The Stunning Hypocrisy of Making Excuses for Accused Rapists
In the wake of IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahns arrest for sexual assault (he is now former IMF chief), DSK and his friends have offered numerous defenses on his behalfmost of which have been ridiculed, and rightly so.
Here are a few of the best of them, all rejected immediately by the American public.
Theres the pretrial conviction complaint:
Well, clearly, the entire system is flawed. I mean, you have a case, a prosecution, that doesnt care about the rules of justice And makes it near impossible to defend ourselves. I mean, its basically, like convicting us today.
Questioning why we take the victims word for what happened:
But what was shocking is the fact that [the judge] chose to come up with a decision of prima facie, to come up with virtually a judgment, confirming and strengthening the entire case of the prosecution; credibility of the witness, all the ingredients have been supported.
And, of course, the political conspiracy:
Well, Im not surprised by the decision! of the judge, because I understand the system. This is a trumped up charge, politically motivated, theres no basis in fact and law.
Im sorrymy mistake. Those were all quotes from another high-powered opposition candidate charged with sexual assault. This guyunlike DSKhas been fortunate enough to have the Western elite buy his story wholesale. Its Malaysias Anwar Ibrahim, a media darling.
Anwar is currently on trial for sexual assaultfor forcing himself on an aide. Of course the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is an important pillar of justice, and should not be discarded. Anwars accusers should have to prove their case, especially because Anwar is the opposition leader and he was once jailed on trumped-up charges for political reasons. But Anwars argument has not been that he is innocent so much as he doesnt think there should be a trial at allthat he should be taken at his word, and that the public should assume all charges against him are political in nature. That is, to be sure, incompatible with our conception of a fair trial.
Furthermore, if there is reason for skepticism of Anwars accusers, there is also reason not to take Anwar at his word. Anwar professes the values of freedom and democracy, but how does that square with his decades-long involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood, or his sinister anti-Semitismstrong enough that Bnai Brith urged American officials to cut ties with him?
Anwars defenders, like Paul Wolfowitz and Al Gore (the timing of these new charges carries the strong odor of political manipulation) as well as Joe Kle! in ( He is a wise, decent and courageous man) sound an awful lot like DSKs defenders Ben Stein (Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes?) and Bernard-Henri Levy (the Strauss-Kahn I know bears no resemblance to this monster, this caveman, this insatiable and malevolent beast now being described nearly everywhere).
The point is not that DSK deserves the Anwar treatment, or vice versa. Its that Anwar doesnt deserve the Anwar treatment. And certainly Anwars accuser has earned the right to make his accusation without the international community putting him on trial in the court of public opinion.
Comments