for being French, condemning his sex life, and generally portraying his accuser, Nafissatou Diallo, as a saint. For anyone who likes statistics, according to my calculations, out of 19 times the case made the New York Post’s front page, 9 were anti-DSK and only 7 were even remotely pro-DSK. It was only when Diallo’s numerous lies emerged that the media coverage changed somewhat in DSK’s favor, but certainly not to the degree needed to make up for the brutal treatment that they subjected him to and continue to subject him to today. Yes, there has been some media coverage that is critical of Diallo, but the victim of a “concerted media character assassination” is undoubtedly Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

And they describe DSK as a “rich, white, powerful man” who has been ”given a platform mostly denied to survivors of sexual violence.” Really? They seem to have forgotten that Diallo gave very high-profile interviews to Newsweek and ABC, and almost certainly turned down offers from other, equally prestigious media outlets. Plus, there is the fact that although DSK used to be powerful, he has now, because of the allegations against him, lost not only his job as chief of the IMF, but also his reputation, his friends, his privacy, his bodily integrity, and seemingly any hope of a political future. It is dubious to describe any individual who has had to face off against a government determined to put him or her in jail as “powerful,” and in this case truly betrays an abhorrent disregard for what DSK has suffered.

In addition to the Women’s Campaign letter, an anonymous ex-president of the Union Society said, “Offering the opportunity to speak to someone who has admitted committing criminal sexual aggression and has evaded the courts for two further charges of rape is seriously damaging.” First, it is simply false that DSK admitted to criminal sexual aggression, as I explained before. Second, it is objectionable to speak of someone “evading the courts” when there was not evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not a flaw but a fundamental part of the American legal system. Why does this person not mention anything about Diallo “evading” charges of perjury after she lied to a grand jury?

On the other hand, everything that Katie Lam, the president of the Union Society, has said during this controversy has been completely reasonable. ”The purpose of the Union is to provide a neutral platform for free speech,” she explained. “Anyone can speak here, and we use no selection criteria when inviting speakers other than that they are interesting people whom the membership would want to hear speak and would like a chance to question and challenge.” She also pointed out that Strauss-Kahn is “exceptionally well-qualified” to speak about the economy and is also simply a fascinating person.

Kudos to Lam and her organization for their brave, intelligent decision to allow DSK to speak despite his vocal detractors. The so-called feminists, on the other hand, have been anything but brave and intelligent in this matter. It is sad that over 600 people think they are helping women’s rights by depriving a man who has lost nearly everything, and who is tentatively attempting to make a comeback on the lecture circuit, of an opportunity to give an economic speech. In my opinion, the creators and signers of the petition are nothing more than bullies. That might sound like a strange word to use for college students who are protesting against a 62-year-old former banker, but the essence of bullying is the ganging up of a group of like-thinking people against an unpopular individual. This is exactly what is being done to DSK.

Famous journalist, TV personality, and author Anne Sinclair officially started her new job today as editorial director of the French version of the Huffington Post. Sinclair, of course, also happens to be married to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was the world’s most well-known rape defendant until the charges against him were dismissed and continues to be a major news story as he faces additional scandals. At a press conference today, Sinclair said that her site will not have any particular political viewpoint but will “give people space to talk.” The site’s founder, Arianna Huffington, said that Sinclair’s triumph over adversity ”gives hope and courage to every other woman,” and that DSK might even become a guest blogger.

Sinclair has faced criticism from people who doubt her ability to be neutral and wonder how her site would cover news about her husband. One even said that Sinclair ”is no longer a journalist. Ever since she compared the DSK affair to the Dreyfus affair, she is an interested party.” This is an interesting question, but ultimately I don’t think that Sinclair’s support of Strauss-Kahn should disqualify her from a job in journalism. First of all, do her critics think that if she threw her husband under the bus, that would make her neutral about his case? That wouldn’t make sense; no matter how she chose to react to her husband’s scandals, the fact that she is his wife means that she is affected by his legal struggles to some extent. If Sinclair’s critics take their reasoning to its logical end, the only conclusion they could come to is that anyone who has any relationship with a person in the news, or has expressed an opinion about any event in the news, is disqualified from being a journalist. That would disqualify almost everyone in the world. It’s perfectly reasonable for someone who is partial about a particular subject in the news to have a career in journalism but simply avoid covering that particular subject. This is what, for example, WCBV TV reporter Gail Huff does with respect to her husband, Senator Scott Brown, and what Sinclair says she will do with her husband: “It goes without saying that we will cover all news topics that come up whatever they might be. I’m not saying I would write the article but it will be covered and in the most professional manner possible.”

Additionally, as she has since she decided to stick with DSK, Sinclair faces criticism from so-called feminists who are in reality not feminists at all. People have referred to her as “undignified,” “shockingly weak,” “very very sad,” a “doormat,” a “terrible role model,” “an embarrassment,” and a “depressed woman with no respect for herself” who is “under submission.” They speak constantly of DSK’s “victims,” and what he “has done to other women.” They describe the prostitutes that DSK allegedly slept with as “vulnerable young women run controlled [sic] by pimps.” Most offensively, some even write that Sinclair “needs an appointment with a psychiatrist.”

In addition to the fact that it is wrong to disrespect the presumption of innocence, hideously offensive to claim that someone is mentally ill for making different choices than you, and bizarre to call someone weak and cowardly for defending an unpopular individual against an attacking mob, these comments are simply anti-feminist. It is anti-feminist, for example, to demand that all woman have the same standards and value the same things in a husband. It is anti-feminist to assume that in rape cases, women always tell the truth and men always lie. It is anti-feminist to treat sex, unless proven to be non-consensual, as something that men “do to” women. It is anti-feminist to treat women as inherently vulnerable and in need of protection, to assume that prostitutes are controlled by pimps, and to assume that Sinclair is weak, submissive, and controlled by DSK instead of being an autonomous and independent person.

In actuality, Sinclair and DSK are a couple that feminists should approve of. Instead of her staying home and being financially dependent on him, she is the wealthier one, and both are intellectual equals who have their own identities, their own lives, and (until DSK’s was unjustly destroyed) their own highly successful careers. Anne Sinclair is brave, independent, strong, intelligent, and feminist. People who make comments like the ones above are sad, undignified, and weak.

Because of her courage and her very impressive resume, Sinclair more than deserves this job. Congratulations, Anne, and the best of luck in your new endeavor.

To mark her comeback, Sinclair gave an interview to the French version of Elle magazine, in which she explained a little bit more about her ordeal, her idea of feminism, and why she supports her husband. Some of the best quotes:

• “To be an object of speculation, of permanent harassment to know what is happening in my home, has something about it that is Orwellian, totalitarian.”
• “There are trashy newspapers in the U.S., like everywhere, and violations of privacy. But, in regard to the big media, the press is demanding, precise, and hardworking.”
• On her presidential ambitions, or lack thereof, for DSK: “I wasn’t keen on the idea of candidacy. Power? I’ve seen it too close up to find it fascinating. As for the role of First Lady, it doesn’t exist in France. All that leaves me totally cold.”
• On her new job: “It brings me great pleasure to resume my career, in the euphoria of participating in something new! … I think that I can still bring something to this field. What makes me nervous is the launch of a journal, that it wouldn’t be ready in time, the stress, all that. But my return to the spotlight, as you say, it already happened, no? … But it’s true that the professional spotlight is always more pleasant.”
• On people who say that she should leave DSK: “Well then, leave your husband if you want to want to leave him. That’s your problem.”
• On accusations that she is condoning violence against women: “It’s unacceptable because there was no violence. If there had been, the prosecutors would have pressed charges. They didn’t. Violence horrifies me – verbal violence too.”
• “I, too, felt a great violence when certain self-proclaimed feminists unleashed themselves on me. I am a feminist, I always have been; I always will be. I have been part of all of the battles, on abortion, on equality at work, on the dignity of women here and elsewhere, on the role of women in public life. I think I have done at least as much as packs of ‘feminists’ for the advancement of women in men’s fields.”
• “Unconditional support does not exist. One supports if one has decided to support. Nobody knows what happens in the intimacy of couples, and I deny anyone the right to judge mine. I feel free in my judgments, my actions, I decide about my life in all independence. I am neither a saint nor a victim; I am a free woman.”

Sources: Elle.fr, The Telegraph, Daily Beast

Each New Year here at the Freedom Bulletin, I make a list of the top people of the year. It has taken different forms and has used different criteria over the years, but this year, like last, I decided to do a top 10 list. The following people are the 10 who, in my opinion, mattered the most in the fields of politics, law, individual rights, and freedom. The people in the list were chosen based on a combination of how interesting, influential, high-profile, and unique they are, as well as the importance (in my humble opinion) of the issues that they stand for or are associated with. Without further ado, here are the top 10 people of 2011:

10. Casey Anthony – Accused of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, she was almost universally vilified by talking heads, trial watchers, and the general public, who ridiculed her partying ways and presumed her guilty because of the large amount of circumstantial evidence in the case. But her acquittal this year showed that, to one jury at least, reasonable doubt is still the standard to which criminal defendants must be judged, no matter how wrong the verdict may intuitively feel and no matter how unpopular it may be.

9. Dr. Virginia Moyer – The chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, she was behind the decisions to recommend fewer pap smears, mammograms, prostate cancer tests, and other medical screenings. After decades of ever-increasing pressure by society, government,  and doctors to undergo more and more frequent medical procedures, which take a huge toll on human dignity and quality of life, this is a small and long-overdue step in the right direction.

8. Gabrielle Giffords – This congresswoman from Arizona doesn’t need much of an explanation. It is amazing that she survived being shot in the head, let alone managed to return to Congress the same year. Her strength and bravery make her more than worthy of a place on this list.

7. SEAL Team 6 – Responsible for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, they don’t need much of an explanation either. While I don’t believe in celebrating another person’s death, no matter who it is, it is undeniable that bringing an end to America’s 10-year-long pursuit of the world’s most dangerous terrorist is a significant event that changed the world.

6. Jesse Ventura – The former Minnesota governor and wrestler won at least one fan with his opposition to the TSA’s pat-downs and full-body scanners. Although his lawsuit against these unconstitutional and degrading security policies was (wrongly) dismissed, everyone should admire his outspoken and courageous stand for freedom.

5. Susie Castillo – A somewhat unlikely freedom fighter, this former Miss USA similarly gave star power to the fight against airport security excesses. Her candid and brave YouTube video decrying a pat-down that was more like a sexual assault went viral and brought much-needed attention to this issue.

4. Gary Johnson – Although he never picked up a lot of steam in the Republican primary and is now running for president as a Libertarian, he is a man of principle who, both in his personal life and his political life, stands up for what he believes in instead of doing whatever he thinks will make him popular.

3. Anne Sinclair – Married to possibly the most hated criminal defendant of the year (see below), she showed tremendous bravery by fighting for her husband’s freedom when most of the world expected and wanted her to abandon him. By standing up for his presumption of innocence, she also became an icon of loyalty and true feminism.

2. Dominique Strauss-Kahn – No longer a powerful politician or banker, he is an important figure nonetheless because he is this year’s most high-profile victim of race, gender, and class stereotypes. Accused of sexually assaulting an African hotel maid, the wealthy, libertine Frenchman was the perfect villain to many people, who ensured that he was immediately convicted in the court of public opinion. The charges against him were dismissed for lack of evidence, but not before he was severely and unjustly punished, losing his reputation, his privacy, many of his friends, and his political career.

1. Ron Paul – What is there to say about the good doctor and congressman that I haven’t already said somewhere on this blog?? One of my favorite politicians of all time, he has managed this year not only to bravely, consistently, eloquently, intelligently, and passionately voice his pro-liberty views on almost every issue, but actually gained quite a bit of popularity as well. It is exciting to see his poll numbers placing him in the top tier of presidential candidates and sometimes even as the frontrunner. In addition to being a warrior of principle, he has actually changed public opinion and GOP ideology in the direction of liberty, and it is that achievement that lands him in the top spot on my list.