After I protested internally and in writing about UK complicity in torture, I found myself suddenly faced with eighteen allegations against me by my employer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including an allegation that I had criminally expedited visas for women in return for sexual favours, or to put the same allegation more bluntly, blackmailed visa applicants into sex.
My world collapsed. Like Strauss-Kahn, I ended up on suicide watch. I don’t know if DSK is innocent; he could indeed be a monster; but should he be innocent, I know the absolute hell he is going through.
After an official British government investigation, I was presented with the file of a single visa applicant, for a young lady named Albina Safarova. From her passport photo, she was very beautiful. On the back of her application, the visa officer had written “HMA [Her Majesty’s Ambassador] authorises issue.”
But if I had authorised issue, my signature should have been there; it wasn’t. What was there, was a letter from the lady’s visa sponsor, a man named Dermot Hassett. In his letter of support for the application, he stated that the circumstances of the application were known to the British Ambassador, Mr Craig Murray. On top of which, there was a letter from the visa issuing officer, Lorraine Clarke, who stated that she had issued the visa after being informed by two named British diplomats that Mr Hassett was a friend of mine.
So far, so damning. But I had never even heard of Mr Dermot Hassett or of Ms Albina Safarova. I had never met him. I had never met her. I was mystified. I eventually passed the papers on to a seasoned investigative journalist, Bob Graham. He tracked down Dermot Hassett, who told him that the British Embassy had advised him to add the phrase about my knowing the circumstances of the application to his letter of support. They said that would guarantee the visa would be issued.
I have no reason to believe that Dermot Hassett and Albina Safarova were anything other than unwitting dupes. But this application was directly and officially shown to me as evidence of my sexual inolvement in visa applications. I have no doubt at all that it was fabricated evidence to damage my reputation and lessen the impact of any potential public revelations I may make about UK complicity in torture or extraordinary rendition.
I was cleared on all charges, but that did not matter because the British government had damaged my reputation forever by promoting the allegations to the media. Those who deny the very possibility that modern western governments connive in quite deliberate conspiracies of injustice, have no idea what they are talking about. If you threaten them in any political way, they can certainly fabricate evidence against you.
I know; they did it to me.
That’s it Herbie. When you can’t answer a woman’s questionS, call her “shrill and ridiculous”.
.
Relax, I have you thoroughly pegged now.
Hi Dreoilin
I haven’t seen any questions, merely jibes and slurs upon my character.
I’m not interested in a personal slagging match, I concern myself solely with great matters of state but if you wish to make further fool of yourself then please carry on.
I’m perfectly relaxed, thank you.
Jon, I may said something like this in the past on these boards, but can we ‘bottle’ you and distribute you free on street corners? I am not suggesting that you are a genie. But a little of your humanity and equanimity would go a long way. On DSK, I agree with your approach. Let’s see what happens.
After all, Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken got banged away for perjury and DSK (nominally a ‘socialist’ when that word has become meaningless in these contexts, a little like ‘Ghibelline’ in Mediaeval times) is hardly a Leftie really is he? It’s not as though he was suggesting rigorously re-regulating the banking system or giving the wealth of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs to the people of Chad. Britain now is backing a Frenchwoman for the post, so not an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ plot either. I mean, Head of the neoliberal IMF, plundering the pockets of ordinary people to pay trillions to the banksters? So maybe there’s no plot, eh? If he’s innocent (of the charges), then let him go free; if guilty, then off to prison where he can write his memoirs and the appear on talk-shows forever and ever amen.
Herbie wrote:
.
> I don’t think we would ever have heard of DSK’s sexual life unless the
> banksters wanted it so. Sure, we would have heard whispers, gossip etc but
> not the detailed info that is now emerging through mass media, indeed acting
> en masse.
.
I think you missed my point. Sure, if he were an austerity-measures capitalist, he might be viewed by the establishment as worthy of “helping out” if he commits a crime. In those circumstances, yes, a man might commit a crime and then have it covered up afterwards. But that would be a disgraceful state of affairs, and we should condemn it.
.
Ergo, if a progressive were to attempt to turn around the IMF, and then commit a crime, we should not cry foul if that person is arrested and charged. I agree with you therefore that there is a double standard, but I sense slightly that you think DSK should be let off because he opposes neo-capitalism? It might help me understand your position if you would agree that, if DSK is guilty, he should be charged? I think we should all agree on that.
.
> He may have actively assisted in his demise, but that in itself is not
> enough for him to now be in the position he’s in.
.
I think that position is indefensible. Isn’t that the same as saying “Good men in power may rape women”?
.
I don’t sense as you do that feminism has been co-opted by the establishment, and agree with Dreoilin that this is not a feminist issue. I think you might be allowing your distaste for feminism to cloud your judgement.
.
But you’re right in a way about the left’s embracing of identity politics during the 1970s. It’s not that the left was wrong to look at class, gender and race, but that all this came at the expense of ignoring the economic system that was starting to turn towards neo-capitalism. I am sure author Naomi Klein – a woman and a feminist – would agree with you on this.
Feminism is as feminism does. You have to look at how things function in the world not how you wish them to be. It’s in that sense that feminism has been incorporated as a tool of fascism. We can see too that feminism has been incorporated fully into consumerism of course.
When I use the term fascism, I use it advisedly. I’m referring very specifically to the increasing use of naked violence at home and abroad, the destruction of civil liberties and due process etc and the many other crimes against our political life.
It used to be the case that we spoke of a vulgar marxism, which of course was the predominant form. It might be wise then to think of a vulgar feminism. Then again we could perhaps talk of a western feminism, much in the way we used to talk of a western marxism.
There’s a rather amusing exemplar of this in the radical differences between a very cosy western feminism and the real lives of women in the developing world. There was a very revealing prog recently in which a group of feminists were supposed to be discussing the lives of women in the developing world. It ended up that the American feminists had to keep talking over the woman from the developing world because what she was saying was inimical to their very being and that of the corporates who employ them. That’s what it’s all about.
We might also ask how is it that with so many women working in media none of this good feminism of which you speak ever seems to manifest itself. Media is now more uncritical of power than it ever has been. It was much more critical in the past when fewer women worked in it. Again, you have to look at what’s happening in the world.
There’s no point people writing books that are little read and even less understood and then claiming that that’s the real feminism, when in the world things are very different.
Again on the protection of establishment rapists you have to look at what actually happens. These people are protected so long as they do what banksters want in much the same way as nasty dictators are protected.
Of course rapists should be punished but there’s little merit in a system that only punishes those who’ve offended the banksters whilst the others are let continue as they please. It’s in that sense that “men in power may rape women”.
At best feminism is a project gone awry but I’m afraid it’s all seems very much worse that than that. It’s almost as if feminism colluded in denying us the critical tools to deal with what the banksters are up to, leaving us with little more than an empty sloganising as demonstrated in the posts of Dreoilin and Angrysoba.
You really do need to ask yourself some searching questions about what’s going on. You might begin by asking just what sort of feminist is Hillary Clinton, and indeed is there any point in being whatever she is. She don’t seem that different to the banksters so far as I can see.
Herbie says:
.
“It’s almost as if feminism colluded in denying us the critical tools to deal with what the banksters are up to, leaving us with little more than an empty sloganising as demonstrated in the posts of Dreoilin and Angrysoba.”
.
Herbie complains about Dreoilin and I sloganising [sic] and of being insulted by slurs and jibes and – no doubt – slings and arrows of outrageous fortune which is ironic given much of what Herbie has said earlier:
.
“banksters”
.
“Feminism is as feminism does.”
.
“I’m not interested in a personal slagging match”
.
“A Former Assistant Secretary of the U.S Treasury under Reagan” (This is always trotted out as an appeal to authority before a senile old gurning git called Paul Craig Roberts announces his latest Apocalypse scenario. Most of us probably laughed at those Christians talking about the Rapture but PCR has about one Rapture a month.)
.
“My view is that irrespective of whether or not DSK actually attacked this woman, his arrest, humiliation and resignation required active intervention by the banksters.”
.
Yes, but you still haven’t given an argument for this. This is despite you saying:
.
“I haven’t said anything that I cannot defend in argument.”
.
Those who care at all are still waiting for some evidence you can “defend yourself in argument”. So far all I’ve noted is bluster and repetition and I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed.
.
Just to make myself clear, this is bluster:
.
“I concern myself solely with great matters of state”
.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
.
“I seek no favour.
I stand by my words. I speak my truth. I can do no other.”
.
What do you want? A cookie?
.
And what is “your truth” and how does it compare with “the truth”?
.
And this is repetition:
.
“banksters”
“banksters”
“banksters”
“banksters”
“banksters”
“banksters”
“banksters”
.
Now, Jon asked you a useful question earlier and I think it would be a shame for you to duck it. Here it comes again:
.
“It might help me understand your position if you would agree that, if DSK is guilty, he should be charged?”
“My view is that irrespective of whether or not DSK actually attacked this woman, his arrest, humiliation and resignation required active intervention by the banksters.”
.
Anyway, I really think that is the way Herbie sees it. It doesn’t really matter to him whether or not DSK raped the housekeeper because he is not concerned with her at all (remember, Herbie is concerned SOLELY with “great matters of state”) he is only concerned that the “banksters” may benefit from this. Remember, DSK’s guilt is irrelevant. That’s Herbie’s stated position.
@Herbie, I’d very much like to understand your position, but like Angrysoba I only see a collection of slogans. What does “feminism is as feminism does” actually mean? I still don’t see this as a feminist issue.
.
> It [the media] was much more critical in the past when fewer women worked in it.
.
Correlation doesn’t prove causation. I’d say corporate/legal power, media company mergers and a mixing of the journalist/politician class have been largely responsible for the de-clawing of the media. I agree with Chomsky & Herman’s approach (the Propaganda Model).
.
> Of course rapists should be punished but there’s little merit in a system that
> only punishes those who’ve offended the banksters whilst the others are let
> continue as they please.
.
But, you would still want DSK to be charged in accordance with the law, if there is a case to answer? I think it helps to state that unequivocally.
.
> You might begin by asking just what sort of feminist is Hillary Clinton.
.
I think this is one of the basic errors people make when they misunderstand feminism. It is certainly a feminist goal to get an equal gender representation in positions of power, but one is not a feminist merely by being a woman. Most women are not feminists, and plenty of women have anti-feminist ideals.
@Suhayl – apologies, I missed your earlier post. Thank you for the kind words, though I would say that spending time here has incrementally moulded my approach with some very thoughtful and reasoned voices, of which yours is one.
.
Anyway, I have long wondered whether reason and experience – not things I lay much claim to – could be bottled as a liquid by each generation, so that the next generation could drink and do things better. Maybe one day 🙂
Hi Jon
As I’ve explained before, what “feminism is as feminism does” means is that you have to look at how feminism functions in the world.
There’s no point in pointing to texts gathering dust in the academy and saying that’s what feminism is.
So, in the case of Hillary Clinton for example, and indeed many other prominent females who claim to be feminists it seems that there’s not much that distinguishes them from bankster colleagues.
In terms of media feminists, and there seem to be more claims there than anywhere else, has media improved? Of course not. It’s got worse.
So, this feminist goal of getting an equal gender representation in positions of power doesn’t seem to benefit anyone other those lucky few chosen. What’s the point of that from the perspective of feminism, especially if as you claim “most women are not feminists, and plenty of women have anti-feminist ideals”.
Why put the enemy in positions of power? Seems a curious strategy to me and indeed one so obviously doomed to failure.
This is of course the problem with identity politics, and why it has been so easily incorporated into the system.
I mean, even Anrysoba seems to have embraced feminism, so little threat is it to his view of what ought to be.
It’s a pity too that you didn’t address the issue of those corporate tenured American feminists who seek to silence sisters from the developing world who want to talk about economics and colonialism etc.
Anyway.
The guilt or innocence of DSK will be determined by a jury or plea bargain or even suicide perhaps.
However, I’m still of the view that his current predicament owes more to his annoying the banksters than it does to any attempt at unlawful sex with a chambermaid.
The banksters don’t much care about immigrant chambermaids nor any other kind of chambermaid. That much must be obvious to you.
No one said it was easy. But if your underpinning theory is poor and easily incorporated by power then you just make it more difficult than it needs to be.
The right have always understood that “it’s the economy, stupid”. I imagine they were delighted when the left forgot that, and proceeded to divide amongst themselves in intractable questions of identity.
“Blair Babes”. “Cameron Cuties”. Harriet Harman. Incorporated, you see.
Hi Angry,
You say and I quotate:
“Now, Jon asked you a useful question earlier and I think it would be a shame for you to duck it. Here it comes again:
.
“It might help me understand your position if you would agree that, if DSK is guilty, he should be charged?””
Hmmmm.
You seem to be rather confused about how it works. Not that I’m surprised of course, but I think you’ll find that the charge thing normally comes before the guilty thing. I know media has a different process and perhaps that’s what you prefer.
I think that if there’s a complaint it should be investigated, and if evidence found he be charged and then presented to a jury for determination.
It’s subsequent to that the “guilty” or indeed “not guilty” bit comes into play.
However, I don’t think any of this would have happened had he not annoyed the banskters.
Hope that helps.
Hi Suhayl,
The difference in the cases of Archer and Aitken is that they themselves initiated legal action.
They were Oscared by their own hand. They entered a legal dispute of their own volition.
You might argue that DSK may have put himself at risk of legal action, but it’s not at all the same thing as entering into legal contest voluntarily.
DSK was changing the way the IMF operated and the banksters weren’t happy with that.
If Christine Lagarde or whoever takes over the IMF continues his policies without opposition then you may well have a case. If she reverts to the more traditional IMF way of doing things, then you do not.
“DSK was changing the way the IMF operated and the banksters weren’t happy with that.”
.
Not everyone agrees with you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/19/imf-dominique-strauss-kahn
.
“But as can be seen from what is happening in the peripheral Eurozone countries, the IMF is still playing its traditional role of applying the medieval economic medicine of “bleeding the patient”. To be fair to both Strauss-Kahn and the fund, neither the managing director nor anyone else at the IMF is ultimately in sole charge of policy, especially with respect to countries that are important to the people who really run the institution. The IMF is run by its governors and executive directors, of whom the overwhelmingly dominant authorities are the US treasury department, which includes heavy representation from Goldman Sachs, and, secondarily, the European powers.”
“I think that if there’s a complaint it should be investigated, and if evidence found he be charged and then presented to a jury for determination.”
.
Could you say what you mean by ‘evidence’ please?
“It doesn’t really matter to him whether or not DSK raped the housekeeper because he is not concerned with her at all (remember, Herbie is concerned SOLELY with “great matters of state”)”–Angry
.
Yes. I think it’s a case of ‘talking to the hand, because the ear’s not listening’.
Hi Dreoilin
You really ought to read the whole thing. Bits like this, for example:
“Strauss-Kahn was aware that the fiscal tightening ordered by the European authorities and the IMF was preventing Greece from getting out of recession; but while he pushed for “softer” conditions, he was powerless to change the lending conditions from punishment to actual help. That’s ultimately because the European authorities (European Commission and European Central Bank), not the IMF, are calling the shots – although Strauss-Kahn encountered plenty of resistance within the fund itself, too.”
or this:
“and the odds are good that the next managing director – of whatever nationality – will be to the right of Strauss-Kahn. Real change at the IMF is in the hands of the governments of most of the world – but only if they dare to organise it.”
I can’t quite see where this chap disagrees with me.
Would you care to point it out please.
Reply to my previous and current questions, Herbie. And maybe you’d quote where I was supposedly “sloganising” while you’re at it. Actual quotes, please.
.
As for the article, naturally I’d read it. Don’t be silly please. The whole message of the article is that there was, and will be, little or no difference. With or without DSK.
It’s probably worth considering at this time the observations of a post-feminist who dares to navigate these dangerous waters.
Over to you Naomi:
“Harriet Lessel, executive director of the New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault, agrees that this case has seen “a very quick and targeted response,” and points out that rape is “a grossly underreported crime” in New York. Worse, she says, many victims under other circumstances believe that the criminal justice system is unresponsive to their needs and more oriented toward ensuring that the innocent are not convicted.
While Lessel is quick to add that New York has “some great police officers and prosecutors who really care,” she says that the police do not normally issue public statements supportive of victims’ credibility, let alone early on, as they did with Strauss-Kahn’s accuser. Nor has she ever heard of someone being photographed naked as part of the evidence.
So what is happening here?”
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/05/23/a-tale-of-two-rape-charges/
Indeedy do. Just what is happening here.
As I said, ‘talking to the hand, because the ear’s not listening’ …
Hi Dreoilin
You claim:
“As for the article, naturally I’d read it. Don’t be silly please. The whole message of the article is that there was, and will be, little or no difference. With or without DSK.”
The article quite clearly states that DSK was trying to change things.
Here’s the key points you’re looking for:
“he was widely praised as having changed the IMF, increased its influence and moved it away from the policies that – according to the fund’s critics – had caused so many problems for developing countries in the past.”
“To be fair, some changes at the fund during the tenure of Strauss-Kahn were significant. For the first time ever, during the world recession of 2009, the IMF made available some $283bn-worth of reserves for all member countries, with no policy conditions attached. The fund also made some limited credit available without conditions”
“To be fair to both Strauss-Kahn and the fund, neither the managing director nor anyone else at the IMF is ultimately in sole charge of policy, especially with respect to countries that are important to the people who really run the institution.”
“The biggest changes were in the research department, where there was tolerance for more open debate. For example, there were IMF papers that endorsed the use of capital controls by developing countries under some circumstances, and questioning whether central banks were unnecessarily slowing growth with inflation targets that may be too low.”
“while he pushed for “softer” conditions”
“the odds are good that the next managing director – of whatever nationality – will be to the right of Strauss-Kahn.”
So you see, even your supposed naysayer indicates that DSK was engaging in policies that the banksters didn’t like. And of course there are many others who will make stronger arguments in his support of the changes he wrought at the IMF.
“So you see, even your supposed naysayer indicates that DSK was engaging in policies that the banksters didn’t like.”
.
I recommend to people that they read the article for themselves, since you are selectively quoting.
.
For example, the correct quote is, “he was widely praised as having changed the IMF, increased its influence and moved it away from the policies that – according to the fund’s critics – had caused so many problems for developing countries in the past. How much of this is true?” — the question at the end that you chose to delete.
.
And it’s hard to see how he was “engaging in policies” of his own when the piece clearly says, “But as can be seen from what is happening in the peripheral Eurozone countries, the IMF is still playing its traditional role of applying the medieval economic medicine of “bleeding the patient”.”
.
I’ve had quite enough of your twisting and turning and slippery methods, since apart from ‘editing’ the Guardian article, you positively refuse to answer straight questions, but keep waffling and trundling away like a roughshod horse instead. Unfortunately, you can’t win debating points that way.
@Herbie,
.
Thanks for your reply to my question, but I don’t feel it’s been answered fully. Of course, I didn’t intend to imply that a guilty verdict could precede a police charge. What I was asking was, if it transpires DSK carried out the crime in question, whether you thought he should be charged. This is one of those yes-or-no questions, but we’ve not had a yes or no from you.
.
The point you are making is fair enough – I agree that he might get protection from the law if he were one of the boys. I am willing to entertain the possibility that the charge is being expedited in order to to get rid of him. But that’s not my question.
Herbie,
.
On the issue of feminism:
.
> So, in the case of Hillary Clinton for example, and indeed many other
> prominent females who claim to be feminists
.
I maintain that Clinton is not a feminist – she certainly doesn’t act like one, in my view. Her modus operandi – which has become a great deal more right wing and militarist over the last few years – is to mimic the masculine aggression of the American political establishment. Thatcher and Palin are much the same in my view (even though it doesn’t seem fair on Thatcher to put her in the same category as Palin, who is a product of an extraordinarily violent environment).
.
To your knowledge, has Clinton spoken about being ‘a feminist’? I’d be surprised if she has.
.
> So, this feminist goal of getting an equal gender representation in
> positions of power doesn’t seem to benefit anyone other those lucky few chosen.
.
Well, there are two problems with that analysis: (1) this goal hasn’t yet been very successful thus far, and (2) I imagine feminists would rather feminists got into power, rather that women with masculine (or anti-feminist) views.
.
> “Blair Babes”. “Cameron Cuties”.
.
These are sexist taglines that judge female politicians by their physical attractiveness. That is the diametric opposite of feminism, and certainly not an illustration of the establishment co-opting the movement. You’re just grasping at straws on this one!
.
> Harriet Harman
.
I don’t know much about Harman, except that she professes to be a feminist, and was part of the New Labour coterie. But from theyworkforyou.com: “Voted very strongly for the Iraq war” and “Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war”. For a war that killed hundreds of thousands of women, I am not sure she could call herself a feminist. But then if you find yourself in Blair’s Labour cabinet, I don’t think you can call yourself progressive either!
.
> Why put the enemy in positions of power?
.
Presumably you mean right-wingers. This implies that a women who finds herself in a position of power has been put there by a feminist. Clearly that’s a nonsense: if a powerful women such as Clinton gets into power and subsequently reflects masculine political ideology, it is unlikely she was “put there” by a feminist at all. Indeed, I think you credit feminism with too much power – if they could choose a US Secretary of State, the world would be a much better place 😉
.
Conclusion: I’m certainly interested in unusual analyses, but on feminism I think you’ve taken the wrong tack. There is not much in this story that ought to discredit feminism as a movement, while there is plenty to commend the movement. Whether the forward strides that women have made recently (say, increased equality in the workplace) are down to feminism or to other forces is debatable, but of course backwards steps have been made too (increased corporate pressure on women to conform to a narrow beauty ideal). So feminism could either be said to have had mixed success, or little success at all, depending on what you think it was responsible for.
[Mod/jon: deleted as disruptive.]
(Thanks for the Naomi Wolf article, by the way. A good and interesting read, though it doesn’t change my views on what I’ve written already 🙂 ).
(@YugoStiglitz – snarky and unhelpful comments from the sidelines will get you deleted every time. Engage in the debate or get out.)
Hi Dreoilin
I quite simply don’t agree with you, nor could any reasonable person.
I’ve outlined his progressive achievements above, even in an article that you claim, rather dishonestly in my opinion, that “The whole message of the article is that there was, and will be, little or no difference. With or without DSK.”
The article quite clearly lists the major progressive changes that DSK has made, as I’ve outlined above.
Reader’s can judge for themselves, of course:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/19/imf-dominique-strauss-kahn
Hi Jon
You ask:
“What I was asking was, if it transpires DSK carried out the crime in question, whether you thought he should be charged. This is one of those yes-or-no questions, but we’ve not had a yes or no from you.”
I’ve addressed this question a number of times now, most recently in my reply to Mr Angry of America.
I’ve even addressed what I assumed what was the spirit of your question in saying that rapists should be punished.
There is no simple yes/no answer to your literal question above because your premise is incorrect.
You’re asking a question about his guilt prior even to his being charged. It’s a bizarre proposition.
We don’t know if DSK has committed a crime until a jury has looked at the evidence.
Don’t you understand that he’s being tried in media and that this is the MO of undemocratic regimes?
So snarky = deleted? Wow! It remains amazing (but perhaps a bit predictable) what does suffice as an approved comment on this site.
And I’m quite serious – do any of you plan on contacting DSK’s defense team to make sure they know your theory on why the maid is making these allegations?