There seemed to be more excitement outside the venue than inside it. “Say it once, say it again, no excuse for violent men” was one of the many slogans being raised by the fully-charged protestors. DSK had to enter through the venue’s backdoor an hour-and-a-half in advance and speak while standing close to the planned exit which was from the adjoining Pizza Express outlet, situated on the ground floor of the infamous, all-male Pitt Club. Security was tight, almost airport-like, with four people being arrested. In addition, the press was not allowed in.
The protest was spearheaded by the Cambridge Women’s Campaign. According to the organisation, the invitation amounted to legitimising sexual violence and there was nothing in DSK’s record to recommend him. In May 2011, he was jailed for assaulting Diallo, a chambermaid at a posh hotel in New York. While the criminal charges were dropped after his lawyers managed to distract attention from the main case, a civil suit still continues. Diallo’s lawyer, Douglas Wigdor, was also in town to give a special address, describing the Union’s invitation “an affront to all victims of sexual crimes”. Diallo herself sent a message saying that the protestors had given her “further motivation to see justice is done”. French writer Tristane Banon, who had filed a complaint against DSK for attempted rape in 2003, said in her message that the protest “allowed me to believe a little more in humanity”.
A week before the event, the Union had rejected a petition signed by around 700 students to take back the invitation accorded to DSK. It maintained that DSK had been invited before he had quit the IMF over allegations of sexual abuse and defended his right to free speech. The president of the Union denied courting unnecessary controversy by declaring: “We feel Mr Strauss-Kahn is one of the most prominent international headline-makers of 2012, and so we believe he will give a pertinent and interesting speech”. According to the Union, it neither endorses nor disapproves of the views of the speakers. Their ideology, background or personal history plays no role in their selection. Those selected have only to be “interesting people whom our members would want to hear speak and whom they would like a chance to challenge and question”.
However, when a member got the chance to challenge and question DSK on the Diallo affair, security personnel jumped at him and would have thrown him out physically, had DSK not stopped the security and ventured to reply: “Diallo was lying. That’s it”. About the protesting students outside he had this to say: “That’s their freedom. They can do what they want. I think they are wrong.”
An interesting take on the matter was presented by a writer in his blog: “If giving controversial guests a free ride is a new Cambridge Union policy, please let me know when you invite Silvio Berlusconi, because I’m keen to hear his lecture on anti-aging techniques.”
Published in The Express Tribune, March 16th, 2012.
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Whatever opinion one may have of DSK and I am no big fan of him when it comes to his often reported sexual deviations, there is no reason to crititicize any educational institution which would like to invite him to give a talk on a topic on which he is highly competent. I don't quite understand the message that Dr. Pervez Tahir wants to convey to the readers especially in view of the fact that he wrongly reports by saying 'nothing is known on what he said on the topic'?
@Expat2011
Couldn't agree more.
Well who cares whether he spoke at a university campus or not. Besides, anything controversial gets protests by student activists on campuses anyways.
The effective and relevant point is that his future as a public personality is over. Him speaking to a university audiance or a group of listeners is to be taken what's its worth.
Right or wrong, fair or not, his public career is over.
@Expat2011: Very aptly put
The Union acted within its rights to invite him to speak on topics he was rightly deemed competent in; I support my Alma Mater in this fully. I hope the Union will refuse to be tamed in future as well. Political correstness can be stifling and very restrictive to free speech.
Dear Sir, I am somehow surprised when you say : "Nothing is known about what he said on the subject but the Union thought he was “exceptionally well qualified to speak on it”."
You can find on the website of the Cambridge Union Society a video of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's conference, the complete conference, including the questions regarding the Sofitel case. the text of Mr Strauss-Kahn's speech is also available on various websites.
I am also surprised that the rule "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply anymore in such a distinguished University as Cambridge. As today, not court of law has judged and condemned Mr. Strauss-Kahn. The daily trail, the manhunt against this man looks to me to be a blow to some of the most important principles of a democratic justice system : - only a court of law can judge and condemn anybody, neither the media, nor any sort of mob - without the respect of the presumption of innocence, there is no freedom for anyone of us. - there is no justice where there is no possibility to organize a fair trial
Anybody have the right to despise Mr. Strauss-Kahn, but not to decide to replace the justice and make your own use and interpretation of the law. Throw some of those simple rules over board is at the end, dangerous for any normal citizen.
PT,
I was surprised that he was invited at all!