Dominic Strauss-Kahn released

[aliceliddell]

There is no case to answer because Ms Diallo is an 'unreliable witness'. No medical or forensic evidence is relevant. When raped women are 'witnesses' in the legal system, their credibility is the topic of contention, not the evidence. The issue of consent is largely ignored. Criminal law requires 'presumption of innocence' and 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Is it this combination that results in an inadequate legal response to sexual violence or other factors? Can this be changed?

Ah, sorry, just spotted you :)

Beachcomber Thanks for that I knew a fellow expat in France would understand. It gets so upsetting sometimes.

Oh, and Josie, it's because "we're doin feminism all wrong" doncha know.

Josie Rosie,

Very interested to hear, then, your view of the many cases of fat old rich men with young attractive girlfirends. I think it is perfectly valid to say that if one is a wealthy and powerful man it is relatively easy to be a 'womaniser'. I was not laying the blame for this, I was just saying it takes two people.

CRIKRI - please don't reduce this to the standard labelling of debating styles. If you think I've said something that isn't valid, tell me what it is and we'll talk about it.

Why do so many people want to defend him? Look at what's at stake - a legal system that systematically protects sexual predators and mythologises them as 'ladies' men'; a family structure that provides respectability to cover for them; a political system that doesn't recognise gross social inequality; a social construction of gender that positions masculinity as sexually predatory, femininity as available and tolerant; an economic system that relies on that gender division; can't really be arsed to continue tbh with the whole hideous mess.

Sadly in the case of rape it's usually a case of one person's word against another, as there is often evidence that sex has taken place but not necessarily rape so both parties' honesty and reliability comes into question re whether consent was given.

I'm not sure what could easily be changed here to make it easier to convict rapists.

I don't know how they can have any fair trials in the US at all when all the high profile cases also undergo trial by media.

What aliceliddell said

Did anyone hear Jack Lang on BBC Radio 4's Today programme today, talking about 'Dominique' (ie first name terms) being 'innocent' and 'exonerated'. FFS. He has NOT been found innocent (or even not guilty) but it's a great way to spin the story. And Evan Davis let Lang off the hook totally, did not challenge that the forensic evidence supports her claims.
Yuck.

And, yes, what alicelidddell said.

Jack Lang is a prize dickhead. He spouts off about all kinds of shit on this subject - he has been appalling since the beginning. Vey sorry to hear that he speaks good enough English to poison the UK with his views.

I shall try and find some quotes from him early on in the case to show you what a prat he is. Ugh. I'm upset again now.

I don't believe her.

You are right aliceliddell - and of course men like DSK know that.

Cheria - I hear ya...

josie & greythorne

Beach

Oh and agree that Lang is an utter knob.

There is a clear difference between defending someone and defending their right to be innocent until proven guilty.

The insinuation now appears to be that if you point out that to believe her is very similar to believing him you are as good as being a rape apologist.

Or are you in fact drafting a reply to my question as I type this JosieRosie?

"And now let?s go back to this past weekend?s newspapers in France and elsewhere. Lobbying is already underway to suspend the electoral registration process?s July 13 deadline to allow DSK the chance to join the fray. If not president, Strauss-Kahn could surely be in the cabinet of the next socialist government of France, said ally Jack Lang, a former minister of culture." from this link:

www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=plus-ca-change-plus-la-meme-chose-2011-07-04

Sorry, posted too quick. How in their right minds can any of them, including Lang, think that DSK should eb in any position of power or prominence after this and the many other scandals which have engulfed him? The above was the only quote I could find in English but this morning's radio show was more of the same. Oh goodie now he can come back and be president or minister.

Today I am hating France.

Another thumbs up to Aliceliddel's post.

It does seem however that a lot of people choose to understand that 'innocent until proven guilty' means that DSK is innocent unless he has been declared guilty by a court of law.

Of course in reality the term does not mean anything of the sort - it is just a neutral legal concept that means that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and to the opportunity to defend themselves. The term does nothing to imply guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime. Hijacking the term to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest (MIL I'm looking at you...)

If DSK is not pronounced guilty by a court of law because the case is dropped, that doesn't make him innocent, it makes him untried.

jenny, believing her is not at all similar to believing him. Believing her is a position that is more likely to be right than believing her.

Fewer than 6% of rape allegations are false. That is a rational basis for believing her. It's not a basis for asserting anything definitive, but it is certainly a rational basis for believing her.

What would you have to believe, to believe him?

• That this chambermaid, in a low-status job where job security is poor, room-cleaning turnaround times are very high, CCTV is everywhere and management is tight, was willing to risk a sexual encounter with a guest
• That she was specifically willing to risk an encounter with a fat old white guy in a very expensive suite, who comes from an utterly different culture from her. I'm sure such cross-cultural encounters do happen, but I'm equally sure they're pretty wildly unusual
• That the only material thing DSK lied about was his initial denial of the very fact of the encounter, and that his reasons for doing so are plausible
• etc etc

I think Occam's razor alone suggests that the more plausible explanation is that she was raped vs it having been consensual.

All women need to wake up to the reality that most rape is, in practice, legal.

Proper criminalisation is feared by men (and some women) because it would probably curtail men's 'right' to casual sex.

Beachcomber, that is entirley correct. I refer to my very first posts on this thread wrt to my personal view of how the law works.

Shilly, I have made this statement already. The law can not and should not look to previously recorded cases for an insight into what happened this time. I believe that it is wrong to automatically take sides and that is what many people are doing here. I think people who are saying DSK are innocent are wrong to do so and I think that those saying he is not are equally wrong. We do not know. There are some voices here who would hang any man following an accusation of rape and this can not be right.

I would be interested to see if anyone is brave enough to say outright that they believe men alleged to have committed a rape should be guilty unless proven innocent. It certainly seems to be some people's belief.

And which version of his are we supposed to believe?

The one where he said no sexual encounter took place or the one where he said that it was consensual?

Make your mind up white powerful rich guy.

I choose to go with his first version - except the forensic evidence shows this to be a lie. Surely one would have to be exceptionally incurious as to not wonder why he would lie about such a thing.

(Quite obviously the explanation of trying to protect his reputation or his wife is not the correct one. He is proud of his sexual predation womanising and every woman in France, including his wife, knows that he has trouble keeping his dick in his pants.)

Full text here

I still believe her even though I understand why the case has been dropped.