The Freedom Bulletin

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 Philippe Grangeaud, via the Socialist Party on Flickr

One of the reasons why the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case has received so much publicity, in addition to the defendant’s position as one of the most powerful economists in the world, is because it fits a lot of people’s stereotypes. Strauss-Kahn, who used to be the director of the International Monetary Fund, is a rich, white, older man. His accuser, Nafissatou Diallo, is a maid at the Sofitel hotel, a single mother, and a poor immigrant from Guinea.

She held a rally last Thursday at a predominantly black church, where she and her lawyer suggested that the District Attorney’s office is not prosecuting the case as zealously as they should be because of racism. (As promised, she is now filing a civil lawsuit.) Noel Leader, co-founder of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, asked the crowd, “Does race play a role? Does her gender play a role? Is this a class issue?” They responded in the affirmative.

Numerous others have echoed these sentiments. But who is really the victim of prejudice in this case?

Protesters from the New Black Panther Party have demonstrated outside of Strauss-Kahn’s temporary residence, chanting “black power” and “hands off Africa.”  This Black Star News editorial ridiculously compares the possibility that the sexual assault charges may be dropped to the South many years ago, where ”white men raped Black women with impunity and were never charged or tried” and “black people were not entitled to be protected by the laws of the land.”

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) writes at length about ”America’s history of the sexual exploitation of black women” and “the propagandized imagery of black women as over sexualized jezebels” as reasons why Strauss-Kahn should be prosecuted. Taina Bien-Amie, the director of Equality Now, implies that DSK is likely guilty because rape is ”a global epidemic, inflicted on women and girls of all ages, nationalities, ethnicities, and economic backgrounds” and ”a brutal exercise of power, control and destruction in an unequal society.”

The Black Star News also ridicules DSK’s likely defense that any sex was consensual, citing their ”vastly disparate social status and wealth” and even their looks, calling  Diallo “beautiful” and Strauss-Kahn “aged and unattractive.” Andrea Peyser at the New York Post disparagingly describes DSK as ”wealthy” and “self-important,” and the hosts of Prisonworld Radio Hour go as far as to say, ”The presumption of innocence should never be afforded to the wealthy.” Silly me. I thought the presumption of evidence should be afforded to everyone.

By arguing that sex between two people could not possibly have been consensual because of their gender, race, appearance, or class differences, you are making exactly the kind of generalizations that those who believe in equality should reject.

In our society, there are too many people who vilify the rich merely for being rich. There are too many so-called feminists who profess the belief that women are inherently weak and vulnerable, while men are inherently aggressive brutes. And all too many people support reverse racism in college admissions, job applications, and popular opinion. Such people seized on the image of, in the words of June Cross at the Root, ”the white man raping the black woman; the IMF raping poor Guinea; the rich raping the poor; the French aristocrats overdue for their comeuppance.” To answer Noel Leader’s question, classism, sexism, and racism do indeed play a role in this case – they are what caused the public and the press to convict DSK and the District Attorney to prosecute him so vigorously to begin with. In this case of numerous twists and turns, it is Dominique Strauss-Kahn who is, more than anyone else, the victim of prejudice.

The Milwaukee teachers’ union is suing for health insurance plans that cover Viagra. This is happening as the district is in the middle of a budget crisis and has laid off 482 teachers. Taxpayer-funded Viagra would cost $786,000 or enough for 12 teachers to keep their jobs.

The lawsuit claims that excluding Viagra from insurance coverage discriminates against men. According to MSNBC…

“In recent years, several lawsuits have claimed that employer health plans discriminate against women when they cover Viagra but not contraceptives or infertility treatment.

But the Milwaukee union says males are treated unfairly here. In one brief, its lawyers argued that vaginal cream, anti-bacterial medicine and estrogen replacement medication for female sexual dysfunction are covered. Other options such as penile pumps and implants included in the plans “are far less desirable than oral medication,” the filing said.

District spokesman Philip Harris said school officials won’t comment because “we just want to leave it alone.” But Miriam Horwitz, an attorney representing the board, argued in court filings the drugs weren’t necessary to treat life-threatening disease or have children.”

I have an idea – none of these things should be covered! The only things that should be covered by health insurance are things that people need in order to be healthy. This is especially true of plans that are taxpayer-funded.

You don’t need to have sex or have children to be healthy, so contrary to the opinion of the school board’s lawyer, neither Viagra nor infertility treatments (or maternity care, for that matter) should be covered. Whether to have sex or have children is a choice, and it is unfair for people who choose not to do these things to subsidize the decisions and preferences of those who do.

No Viagra, no infertility treatments, no penis pumps, no contraceptives, no maternity care, and no estrogen replacements. Discretionary procedures and medications should never be covered by health insurance, no matter what the person’s gender. Paying only for things that are medically necessary is the fairest policy for everyone.

Since Scott Brown’s victory on Tuesday, many people - such as Anna North at Jezebel.com, James Carroll at the Daily Beast, Monica Hesse at the Washington Post, and Jeanne Cummings and Erika Lovely at Politico – have said that basically, Martha Coakley lost because voters are sexist.

I disagree. I have never heard or read of anyone saying that they voted for Brown because he is a man. There’s just no evidence to support these claims.

Additionally, this article claims that it was sexist of Brown’s supporters to “cheer on the notion of Coakley being raped.” While it is certainly horrible to wish rape on someone, it isn’t sexist, exactly. Men can be raped, just as women can. Coakley’s supporters could just as easily have cheered about Brown being raped, and it would have been just as classless. It’s sexist to say that wishing rape on someone is sexist, since that claim seems to be based on the assumption that only women can be raped. Real feminists believe that men and women are equal and should be treated that way. Both men and women can be the victims or the perpetrators of rape, and it’s unacceptable to wish rape on anyone of any gender.

Plus, there has been letter after letter in the Boston Globe this week saying that the people elected Brown because of “stupidity,” “foolishness,” “personality, misinformation, and fear.” One person goes as far as to write, “although Scott Brown won the election, there is a large chunk of Bay Staters he doesn’t seem to represent.”

Well, duh! That would be the same chunk of Bay Staters that is currently represented by the other 11 of our 12 representatives in Congress. How do you think we non-Democrats have felt for the past few decades that we have gone with no representation in Congress? Right now, 52% of the people are represented by one person, and 47% are represented by 11 people. When it gets to be 6 and 6, then the Democrats can start complaining.

Why can’t people accept that maybe Brown won the election because people like his views better and think he’ll do a better job? Why can’t they accept that people might be fed up with one-party control of our state and the country, or opposed to the health bill that was created through bribery and forces everyone to buy health insurance? Why must people attribute Brown’s victory to sexism, ignorance, and fear? Maybe Brown won because he deserved to.

Have you seen Obama’s new website? It’s called Change.gov and it’s probably the creepiest website I have ever seen. From the Obama quote at the top of the layout to the countdown to his inauguration to the additional Obama quotes at the top of each section, it is just unsettling and reminds me a little bit of 1984. Even creepier than the design of his website are Obama’s ideas. Change.gov goes into detail about a plethora of his political positions, on a variety of issues. I could never list all of the items I disagree with, but here’s a sampling:

First off, he lists “Women” as one of his categories under “Agenda,” but he doesn’t list “Men.” Singling women out for special attention is sexist in itself.

“Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.”
So he will steal people’s money in order to create non-fun things that kids will be forced to do instead of having time to themselves as they desperately need.

“The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.”
Not only will Obama discriminate against economically successful people, but he’ll also discriminate against people who don’t have babies!

“Obama has introduced a comprehensive “Zero to Five” plan to provide critical supports to young children and their parents by investing $10 billion per year…”
Stealing more money…

“Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts.” There are government penalties on married families? I never knew that being given benefits and money was a penalty. Looks like Obama wants to discriminate against bachelors and bachelorettes even more than the government already does. Plus, it is sexist to assume that only men avoid child support payments.

“Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand programs like the successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers. The Nurse-Family Partnership provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families.”
Stealing money from successful, sometimes unmarried and baby-free people to give to poor people who have babies! That’s just what America needs when our population is about three times as large as it should be, causing global warming!

“He introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.”
I have a really revolutionary, hard to understand idea to prevent AIDS: how about not having sex!!! Chastity is dignified, empowering, and free.

“Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education.”
More theft…

“Barack Obama introduced legislation to combat domestic violence by providing $25 million a year…”
And even more theft…

“Senator Obama co-sponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Signed into law in January 2006, the bill funds and helps communities, nonprofit organizations, and police combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The legislation establishes a sexual assault services program and provides education grants to prevent domestic violence.”
How sexist! He equates “violence against women” with domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking! Sadly, women can and sometimes do abuse, rape, and stalk men. Sometimes acts of domestic violence are not abuse at all but are acts of self-defense against an abuser. It seems that to Obama, women are weak and need to be protected, while men are abusive brutes. Such an attitude is degrading to both genders.

And finally, the Obama youth corps! Michael Graham pointed out in his awesome blog that Change.gov used to say “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year” (under “America Serves“).

But then he changed it to… “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.”

Obviously, it’s never good when the president thinks people don’t have a right to their own money or their own time, but at least he changed it to something less objectionable. Overall, it looks like Obama doesn’t really believe in gender equality or individual rights, and his spending will make Bush look fiscally conservative in comparison.