DSK case - a bad day for women's rights

beeftotheheels

Well, it is now being reported that the case against DSK is collapsing due to credibility issues with the alleged victim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13986970

Which leaves us in the position that the US authorities appear to have acted prematurely to apprehend Mr Strauss Kahn under the misconception that he was a flight risk, when in fact had he wanted to flee his diplomatic immunity which he waived meant that there was nothing the US authorities could have done to have stopped him.

The tragedy of "he said, she said" cases is that the credibility of both parties will come into question, and it appears as though the US authorities acted before determining the credibility of their complainant.

However, this now adds further fuel to the notion of there being "greedy" or "manipulative" women out there crying rape against powerful men which will put further pressure on rape victims, and may make them think twice about reporting the crime.

All because US law enforcement officials decided to play a case out in public before investigating it properly.

Truly a sad day for women's rights and the rights of all victims of sexual violence.

I don't follow how this is a sad day for women's rights

Ayla

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Truly a sad day for women's rights and the rights of all victims of sexual violence.

Sad day for victims of sexual abuse, maybe.
Sad day for women's rights, no. How could it be?

The unfortunate truth is that there are some women who do make up/exaggerate stories and any sort of investigation into these types of allegations will destroy the supposed attacker's life forever.

And yes, I understand how genuine victims may feel hesitant to report b/c of the fear they'll be labeled as one of these money grubbers, but that does not impede on their right to report if they wish to do so.

HellFireClub

beeftotheheels wrote: »

All because US law enforcement officials decided to play a case out in public before investigating it properly.

All because there is a recording of a phone call she made where she mentioned that there could be a financial benefits arising for her pursuing the extremely serious claims she has made. Hardly the behaviour of a genuine victim of rape or an aggrevated sexual assault. This was actually discovered by the prosecution and not her defence team.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-Sex-Assault-Case-Reportedly-On-Brink-Of-Collapse-After-Claims-Maid-Lied/Article/201107116022100?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_16022100_Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_Sex_Assault_Case_Reportedly_On_Brink_Of_Collapse_After_Claims_Maid_Lied

Yes, 'tis a sad day for women's rights all right. If ever I needed a reminder as to why I avoid this forum, this thread is it.

Ayla

HellFireClub wrote: »

Yes, 'tis a sad day for women's rights all right.

I would be more inclined to think it's a greater travesty for men's rights. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" never applies if the man's accused of a sexual attack - that man will never get his life back, even if he's completely 100% innocent.

HellFireClub

Ayla wrote: »

I would be more inclined to think it's a greater travesty for men's rights. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" never applies if the man's accused of a sexual attack - that man will never get his life back, even if he's completely 100% innocent.

From the minute this story broke, I never understood how on earth this situation could have arisen. Surely there are protocol's around this kind of stuff, for example, I couldn't imagine a comparable VIP such a a head of state wandering out of a shower naked and finding a chambermaid making the bed or attending to the room. It was up to DSK to make sure that the proper protocols were in place that protected him from this kind of an event and he failed to do so. Yes he is "innocent" in the legal sense but guilty of profound stupidity for letting himself be placed in a situation where this could happen.

If I was in his position, there wouldn't be any chambermaid wandering around the room until I was gone and this would be a matter of protocol.

HellFireClub

HellFireClub wrote: »

Yes he is "innocent" in the legal sense but guilty of profound stupidity for letting himself be placed in a situation where this could happen.

If I was in his position, there wouldn't be any chambermaid wandering around the room until I was gone and this would be a matter of protocol.

Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr Strauss-Kahn and the woman

So something did happen between them, it wasn't just "in the same room" kinda thing

HellFireClub

bluewolf wrote: »

So something did happen between them, it wasn't just "in the same room" kinda thing

It could have been anything from a consensual encounter of some sort between the two, to her finding a condom on the floor that he had previously used with someone else and throwing the contents of it over herself, to a situation where she was actually raped and has compromised her case by what she has allegedly said on the phone about there possibly being a financial reward in it for her if she pursued the claims she was making.

Either way I think it's fair to say that a chambermaid wandering around a bedroom were there is a high level world stage diplomat in the ensuite jacks is highly irregular.

Say this was a head of state, for example the French President, and a chambermaid has a camera phone on her and decides to video him coming out of the shower naked into the bedroom, it could be up on youtube in seconds, surely the most expensive hotels in the world have protocols in place to ensure that these kind of a scenarios cannot occur in 2011???

atila

I feel sorry for her. Her phone call may be enough to see the case dropped. I reckon its a fairly human response to wonder what the outcome of the trial would mean to her. She had a massive decision to make, knowing the extent of the publicity It would attract. She was clearly weighing it up and reached out to someone she knew to discuss it.

Just my take on it, but if it was some sort of setup,entrapment etc i really doubt she'd have been discussing the potential money that she might land AFTER the fact.

Ayla

So what's your point? Whatever the reason for her being in his room while he was there, he was dumb. That's no reason to completely ruin the rest of his life.

Yes, anyone & everyone needs to protect themselves against this type of situation, but that still doesn't clarify (to me) why this is bad for women's rights?

whippet

a sad day for Women's rights? ..no ... but a sad day for society in general really.

Unfortunately this case looks like it might highlight the fact that men can be targeted by women using sexual means for their own benefit.

Whilst I would always keep an open mind, I was a little skeptical initially of this case due to a few factors .... and my cynical thinking seems to be correct.

Ayla

atila wrote: »

I feel sorry for her. Her phone call may be enough to see the case dropped.

Well, imo, if she made it up, then I hope she goes down - and hard - to set an example to anyone who'd be tempted to try something like it.

Personally, if I was attacked the last thing I'd be thinking about is any sort of monetary compensation.

EL_Loco

Cheer up OP, There's now a woman in his very high powered and high profile old position.

HellFireClub

whippet wrote: »

a sad day for Women's rights? ..no ... but a sad day for society in general really.

Unfortunately this case looks like it might highlight the fact that men can be targeted by women using sexual means for their own benefit.

Whilst I would always keep an open mind, I was a little skeptical initially of this case due to a few factors .... and my cynical thinking seems to be correct.

But it's 2011, this kind of stuff happens, and it isn't just women who do it, look at what happened to Louis Walsh recently?!?

He (DSK), is the one with the job, the rank, the privilege, the money and the reputation to lose. He should be taking proper care to make sure that he is never left open to these kind of accusations. It's not the first time this has happened him either by all accounts, so in my opinion he has taken some sort of a decision in his own head, instead of protecting himself, to instead leave open the possibility for him to be a bit of a sleaze when the opportunity might present itself, by not following proper procedures and protocols that exist to protect him from these kind of potential allegations.

What I'm trying to say is that if I was head of the IMF, and was concerned for my reputation and that of my wife and family, I wouldn't have a situation where a chambermaid was wandering around my hotel room while I was in the process of getting ready for the day.

If however, I was a bit of a pervert and was up to all sorts when the chance arose, then I'd be lax on this kind of stuff...

beeftotheheels

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't follow how this is a sad day for women's rights

Because women are more likely to be the victim of sexual violence than men, and it often comes down to "he said, she said". As a result of this case being played out, and possibly withdrawn, in the public domain it creates a backlash against women reporting sexual violence - as already evidenced on this thread.

I agree with the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and I agree that many charged with rape can never fully clear their name if the case is later dropped which is a tragedy.

But more sensitive handling of the case by law enforcement could both have afforded greater protection to the accused whilst not creating a backlash against allegations of sexual violence.

Logical Fallacy

HellFireClub wrote: »

But it's 2011, this kind of stuff happens, and it isn't just women who do it, look at what happened to Louis Walsh recently?!?

He (DMF), is the one with the job, the rank, the privilege, the money and the reputation to lose. He should be taking proper care to make sure that he is never left open to these kind of accusations. It's not the first time this has happened him either by all accounts, so in my opinion he has taken some sort of a decision in his own head, instead of protecting himself, to instead leave open the possibility for him to be a bit of a sleaze when the opportunity might present itself, by not following proper procedures and protocols that exist to protect him from these kind of potential allegations.

What I'm trying to say is that if I was head of the IMF, and was concerned for my reputation and that of my wife and family, I wouldn't have a situation where a chambermaid was wandering around my hotel room while I was in the process of getting ready for the day.

If however, I was a bit of a pervert and was up to all sorts when the chance arose, then I'd be lax on this kind of stuff...

I'm not really understanding where you are coming from...nobody is allegation proof. All anyone has to do is decide they want to play and angel and there will always be some media who will with it.

atila

Ayla wrote: »

Well, imo, if she made it up, then I hope she goes down - and hard - to set an example to anyone who'd be tempted to try something like it.

Personally, if I was attacked the last thing I'd be thinking about is any sort of monetary compensation.

You have never been a poor imigrant in the United States, money is always an issue never far from your thoughts.

Ayla

Are you joking me?

If I had just been violently assulted (as she's claimed) I would be petrified for my life. I would be trying to pick up the peices of whatever sanity I once had while I nurse my emotional/physical & pyschological wounds. There would simply be no room in my brain for any thoughts of financial compensation, and I sure as hell wouldn't go pondering upon it with a friend on the phone!

spurious

In the same week as a false accuser of a male celebrity was also found out in a lie. I'm not following the women's rights angle, but both the cases will make it more difficult for people of either gender who have been abused to be believed.

southsiderosie

This whole case reminds me of the Duke lacrosse case.

In March 2006 Crystal Gail Mangum, an African American student at North Carolina Central University[1][2] who worked as a stripper,[3] dancer and escort,[4] falsely accused three white Duke University students, members of the Duke Blue Devils men's lacrosse team, of raping her at a party held at the house of two team's captains in Durham, North Carolina on March 13, 2006. Many people involved in, or commenting on, the case, including prosecutor Mike Nifong, called the alleged assault a hate crime or suggested it might be one.[5][6][7][8]
On April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges and declared the three players innocent. Cooper stated that the charged players – Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans – were victims of a "tragic rush to accuse."[9] The initial prosecutor for the case, Durham County's District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was labeled a "rogue prosecutor" by Cooper, withdrew from the case in January 2007 after the North Carolina State Bar filed ethics charges against him. That June, Nifong was disbarred for "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation", making Nifong the first prosecutor in North Carolina history to lose his law license based on actions in a case. Nifong was found guilty of criminal contempt and served one day in jail.[10] Mangum never faced any charges for her false accusations as Cooper declined to prosecute her.[11]

In both cases, the past boorish history of the accused and the race, class, and power disparities between the accuser and the accused combined to create an absolute media ****show. I would like to think the NY district attorney's office has been more careful than the prosecutor's office in the Duke case, but the media reaction was almost exactly the same. Will we ever learn?

southsiderosie

atila wrote: »

You have never been a poor imigrant in the United States, money is always an issue never far from your thoughts.

If she isn't a citizen, making false accusations and engaging in some kind of blackmail or cover-up seems like a pretty good way to get yourself deported.

Morag

We don't know what happened, it could be a smear campaign and a opportunist or else it did happen but due to the flaws in the courts and trial system for prosecuting such cases
justice won't be done and the case will be dropped.

drkpower

Ayla wrote: »

If I had just been violently assulted (as she's claimed) I would be petrified for my life. I would be trying to pick up the peices of whatever sanity I once had while I nurse my emotional/physical & pyschological wounds. There would simply be no room in my brain for any thoughts of financial compensation, and I sure as hell wouldn't go pondering upon it with a friend on the phone!

You dont really know that.

The reality is that the minds of many many people, who have been on the receiving end of criminal or negligent acts, quite quickly turn to financial compensation. Are all of these people in some way reacting cynically or abnormally?

The reality is that people look for financial compensation for a variety of reasons, and not always for 'greed'; often, it is to achieve a measure of justice. The fact that someone seeks or considers seeking financial compensation, even in the relative aftermath of a shocking event, should not necessarily be taken as an indication that they are cynical; and it should certainly not be taken as an indication that the event did not happen as alleged.

HellFireClub wrote:

All because there is a recording of a phone call she made where she mentioned that there could be a financial benefits arising for her pursuing the extremely serious claims she has made. Hardly the behaviour of a genuine victim of rape or an aggrevated sexual assault. This was actually discovered by the prosecution and not her defence team

No, not all because of that. If this case collapses, it is not (solely) because she mentioned financial benefits in a phone call. It is because she apparently has been lying to the police and they strongly doubt her credibility.

As someone said already, this case is not a bad day for women's rights; it is a bad day for the NY prosecutors office who look to have insited on playing the case out in the media before ascertaining whether their star witness was credible or not.

atila

Ayla wrote: »

Are you joking me?

If I had just been violently assulted (as she's claimed) I would be petrified for my life. I would be trying to pick up the peices of whatever sanity I once had while I nurse my emotional/physical & pyschological wounds. There would simply be no room in my brain for any thoughts of financial compensation, and I sure as hell wouldn't go pondering upon it with a friend on the phone!

Look the fact is she had some pretty big decisions to make. It sounds like she was trying to figure out whether the ordeal of a trial was worth it. That couldnt be a straighforward decision for her. We have no idea, its just pure speculation but the fact that the trial could fall down over a fairly human conversation in the circumstances is very unfortunate for the woman.

Ayla

atila wrote: »

... the fact that the trial could fall down over a fairly human conversation in the circumstances is very unfortunate for the woman.

Actually, as drkpower stated, the sticking point in the case now (according to all the news sources I've seen/read today) is her credibility as a witness based around her questionable residency and possible legitimacy in leaving her home country. Nothing about this alleged phone call.



Drkpower:

You dont really know that.

How you do you know what I know? I was saying what I would be like. It is quite possible that anyone else could react in their own way, and it doesn't necessarily devalue the feelings they are having (I never insinuated otherwise)

goose2005

HellFireClub wrote: »

From the minute this story broke, I never understood how on earth this situation could have arisen. Surely there are protocol's around this kind of stuff, for example, I couldn't imagine a comparable VIP such a a head of state wandering out of a shower naked and finding a chambermaid making the bed or attending to the room. It was up to DSK to make sure that the proper protocols were in place that protected him from this kind of an event and he failed to do so. Yes he is "innocent" in the legal sense but guilty of profound stupidity for letting himself be placed in a situation where this could happen.

If I was in his position, there wouldn't be any chambermaid wandering around the room until I was gone and this would be a matter of protocol.

Surely it's the hotels responsibility not to have staff walking around the room when guests are naked? When the maid heard the shower running, why didn't she leave the room?

beeftotheheels wrote: »

However, this now adds further fuel to the notion of there being "greedy" or "manipulative" women out there crying rape against powerful men which will put further pressure on rape victims, and may make them think twice about reporting the crime.

Maybe because there are such women - and men, as the Louis Walsh furore proved.

HellFireClub wrote: »

He (DMF), is the one with the job, the rank, the privilege, the money and the reputation to lose. He should be taking proper care to make sure that he is never left open to these kind of accusations.

Really?? So he should act like male teachers, who are careful not to be alone with students, or men who don't become scout leaders because of the risk of accusation, or men who don't take a career in early childcare because of the funny looks. How is a diplomat to avoid proximity to hotel staff?

drkpower

Ayla wrote: »

How you do you know what I know? I was saying what I would be like. It is quite possible that anyone else could react in their own way, and it doesn't necessarily devalue the feelings they are having (I never insinuated otherwise)

Noone really knows how they will react in a hypothetical set of quite unusual circumstances. I am not suggesting that you are telling porkies, just that you cant really predict (with any degree of accuracy) how you will react.

The manner in which you reacted to Atila's claim (Are you joking me?If I had just been violently assulted (as she's claimed) I would .....) suggests you doubt her version of events based on the fact thather mind turned to money quite quickly. If I picked that up wrong, apologies, but I dodnt think I did.

I am simply saying that many many good normal non-greedy people think about and seek financial compensation, quite quickly, after suffering at the hands of criminal and negligent acts.

southsiderosie

goose2005 wrote: »

Surely it's the hotels responsibility not to have staff walking around the room when guests are naked? When the maid heard the shower running, why didn't she leave the room?



Maybe because there are such women - and men, as the Louis Walsh furore proved.


Really?? So he should act like male teachers, who are careful not to be alone with students, or men who don't become scout leaders because of the risk of accusation, or men who don't take a career in early childcare because of the funny looks. How is a diplomat to avoid proximity to hotel staff?

He can do what most rational people staying in hotels do when they are getting ready or want some privacy - put the "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door.

Ayla

drkpower wrote: »

Noone really knows how they will react in a hypothetical set of quite unusual circumstances. I am not suggesting that you are telling porkies, just that you cant really predict (with any degree of accuracy) how you will react.... I am simply saying that many many good normal non-greedy people think about and seek financial compensation, quite quickly, after suffering at the hands of criminal and negligent acts.[/SIZE]

Out of fairness, how do you know I'm speaking hypothetically?

Of your second point, I can agree, violence drives people to all sorts of unusual behaviours.

Morag

In the USA rape/sexual assault victims will sue personally their attackers.
This is often the only way to get justice and compensation as the rules for civil cases are different from criminal cases.

drkpower

Ayla wrote: »

Out of fairness, how do you know I'm speaking hypothetically?.

Well, I can only go on what you have said. And you said 'I was saying what I would be like', rather than 'I was saying what I was like'. But feel free to elaborate on your point.

Ayla wrote: »

Of your second point, I can agree, violence drives people to all sorts of unusual behaviours.

Precisely; so it is not necessarily unusual at all for financial compensation to have been 'close to her thoughts'.

Ayla

Getting back to the POINT of this thread (drkpower, no I do not feel free to elaborate, thank you very much) -

beeftotheheels wrote: »

...it often comes down to "he said, she said". As a result of this case being played out, and possibly withdrawn, in the public domain it creates a backlash against women reporting sexual violence

I'm still of the belief that the word "women" in the above quote needs to be replaced with "victims"....this is NOT a woman's rights issue.

beeftotheheels

Ayla wrote: »

I'm still of the belief that the word "women" in the above quote needs to be replaced with "victims"....this is NOT a woman's rights issue.

How is sexual violence against women not a woman's rights issue?

I am not saying that it being a woman's rights issue precludes it being a human rights issue, I would not for one moment suggest that female rape should be prioritized over male rape.

However, rape is predominantly a crime against women, most rape cases dealt with by any legal system involving only conflicting versions of events involve men raping women, hence it is a woman's rights issue.

This is not an exclusive term, to refer to changes in the availability of free primary education as being a children's rights issue does not preclude acknowledging the impact that that may have on parents or on society.

Ambersky

Rates of conviction for rape are abismally low.
Ive just spent a little while looking for stats and from what I can find it seems that the figure of just one in ten reports of rape leading to conviction is quite usual.
http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/002769.html
Thats one in ten of the reported rapes.
I cant find the approx stats for the unreported rapes in Ireland and maybe you cant put a figure on that but I believe a very sizable number of rapes go unreported.
If the figure below in quotes, of one in ten rapes in France being reported to police is accurate, then that means if only one in ten of these lead to conviction does this mean that only one percent, 1%, of rapes lead to a conviction?

I have heard it said from the point of view of the rapist you might as well go ahead with a rape because you have a pretty low likelyhood of getting caught and convicted.
Shocking way to look at it I know but look at it this way. rape has at the very least a 90% rate of success and maybe up to 99%.

One of most important reason women and men dont report rape is because they think there is no point.
They will have to go through an adversarial court case if they even get that far where the accused is represented in court and it is often the victim who feels on trial needing to prove herself or himself against the accusation of lies.
They also go unreported because the woman (96%) or man (4%), had drink taken or had agreed to a lift, or had agreed to let the rapist in for coffee, or was married to the rapist, or believed it couldnt be proved, or had reported a rape before and wasnt believed or had a criminal record or was related to the accused or was too upset after the attack to go to the police and washed all the evidence away or ......

Anyone making false accusations are certainly doing no one any favours and makes an already difficult crime to prove or have the courage to take to trial even harder, if that is possible.

I dont know what happened in the DSK case, Im still listening and it doesnt appear to be over yet.

Reaction to the accusation and arrest of DSK in France appears to have angered many women who felt that the automatic defence for the man and disbelief of the woman was symptomatic of socially acceptable chauvanistic attitudes
I wonder how those women will be feeling now.
Here is an interesting article from the Observer

How Dominique Strauss-Kahn's arrest awoke a dormant anger in the heart of France's women
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/22/dominique-strauss-kahn-arrest-dormant-anger-france-women

Osez le Féminisme decided enough was enough. In a powerful statement, it declared that the way in which the chambermaid's account had been dismissed showed how difficult it was for victims of sexual assault to come forward. The levity with which her allegations were treated by some, it added, showed "to what extent violence against women is still underestimated". Of the estimated 75,000 women who are raped in France each year, it is said only 10% file an official complaint with the police.

HellFireClub

drkpower wrote: »

No, not all because of that. If this case collapses, it is not (solely) because she mentioned financial benefits in a phone call. It is because she apparently has been lying to the police and they strongly doubt her credibility.

As someone said already, this case is not a bad day for women's rights; it is a bad day for the NY prosecutors office who look to have insisted on playing the case out in the media before ascertaining whether their star witness was credible or not.

Yes all because of that. She may have been lying about her residency status or her asylum status, none of these facts, where they are proven, could reasonably be used against someone who happened to find themselves the victim of a rape.

The same cannot be said for making comments about an alleged rape, that insinuate that you might be inclined to take financial advantage of such a claim that you might have made, or that the opportunity might exist for you to do so.

If you are making an allegation of rape, I believe your credibility must be beyond reproach to some reasonable extent anyway, insofar as any of us can be beyond reproach these days. Being an illegal emigrant does not diminish in any way at all, your credibility in this particular context, but I think claiming that you could end up financially much better off after making such an allegation that you were raped, and having this statement recorded, does finish you off in terms of your credibility.

Also, having made a claim of rape against you previously and having admitted that this allegation was false, (crying wolf so to speak), as is the case here, also leaves you with no credibility intact.

HellFireClub

beeftotheheels wrote: »

How is sexual violence against women not a woman's rights issue?

Because women do not hold the franchise on violence by human against other human beings. Last week, it emerged that a completely groundless allegation was made by a male against another male in Ireland. Last week, a trial in Italy dealt with a woman who was appealing a life sentence for killing another woman.

beeftotheheels

HellFireClub wrote: »

If you are making an allegation of rape, I believe your credibility must be beyond reproach to some reasonable extent anyway, insofar as any of us can be beyond reproach these days. Being an illegal emigrant does not diminish in any way at all, your credibility in this particular context, but I think claiming that you could end up financially much better off after making such an allegation that you were raped, and having this statement recorded, does finish you off in terms of your credibility.

But this it the interesting point. To be raped you do not need to be credible, any one can be raped, and if raped anyone should have the right to report that crime. But, for a successful prosecution in a case relying on conflicting testimony, you need to have a credible witness.

So, the woman may not be a credible witness but may have been raped. However, the police/ prosecutors should have fully investigated the credibility of the witness before arresting DSK.

Had they done so, and concluded that a successful prosecution was unlikely, and left us all in the dark on this, then that would have been the better answer all around.

Having played it out in public we are left with the possibility that she is lying and DSK's reputation was destroyed, or that she is telling the truth about the rape amongst her other lies but her reputation is now in tatters.

No one wins here, but the prosecution of this case makes it a little bit more difficult for a woman who is neither a virgin or a nun to report a rape.

beeftotheheels

HellFireClub wrote: »

Because women do not hold the franchise on violence by human against other human beings. Last week, it emerged that a completely groundless allegation was made by a male against another male in Ireland. Last week, a trial in Italy dealt with a woman who was appealing a life sentence for killing another woman.

1. We are not discussing the Louis Walsh case, we are discussing the DSK case. Had I started a thread on the Louis Walsh case I would not have referred to woman's rights.
2. Again I did not start a thread to discuss Amanda Knox.

Since I have never disputed that either men can be raped, or that women can be the perpetrators of sexual violence I really don't understand what your issue is with me referring to it as a women's rights issue when over 90% of adult rape victims are female hence I started the thread in TLL while other threads have started on other forums, because I wanted to discuss the impact of the ongoing mess on the reporting of sexual violence, predominantly by women.

By your definition, that something cannot be a women's rights issues if one example of an exception can be found, nothing is a women's rights issue.

Pay disparity? I know a guy who was paid less than a woman once.
Glass ceilings? I know a guy who wasn't promoted once.
Discrimination? I know a guy...

Truley

Even if 99.9% of all rape victims were women it still wouldn't make it a 'women's rights issue.'

Dudess

HellFireClub wrote: »

If ever I needed a reminder as to why I avoid this forum, this thread is it.

It's one post - hardly representative of an entire forum. And several people, including women, disagreed with the OP...

beeftotheheels

Truley wrote: »

Even if 99.9% of all rape victims were women it still wouldn't make it a 'women's rights issue.'

So, do you have a definition of a "women's rights issue" which excludes my original post (and which you might care to share), or do you simply take issue with anything being referred to as a women's rights issue?

metrovelvet

You people have really lost perspective this time. Wow.

This is now a criminal case. If he gets a non guilty verdict, she can take out a civil case whereby she will get compensation.

Same thing that Nicole Simpson's family did when OJ got the non guilty verdict.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking about financial compensation in a case like this, very normal for Americans. It doesnt make her greedy, it makes her practical. She would nearly look stupid if she didnt.

beeftotheheels

Truley wrote: »

Even if 99.9% of all rape victims were women it still wouldn't make it a 'women's rights issue.'

Why?

Define "women's rights issue" since you feel so strongly that this is not one.

Fukuyama

beeftotheheels wrote: »

So, do you have a definition of a "women's rights issue" which excludes my original post (and which you might care to share), or do you simply take issue with anything being referred to as a women's rights issue?

This would be a womens right issue if it had been concluded the man had been within his rights to rape her (if he did, that it.). Go educate youself a little bit before trying to participate in a conversation about such a serious matter as rape.

beeftotheheels

Dean0088 wrote: »

This would be a womens right issue if it had been concluded the man had been within his rights to rape her (if he did, that it.). Go educate youself a little bit before trying to participate in a conversation about such a serious matter as rape.

Having, as I do, both graduate and post graduate academic qualifications in law, what further academic education do you think I require?

As a woman who was raped, what further practical education do you think I require?

Rendering it more difficult for a woman who is raped to get redress because of the clumsy handling of a case by the prosecution is as much an issue as the wording of that law. The law is not just some words on a piece of paper, it is more than that and its enforcement is as much a part of the law as the terms of the statute.

If we had a law which said that murder was wrong, but no police force to enforce that law, what justice would the words that "murder is wrong" afford to victims and their families?

drkpower

HellFireClub wrote: »

Yes all because of that. She may have been lying about her residency status or her asylum status, none of these facts, where they are proven, could reasonably be used against someone who happened to find themselves the victim of a rape.

The same cannot be said for making comments about an alleged rape, that insinuate that you might be inclined to take financial advantage of such a claim that you might have made, or that the opportunity might exist for you to do so.

All of that is simply incorrect. The media reports suggest it is her inconsistent statements and lies which have affected her credibility, not her interest in a financial settlement. Nothing that I have read support your version of events. But equally importantly, your assertions dont stack up with reality. People claim finacial compensation for criminal and non-criminal acts all the time.

The suggestion that seeking financial compensation affects someones credibility is utterly disproved by the success of milllions of these cases daily all around the world.

beeftotheheels

drkpower wrote: »

All of that is simply incorrect. The media reports suggest it is her inconsistent statements and lies which have affected her credibility, not her interest in a financial settlement. Nothing that I have read support your version of events. But equally importantly, your assertions dont stack up with reality. People claim finacial compensation for criminal and non-criminal acts all the time.

The suggestion that seeking financial compensation affects someones credibility is utterly disproved by the success of milllions of these cases daily all around the world.

+1

The text of the letter which raises the three points that
1) she lied in her asylum application, and
2) she lied about what she did immediately after the alleged rape
3) she lied on her taxes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/01/strauss-kahn-letter-from-prosecutors

HellFireClub

drkpower wrote: »

All of that is simply incorrect. The media reports suggest it is her inconsistent statements and lies which have affected her credibility, not her interest in a financial settlement. Nothing that I have read support your version of events. But equally importantly, your assertions dont stack up with reality. People claim finacial compensation for criminal and non-criminal acts all the time.

The suggestion that seeking financial compensation affects someones credibility is utterly disproved by the success of milllions of these cases daily all around the world.

She isn't being tried by the media, she is being tried by a criminal justice system that has to balance her right to have alleged crimes against her fairly prosecuted without any consideration given to the rank in society of the alleged offender, with the right of the suspect to the presumption of innocence, and to bail while awaiting trial.

These charges have not been dismissed, all that has happened is that the suspect has been fully released pending trial and his bail has been returned to him.

How on earth does this attempt to adjust the liberty of the suspect, while he is awaiting trial, amount to a bad day for women's rights??? Are women that vindictive where they expect to be able to make an allegation of rape and a man is then immediately imprisioned until the end of a trial, on the basis of DNA evidence of some sort of sexual contact, once the word rape has been muttered??? How can a guy possibly protect himself from a malicious allegation of rape then, once there has been consexual sex??? Is it going to end up being the case where you have to get a consent form signed before two people can have consensual sex???

HellFireClub

But I have to concede, how come an adult victim of clerical child abuse, (I mean an adult who was abused by a cleric as a child who is taking legal action against the church for damages), can state openly that they are seeking substantial financial compensation from the church, but where a woman mentions compensation after making an allegation of rape against a man, the same discussion of taking a claim can lead to her credibility being shattered???

Maybe it's the timeframe that's the issue here and not the word "compensation" in itself. A man who has been abused as a child, maybe 40 years ago, if he says he wants compensation, maybe society cannot see any other form of relief there for him as the suspect could be dead. But there is something weird about an alleged rape victim discussing a claim just after saying she was raped.

drkpower

HellFireClub wrote: »

How on earth does this attempt to adjust the liberty of the suspect, while he is awaiting trial, amount to a bad day for women's rights???

Were you meaning to quote someone else because your second last post doesnt seem to have anything to do with the one of mine you quoted.

I did not say it was a bad day for women's rights. I actually said the opposite.

drkpower

HellFireClub wrote: »

Maybe it's the timeframe that's the issue here and not the word "compensation" in itself. A man who has been abused as a child, maybe 40 years ago, if he says he wants compensation, maybe society cannot see any other form of relief there for him as the suspect could be dead. But there is something weird about an alleged rape victim discussing a claim just after saying she was raped.

Why should the timeframe make a difference?

And why is it weird that a victim of rape would immediately want a form of retributive justice in the form of financial compensation.

If a very well-off man attacked you tonight, would you consider suing him for substantial financial compensation?