Though the title may be a tad over-stated, Lionel and I have our say on the Affaire Strauss-Kahn (so far). Click on the YouTube version above.
I am normally against the broadcasting of trial proceedings when it comes to famous cases. Everyone involved has a tendency to play to the camera instead of doing their job.
But in this case I’m willing to make an exception. Let the French learn the difference between equality of treatment and equality of outcome. I also hope the maid gets a nice, fat payment from the subsequent civil trial.
While I don’t wish for anyone to get AIDS, it would be a sort of cosmic justice if DSK did contract it. After all, French socialists have been screwing over African immigrants for years. Karma, what goes around comes around, and all of that.
Please communicate to Lionel
that the following is an extremely good French blog
(with lots of video, etc.)
and is definitely NOT pro DSK.
A French intellectual? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms??
We have a politician up here in Canada, Jack Layton/Laydown, the leader of our socialist NDP (New Democratic Party), who, it was revealed in our recent election campaign, was found a few years ago in a police raid of a “massage parlour” called “The Velvet Touch,” stark naked on a mattress … “oh, officer, it’s really a massage table.”
Ooh la la, naughty boy, non? This is going to really hurt the guy’s chances of EVER becoming leader of the Loyal Opposition, seeing as the NDP only ever garner between 17% and 20% of the total vote, right?
His wife, also an MP (Member of Parliament), defended Jack, saying she knew about his appointment at the “accredited health clinic” for a shiatsu massage (the massage parlour was a two-floor walk up above a tacky store front on a seedy strip in Chinatown). Uh huh, Olivia. Sure.
The rest of Canada took a rather dim view of Mr. Layton’s peccadillo, whereas Quebecers, en masse, voted for the NDP, returning them as Canada’s official Opposition in Parliament!
Oh, those French! They like sexual perverts. Taking advantage of visible minority women gives them an air of je ne sais quois! ‘So adventuresome.
Addendum: As MPs, Jack and his wife, Olivia Chow, last year wracked up more than $1-million between them IN EXPENSES alone. This is the socialist couple who swear, whenever a camera is near, that they’re for the “hard-working families of Canada.” Of course they are. They need hard-working families to pay their bills.
Pepe le Pew is now a stalker and potential rapist.
Great job, Roger!!!!
I don’t see how you can say the French elites are treated any differently in their courts of law. Why, just today the embezzlement trial of Jacques Chirac resumed. The fact that the crimes he is charged with occurred in the early 1990s merely shows the total French repudiation of the Anglo-Saxon “justice delayed is justice denied” barbarity.
Normally I agree with Roger et al on most issues.
Not on this issue however. Clearly DSK has buckleys of getting a fair trial in the US in this atmosphere. He’s French, he’s rich and he’s a socialist: that’s three strikes against him right there – and in today’s environment the fact that his accuser is black and poor – well you can forget it (bloggers are already screaming at concerned commenters along the lines of “are you saying she’s a liar??!!”)
The public parading in handcuffs and unrestrained negative media commentary slagging off people still deemed to be innocent, despite a case being sub judice, smacks of the ancient Roman habit of dragging conquered enemies through the streets in chains – all that is missing is a victory parade and no doubt that will come soon enough.
Thumbs up, Ausssiegirl. Agree 100% assuming also he might not be guilty and thinking that a such one-sidedly influenced Jury isn’t independant any more. And I think it’s not fine, Mr. Simon, to call him “Perv”. There are men who have some problems with love and desire, and there are, aside of this special case, also some women who feed them. And there are people who are silent for a long time, “friends” who didn’t talk in time to DSK about getting himself vulnerable, and it’s not French. It’s also in America, think Clinton who I also defended at the time, or say Spitzer. And btw. it’s ubiquitous. It seems a bit hypocritical what you are now saying about Monsieur Strauss-Kahn, gifted economist and star so far. And honestly, you people over there at the moment remind me of French revolutionaries who take down Louis XVI. It’s not fair. When the French helped finance your revolution nearly 250 years ago you didn’t lose a word about the French kings’ adventures. And you know what, Mr. Simon?: I am a cultivated person, with one man for thirty years now, with ethics and with principles, and I defend him, imagine, and think again. You look here like Cain slaughtering Abel to tell you the truth. Normally I appreciate your posts. I think you should trash the headline at the very least.
Yours is (almost ) the most non-sensical comment I’ve ever seen.
You wrote “one-sidely influenced jury”?,”one-sidely influenced”?? Do you mean ‘unfairly influenced’?
You wrote, “there are men who have some problems with love and desire, and there are, aside of this special case, some women who feed them.” First, to suggest that LOVE has anything to do with this alleged behavior elevates sophistry to a level heretofore unseen. Second, you state that this case is “special” as though most women would welcome Kahn’s alleged behavior. Third, by stating that “there are men who have some problems”, you contradict your opening assertion, “assuming he might not be guilty. Why provide him with an excuse, if you don’t think he’s guilty?
You wrote: “there are people who are silent for a long time, “friends” who didn’t talk in time to DSK about getting himself vulnerable, and it’s not French.” First, your obvious lack of familiarity with the English language, makes this statement essentially incomprehensible. But I will try to respond to what sense I can make out of it and see what happens. If, by “friends” you are referring to the people who are now trying to bribe the maid’s family to influence her to drop the charges, then I assume you are saying that his “enablers” should have explained to him that Americans don’t believe that political ideology or social standing or wealth is a reason to tolerate criminal behavior. Which again brings me back to my previous point, you contradict your first statement in which you suggest that Kahn is not guilty.
You wrote, “think Clinton who I also defended at the time, or say Spitzer.” If this statement is an indication of your accuracy in predicting guilt, then your defense of Kahn is an (excellent) indicator of his guilt. If however you are trying to say that famous or powerful men in both the U.S. and France have a tendency to expect their (otherwise) criminal behavior to be overlooked, that they have an arrogant sense of entitlement to do whatever they wish, without repercussions, then I agree with you. But this has nothing to do with Kahn’s innocence or guilt. Spitzer was HIRING prostitutes, so his case has no relevance to Kahn’s case. Clinton’s behavior with Paula Jones was similar but he stopped short of actually touching the woman, so again no relevance. According to the complaint, Kahn actually physically assaulted the woman and forced her to perform oral sex. The District Attorney has samples of the semen that was expelled exactly where the maid said it was. They have a gash on Kahn’s back that fits in perfectly with the maid’s statement and grand jury testimony that she pushed him away and he fell against the sharp corner of an armoire. They have evidence of his earlier attempts to entice female hotel employees up to his room. They have the blood on the sheets of his bed. They have pictures of the bruises on the maid. They have Kahn’s expeditious exit from the hotel, leaving behind his cell phone and many of his belongings. All of this evidence should and will be used against him. But, suggesting that Kahn’s case bears any resemblance to Spitzer’s or Clinton’s is ridiculous.
You wrote: “It’s not fair. When the French helped finance your revolution nearly 250 years ago, you didn’t lose a word about the French Kings adventures.” Frankly, that is the most specious and ignorant statement out of your entire comment. First, try to get this through your silly little head, what your French do within the confines of your own country is your own business. We may disapprove, but that’s all. However, when you come to the U.S., when you place yourself under the jurisdiction of OUR laws, then you must abide by them. Just as YOU would demand of Americans living in or visiting France. And since you deem it necessary to bring up the partial financing of our revolution, perhaps you would do well to remember, that had it not been for OUR money and lives spent in World War I and World War II, you would all be speaking German and living on work farms. Additionally, you seem to suggest that “sexual assault” by the rich is considered an “adventure” in France. If that is true, then your society retains a medieval mentality.
You wrote: “I am a cultivated person with one man for thirty years now, with ethics and with principles and I defend him, imagine, and think again.” First, it’s very hard to imagine a person with ethics and principles who can blindly state that the position or social status a man holds, makes it morally or legally acceptable for him to abuse those less favored by society. Second, in accordance with your views, maybe we should re-institute a favored sport of the pre-revolutionary French aristocracy; the use of peasants for target practice.
And Lastly, you wrote: “you look like Cain slaughtering Abel to tell you the truth.” Now I must admit, the incongruity of this statement had me completely baffled….particularly in light of the opinion that most French socialists are known to be atheists???? Perhaps, before making this analogy, you should have made yourself more familiar with the bible. If memory serves me correctly, Cain slaughtered Abel because he was jealous of God’s favoring Able’s sacrifice over his. Are you suggesting the Mr. Simon is jealous of Kahn being able to get away with (until now) boorish, abusive, arrogant, indifferent and for many countries, criminal behavior? Which once again, contradicts your contention that you believe Kahn is innocent.
Your entire post is nothing more than an exercise in twisted reasoning, socialist entitlement mentality and French arrogance.
There’s only one arrogant country in the world. The majority there doesn’t speak foreign languages, but scorns others who aren’t good enough in English. And btw, if you want to know this exactly: I think he isn’t guilty. Clinton I’d say was guilty for lying. America is the most prudish hypocritical bunch of folks I’ve known so far. And btw. I haven’t been a socialist for a while, but I might start being one. Now write some other metres of comment, so nobody reads this at all.
Okay, you only seem to know socialists over there which seems to be the same as communists for you. We have Social Democrats here in France, in Great Britain, in Germany and other countries, the Far Left is marginal. I own Ron Radosh’ book “A Safe Haven” if that gives you a hint about my “socialism” I have a few books by Benny Morris and also Jaacov Lozowick and some other people. And oh, I own the book about the Spanish Inquisition of Benzion Netanyahu. I must tell you this: You remind me of the Romans as DSK happens to be Jewish. The comparison is at hand. You drag him around in chains and crucify him in the media. I also have a book by Rabbi Wolpe. I wonder what he thinks about this. This trial is a farce. I hope I made fewer mistakes this time than the average American. And as to the Jewish writers, he needs some Nicodemus, to stick to the comparison.
Comments are closed.