Obviously Revenues Were Threatened

Following a petition by Cambridge university Women's Campaign, a group of protesters will later this afternoon meet outside Greater St Mary's Church in Cambridge. They are marching to the Union Society to demonstrate against a speaker's event invitation to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and I will definitely be joining them.

I think that an institution like the union has a responsibility to reject a speaker with a record of serial misogyny, in the same way that I feel that they would have a responsibility to reject a speaker with a record of serial racism. For me, DSK's behaviour certainly fulfils the former category: take, for example, the case of journalist Tristane Banon, of which the prosecutor said in a statement contained "facts that could be qualified as sexual assault". In addition to this, his international renown as a womaniser speaks volumes. But perhaps most distressing is his approach to the allegations made by Nafissatou Diallo. The issue isn't whether or not Strauss-Kahn raped Diallo, our focus rests with his argument that previous lies told by the maid invalidate any future claim of suffering sexual violence.

For me and many others, attendance of the protest is part of a wider rejection of the cultures of misogyny and rape apologism. The protest is particularly directed against the treatment of Diallo's attempt to make rape allegations, as this mirrors a persistent, international trend: the trivialisation of sexual crimes and accusations. This is a theme all too prevalent in England, where the rape conviction rate is 6%. Part of the event later on will be an inclusive platform to discuss these issues.

The Union Society argues that their invitation extends to an economist, and that his personal life is irrelevant. They reject the Women's Campaign belief that DSK's reputation is as much based on his notorious misogyny as his economic involvement. While the personal life of Strauss-Kahn should not be subject to our judgement, by treating numerous women appallingly, DSK has forced the situation.

The campaign has been condemned by some for allegedly repressing freedom of speech. Indeed, the Union Society defends his invitation on these very grounds. I've always been a staunch defender of freedom of speech, but I do understand that there is a difference between systematic oppression and the provision of a platform. For the public, the union is often assumed to represent Cambridge, not least because of confusion with the Student's Union – a separate body. Thus the invitations offered by the union make a significant statement. Access to such a platform should be managed responsibly. Freedom of speech does not equate to a right to a powerful platform.

I've found the Women's Campaign quite an empowering platform myself. It has engaged with the theme of International Women's Day 2012 – connecting women, inspiring futures. The demonstration is set to provide an inclusive space to talk about issues from rape apologism to cultures of misogyny. Far from oppressing freedom of speech, I feel like the overwhelming support for the campaign has given voice to those many who live without a direct line to the media. What started as a small-scale campaign has snowballed, bringing issues of sexism and sexual crime in to the national sphere. In addition, some protesters are also using the opportunity to express dissatisfaction with the IMF. While some individuals have felt the need for direct action, separate to the official protest, I particularly respect the campaign's ability to create a strong response without having impinged on the Union Society's rights.

Despite the retention of the invitation, I feel like the campaign has won a wider victory. Before the protest has even started, we've brought issues that are so often overlooked to a broad audience

Refusing to listen is not the same as preventing someone from speaking.

Before Strauss-Kahn’s appearance, Diallo’s lawyer, Douglas Wigdor, told about 100 students at the university’s law faculty, “It’s an affront to all victims of any sexual crime that he’s here, being given this forum to speak".

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/dsk_go_away_DojxqZGUOUPuJAdp30dRnI#ixzz1oqJqqi1D

It’s got nothing to do with freedom of speech,” said Francesca Williams, 21. “They’re inviting a man who hates women. I don’t think DSK should be given the privilege of speaking in front of a private audience.”

did anyone ever tell you Bill RM that you read exactly like the two crocodiles in the cartoon strip "Pearls before Swine"?

Nope. I have never seen it...given your general unexplained pissyness toward me this last year or so am I to assume that this is not a compliment?

If someone gives this person a platform, there's nothing wrong with people with an opposing view point expressing themselves nearby.

Quote:

If someone gives this person a platform, there's nothing wrong with people with an opposing view point expressing themselves nearby.

Agreed......So long as they refrain from attempting to keep the speaker off the stage by force, and refrain from attempting to shout down the speaker. Arrest of three demonstrators was made this day however, so I doubt that they were in whole well behaved.

You don't seem to understand: Attempting to silence the protesters is exactly the thing that you claim to be upset about.

If someone gives this person a platform, there's nothing wrong with people with an opposing view point expressing themselves nearby.

If the rich want to abuse the poor; do not let them pay with money, but with their lives...

Fido wrote:

If the rich want to abuse the poor; do not let them pay with money, but with their lives...

Is this what you want?