Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the Little Joys of Lynching

A man who apparently has nothing more to wish for in this life (well, except becoming President of France), a man who achieved so much that he apparently has nothing more to win (well, except the Presidential election) but everything to lose comes to a country widely known as a citadel of feminism, a country where a look at someone’s décolleté can earn you sexual harassment charges. All that on the eve of the elections, mind you.

What’s more natural than to attempt a rape under the circumstances?

I am trying to put myself in his shoes: here I stand, Managing Director of the IMF, a confirmed lady’s man, successful in every respect, Presidential candidate, in a situation where both the time and the place demand that I watch my every step because I know where I am, I know what media are, I know how high the stakes are, I know how far political games can go.

What’s more natural, then, than to up and rape a maid?

No, I do not claim to know for sure that DSK is innocent. I don’t know what happened there. But neither do any of those who are screaming bloody rape.

And they do scream bloody rape as soon as someone voices the accusation. In the USA, the accused is not protected, and is considered a fair game. We know his name, we see his face, we see him in shackles, we can enjoy his disgrace to our heart’s content. We can call him any name we like, and relish him being fired from whatever job he held, smeared in every newspaper, badmouthed in blogs, shredded on television. We can delight in his career, reputation, and life itself getting ruined right here before our very eyes. If we’re lucky enough, we’ll celebrate his death of stroke or heart attack, murder in prison, or suicide. A nervous breakdown will do too, every little helps.

On what grounds, may I ask?

On an unsubstantiated word of any female. I repeat, unsubstantiated: we are not talking about him being convicted of anything yet – only accused. In the court of media and public opinion he is guilty from the word go: only because he was accused. It is done both in the subtler way, like repeatedly calling the female “victim” before anything is proved, and in the blunter way, by repeating the accusation at every corner, shouting them from the rooftops, and conveniently forgetting to remind the public: they are only accusations, that is, nothing but words; nothing has been proved; everyone can be accused of anything, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law.


The current policy of revealing the name of the accused is criminal. Everyone who participates in this commits a crime. They convict – and execute as best as they can - someone who hasn’t been found guilty and who may very well be innocent. Who may very well be proven innocent - after it is too late to remedy the damage so enthusiastically done.

Anyone who takes part in this is a slanderer at best; a murderer at worst; an ignoble person in any case. Anyone who takes part in this reveals the worst part of their nature: a desire to trample on someone and/or to perpetuate their own self-righteousness at his expense. Nothing more disgusting can be conceived of.

…Oh, I forgot: “she said so herself”, this ultimate argument of the soft-headed. That is why such a lot of “he said she said” cases, those of so-called “rape” that miraculously leaves no evidence, end in convicting the accused on no other grounds than the same old unsubstantiated words. Sometimes (as we’ve already seen) the lies uttered by the accuser are so blatant even prejudiced prosecution can’t help but drop the more absurd of the charges; sometimes they sound plausible - and then what?

Then the big question is the credibility of the accuser. Well… how about the accuser’s credibility in DSK case, then?

Oops. After a few months of being a holy cow, a woman with unshakable reputation, who just  wouldn’t lie, - all that based on nothing more than her being a woman and a “victim” – it suddenly comes to light that she is a big liar. And more things come to light, all of them outrageous, and the case reeks of setup to high heaven, so strong, in fact, that it may get through even to those who at first failed to see the perfect outline of a setup through all the rhetoric.

Now, back to the Polanski case. There’s been quite a lot of shouting, in media, “Look, just like Polanski!!!” DSK is a citizen of France, “just like Polanski”. DSK headed for the airport, “just like Polanski” (only they omit to mention that Polanski did so after eleven months in hell, eleven months of trying to comply to the bizarre LA “justice”, eleven months of satisfying all demands imposed on him, and, last but not least, after doing the agreed-upon prison time). DSK was denied bail because he could flee “just like Polanski”. He was finally put under house arrest and made to wear an electronic anklet, “just like Polanski”. But wait, guys, this is not it yet.

 Just like Polanski, DSK was thrown to lynching mobs on the grounds of unsubstantiated accusations. Just like Polanski’s accuser, DSK’s accuser forfeited any conceivable credibility by blatantly lying and contradicting herself in every word. Just like Polanski, DSK is a victim of an obvious, classic, textbook setup. I only wonder if the housemaid, just like the Gaileys, bothered to clumsily forge a piece of evidence, and if so, if it is hushed up, just like in Polanski case.

The big difference is that DSK didn’t let himself be blackmailed into a plea bargain, and insisted on standing trial. Probably, he drew the lesson from Polanski’s fate: never trust American justice.

Now at least the play will be as fair as it is humanly possible… under the circumstances.

No comments: