Roaman Polanski thanks his millions of supporters

[Argus]

May I rant for a moment?

So I was reading the bbc web site this morning, which has an article on Roman Polanski going to some soiree for his wife, and it stated he had been accused of "having sex with an underage girl".

BBC

And I'm thinking - was that what he was accused of? Because perusing European reports makes it sound like this was a case of l'amour, of two people, oh yes, one of them technically being underage, but, you know, very tall for her age, a model, getting together for a little pleasure. What's the big deal? Those silly Americans. They're so uptight about sex!

Polanksi thanked his millions of supporters. He is a great man, after all, an artiste, and such people need to be forgiven their little foibles. Europeans are so much more worldly than we on such topics.

But it doesn't take much effort to see that what he was accused of doing was plying a 13 year old girl with drugs and alcohol, and then, despite repeated pleas to stop, raping and sodomizing her.

Am I being too primitively North American? How do I get to be a cosmopolitan sophisticate like the Europeans? Does use of the term Eurotrash mark me as xenophobic?

[ToadBrother]

May I rant for a moment?

So I was reading the bbc web site this morning, which has an article on Roman Polanski going to some soiree for his wife, and it stated he had been accused of "having sex with an underage girl".

BBC

And I'm thinking - was that what he was accused of? Because perusing European reports makes it sound like this was a case of l'amour, of two people, oh yes, one of them technically being underage, but, you know, very tall for her age, a model, getting together for a little pleasure. What's the big deal? Those silly Americans. They're so uptight about sex!

Polanksi thanked his millions of supporters. He is a great man, after all, an artiste, and such people need to be forgiven their little foibles. Europeans are so much more worldly than we on such topics.

But it doesn't take much effort to see that what he was accused of doing was plying a 13 year old girl with drugs and alcohol, and then, despite repeated pleas to stop, raping and sodomizing her.

Am I being too primitively North American? How do I get to be a cosmopolitan sophisticate like the Europeans? Does use of the term Eurotrash mark me as xenophobic?

I certainly don't think Polanski deserves our sympathy, and the crime he committed was sexual abuse of a child; molestation, or whatever you want to call it. It's even worse that he seems to have legions of supporters who minimize his drugging and raping of a young girl.

That being said, the judge's behavior all those years ago was pretty bizarre, and it is from that that his release was predicated on. By all accounts the Swiss authorities were not against sending Polanski to the States, but US authorities were apparently less than forthcoming about certain aspects of the original sentence, and, since they were evaluating an extradition request, they certainly have the right to demand the country making the request supply in a reasonable fashion information necessary do determining the validity of the request.

Polanski's sentencing was pretty obviously bungled by a person, or possibly people (depending upon how you regard the claims the prosecutor made that he then retracted), seeking to make a name for themselves. Polanski's continued freedom stems from what smells like judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

[bloodyminded]

May I rant for a moment?

So I was reading the bbc web site this morning, which has an article on Roman Polanski going to some soiree for his wife, and it stated he had been accused of "having sex with an underage girl".

BBC

And I'm thinking - was that what he was accused of? Because perusing European reports makes it sound like this was a case of l'amour, of two people, oh yes, one of them technically being underage, but, you know, very tall for her age, a model, getting together for a little pleasure. What's the big deal? Those silly Americans. They're so uptight about sex!

Polanksi thanked his millions of supporters. He is a great man, after all, an artiste, and such people need to be forgiven their little foibles. Europeans are so much more worldly than we on such topics.

But it doesn't take much effort to see that what he was accused of doing was plying a 13 year old girl with drugs and alcohol, and then, despite repeated pleas to stop, raping and sodomizing her.

Am I being too primitively North American? How do I get to be a cosmopolitan sophisticate like the Europeans? Does use of the term Eurotrash mark me as xenophobic?

Yes, your disgust for the rape of a child betrays your puritanical streak and your hatred of the arts.

I wouldn't just pick on the Europeans, though, Argus. Our own Lady Black, the right-wing Canadian columnist and social conservative Barbara Amiel, wrote the most expansive and impassioned plea FOR Polanski that I've yet seen. She utterly belittled the rape in her support of the Great Man. Perhaps she's morally rudderless while His Lordship languishes in prison.

[eyeball]

May I rant for a moment?

Am I being too primitively North American? How do I get to be a cosmopolitan sophisticate like the Europeans? Does use of the term Eurotrash mark me as xenophobic?

I don't know, but in any case I can't help but think about all the times and reasons you've used to excuse Roman Catholic pedophilia and I'm just wondering why none of them apply in this case?

Did you have an epiphany or something?

[August1991]

Yes, your disgust for the rape of a child betrays your puritanical streak and your hatred of the arts.

I wouldn't just pick on the Europeans, though, Argus. Our own Lady Black, the right-wing Canadian columnist and social conservative Barbara Amiel, wrote the most expansive and impassioned plea FOR Polanski that I've yet seen. She utterly belittled the rape in her support of the Great Man. Perhaps she's morally rudderless while His Lordship languishes in prison.

Curious, I found her article.

To me, I would not describe it as expansive or impassioned. Here's the key paragraph or two. Make of it what you will:

P.D. Ouspensky, an early 20th-century philosopher, had a strange theory that everything in the world was finite; take away from one thing and its losses will be compensated by an increase somewhere else. This odd idea is a good metaphor for our attitude to consensual sexual encounters between adults and children. When I was growing up, homosexuals were beaten up, sent to prison and regarded as moral lepers. Single mothers would leave town, their families made pariahs. Adultery and illegitimacy were still in the Scarlet Letter category. All has changed: it’s fine to be gay, a positive virtue to announce you are a single mum, adultery and illegitimacy barely raise an eyebrow. But the hysteria and hatred these once-despised states evoked has now emigrated holus-bolus to sex between adults and underage respondents. Prison inmates consider it okay to beat up child molesters—“chomos”—who are prison untouchables. One can imagine the terror Polanski has of being sent back to an American prison.

The definition of childhood depends on the culture. Samantha was underage in California but not in South Korea or Spain. In more than 30 other countries the age of consent is 14. By now, happily married, she has publicly forgiven Polanski for whatever happened and repeatedly asked the courts not to send him to prison. Polanski himself has been successfully married for 20 years. The events of that day had only one lasting effect: Polanski went into exile from America and Hollywood, the capital of his profession.

For the past 30 years Polanski has been shut out of American films or films made where America has an extradition treaty. No higher price can ever have been paid for a smaller amount of pleasure.

Macleans

[Argus]

I don't know, but in any case I can't help but think about all the times and reasons you've used to excuse Roman Catholic pedophilia and I'm just wondering why none of them apply in this case?

Did you have an epiphany or something?

Would you mind telling me what "Roman Catholic pedophilia" is?

I have a pretty good idea what you mean but I'm betting your fumbling attempts at an explanation will be the source of boundless entertainment.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Argus

[bloodyminded]

Curious, I found her article.

To me, I would not describe it as expansive or impassioned. Here's the key paragraph or two. Make of it what you will:Macleans

I see why you selected what you did...rather, why you chose not to select what you didn't.

According to Amiel, the girl, an "alleged victim," (though the sex and the drugging was admitted by both victim AND perpetrator) shares equal responsibility with Polanski--an astonishing claim, even for a woman so famously enamoured of powerful men as is Lady Barbara: Polanski's actions were "insanely stupid"--you know, plying a child with drugs and alcohol and then having sex with her. Merely "stupid," a quality we all possess from time to time.

"Even though she had some drug and sexual experience," Amiel coyly remarks--the traditional way of blaming rape victims, even more unconscionable when the girl is 13. Good Christ.

Amiel goes on, "And normally a 13-year-old would refuse the invitation. But this was Hollywood, he was a star director, she a would-be actress and daughter of a sometime actress, and so she went."

Tsk tsk. Naughty girl. She was raped because she went; she was raped because of ambition. Polanski isn't the only one to blame here...what about the little harlot herself, eh?

Edited July 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

Polanski is a swine.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Tsk tsk. Naughty girl. She was raped because she went; she was raped because of ambition. Polanski isn't the only one to blame here...what about the little harlot herself, eh?

Great...so when can we start ambition raping your 13 year-old relatives? It exists and is called statutory rape for a reason.

[Jack Weber]

I see why you selected what you did...rather, why you chose not to select what you didn't.

According to Amiel, the girl, an "alleged victim," (though the sex and the drugging was admitted by both victim AND perpetrator) shares equal responsibility with Polanski--an astonishing claim, even for a woman so famously enamoured of powerful men as is Lady Barbara: Polanski's actions were "insanely stupid"--you know, plying a child with drugs and alcohol and then having sex with her. Merely "stupid," a quality we all possess from time to time.

"Even though she had some drug and sexual experience," Amiel coyly remarks--the traditional way of blaming rape victims, even more unconscionable when the girl is 13. Good Christ.

Amiel goes on, "And normally a 13-year-old would refuse the invitation. But this was Hollywood, he was a star director, she a would-be actress and daughter of a sometime actress, and so she went."

Tsk tsk. Naughty girl. She was raped because she went; she was raped because of ambition. Polanski isn't the only one to blame here...what about the little harlot herself, eh?

Polanski deserves everything he should get,however,no one should be shocked at Barbara Amiel and her disgusting commentary.She has been nothing but a status seeker her whole life.She has married in all if her 4 marriages in an attempt to escape her working class childhood.So now that she's insulated herslef by marrying money,sho now takes potshots at those she feels are beneath her...

Edited July 19, 2010 by Jack Weber

[eyeball]

Would you mind telling me what "Roman Catholic pedophilia" is?

I have a pretty good idea what you mean but I'm betting your fumbling attempts at an explanation will be the source of boundless entertainment.

No doubt, but since you do know what I mean how about you stop fumbling around and just explain why you think Polanski is any different than a pedophilic Catholic priest?

[bloodyminded]

Great...so when can we start ambition raping your 13 year-old relatives? It exists and is called statutory rape for a reason.

Boy, you sure dropped the ball and misread me this time, didn't you? How did you miss the context and the sarcasm?

Edited July 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Polanski deserves everything he should get,however,no one should be shocked at Barbara Amiel and her disgusting commentary.She has been nothing but a status seeker her whole life.She has married in all if her 4 marriages in an attempt to escape her working class childhood.So now that she's insulated herslef by marrying money,sho now takes potshots at those she feels are beneath her...

I know, she's an astonishingly unpleasant and elitist commentator. I just thought that blaming the 13-year-old rape victim was an unexpected low.

Edited July 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

No doubt, but since you do know what I mean how about you stop fumbling around and just explain why you think Polanski is any different than a pedophilic Catholic priest?

I think Polanski is worse than a pedophile - priest or no - because Paedophilia is a clinically diagnosed mental illness. Polanski was just a degenerate hedonist.

However, I have never defended priests who rape children. I have merely sought to balance the more hysterical claims of some with a little dose of reality. That is to say, the incidence of underage sex among the priests of the Catholic Church is no greater than among other clergy, or indeed, among the general male population. Further, that the great majority of cases of underage sex were not forced, and did not involve children (as would be required by true paedophila). Most of the cases involve priests molesting, seducing, or persuading teenage boys to have sex with them. This does NOT constitute paedophila.

I have never once, however, suggested that every single one of them should not have been immediately defrocked.

I do make a distinction between a man plying a teenager with liquor and drugs and then forcing himself upon her/him, and a man persuading a teenage boy/girl to have sex with him in exchange for whatever. While both actions are contemptible, I consider physical force to be a more decisively criminal behaviour.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Yes, your disgust for the rape of a child betrays your puritanical streak and your hatred of the arts.

I wouldn't just pick on the Europeans, though, Argus. Our own Lady Black, the right-wing Canadian columnist and social conservative Barbara Amiel, wrote the most expansive and impassioned plea FOR Polanski that I've yet seen. She utterly belittled the rape in her support of the Great Man. Perhaps she's morally rudderless while His Lordship languishes in prison.

I guess the Blacks want to start getting invited to dinner parties now that Conrad has got bail. Got to smooch up to the Highe Society types.

[Jack Weber]

I guess the Blacks want to start getting invited to dinner parties now that Conrad has got bail. Got to smooch up to the Highe Society types.

I suppose Babs will be writing flowery puff pieces about her husband in an attempt to resucitate(sp) Blackity Blacks image?

[DogOnPorch]

[ironstone]

Do you suppose if Polanski was known as a conservative he would have gotten any sympathy?

I believe he did drug the 13 yr old girl when this happened.How could anyone be sympathetic to him?Sexual abuse is a horrible crime,whether it's done by a Priest or a powerful Hollywood director.

[TimG]

I can't figure out why people think the fact the victim 'forgives him' means he should be able to avoid facing punishment. Victims of crimes forgive their abusers as part of their healing process - i.e. by forgiving they can let go of the anger and move on. This forgiveness does not absolve the abuser of anything. In fact, many victims find it difficult to forgive because they feel they are absolving the abuser.

[DogOnPorch]

Do you suppose if Polanski was known as a conservative he would have gotten any sympathy?

I believe he did drug the 13 yr old girl when this happened.How could anyone be sympathetic to him?Sexual abuse is a horrible crime,whether it's done by a Priest or a powerful Hollywood director.

The pickle with this case is the victim doesn't want him to be tried. She'd rather the whole thing go away.

[DogOnPorch]

I can't figure out why people think the fact the victim 'forgives him' means he should be able to avoid facing punishment. Victims of crimes forgive their abusers as part of their healing process - i.e. by forgiving they can let go of the anger and move on. This forgiveness does not absolve the abuser of anything. In fact, many victims find it difficult to forgive because they feel they are absolving the abuser.

True...but then the victim gets trampled upon for a second time plus she'll no doubt be forced to give-up the hush-hush money provided.

[August1991]

I see why you selected what you did...rather, why you chose not to select what you didn't.

Bloodyminded, what the hell are you talking about?

I think you are prejudging me. That is, you seem to think that I am defending Barbara Amiel. Far from it.

Instead, I went to the trouble of finding her article, quoting part of it and providing a link. My quote of Amiel's article starts with:

P.D. Ouspensky, an early 20th-century philosopher, had a strange theory that everything in the world was finite; take away from one thing and its losses will be compensated by an increase somewhere else. This odd idea is a good metaphor for our attitude to consensual sexual encounters between adults and children.

Amiel presents the idea of zero-sum thinking as somehow profound by embellishing it with some obscure Russian (?) philosopher. (Anyone who starts an argument with zero-sum thinking has usually lost me - unless the context is absolutely clear. The first law of thermodynamics comes to mind.)

But then Amiel inexplicably links this to, as she puts it, "consensual sexual encounters between adults and children".

I dunno. Smart people say really stupid things sometimes - whether in an expansive, impassioned way or not.

Edited July 21, 2010 by August1991

[Jack Weber]

Bloodyminded, what the hell are you talking about?

I think you are prejudging me. That is, you seem to think that I am defending Barbara Amiel. Far from it.

Instead, I went to the trouble of finding her article, quoting part of it and providing a link. My quote of Amiel's article starts with:

Amiel presents the idea of zero-sum thinking as somehow profound by embellishing it with some obscure Russian (?) philosopher. (Anyone who starts an argument with zero-sum thinking has usually lost me - unless the context is absolutely clear. The first law of thermodynamics comes to mind.)

But then Amiel inexplicably links this to, as she puts it, "consensual sexual encounters between adults and children".

I dunno. Smart people say really stupid things sometimes - whether in an expansive, impassioned way or not.

Babs ain't that smart...She just bows at the altar of status...

[August1991]

I can't figure out why people think the fact the victim 'forgives him' means he should be able to avoid facing punishment.

Neither can I Tim, and so I don't care what the now 40 year old woman in this case now thinks of Polanski.

She didn't charge him with a crime; the State of California did. This wasn't a civil suit, it was a criminal case. Indeed, I have always found Islamic or Sharia law weak on this point of treating criminal cases as if they were civil cases.

The State should punish someone like Polanski as a warning to other potential criminals of what they can expect if they commit this crime and are caught. This is not a question of vengeance or a private affair at all; it directly concerns other potential perpetrators, and their potential victims.

[ToadBrother]

I can't figure out why people think the fact the victim 'forgives him' means he should be able to avoid facing punishment. Victims of crimes forgive their abusers as part of their healing process - i.e. by forgiving they can let go of the anger and move on. This forgiveness does not absolve the abuser of anything. In fact, many victims find it difficult to forgive because they feel they are absolving the abuser.

I can understand her point of view. I don't think she is so much interested in the forgiveness as much as every time Polanski ends up in the news, her name inevitably gets dragged into it. I think she long ago tired of then notoriety and figures if the US drops the case, the spotlight might stop pointing at her.

The chief problem here is that I don't see any feasible way for the US courts to let Polanski off the hook even if they wanted to (and I'll wager the prosecutors would rather just have this one go away). He isn't just a guy who didn't show up to court, he was tried, plead guilty, was convicted, only performed a part of the sentence (though the nature of the sentence seems to be a bone of contention with his supporters) and then fled the United States. The prosecutors and the judge have made it clear time and time again that if there are issues (which it seems there are) with the fairness of the original sentence and the conduct of the prosecutor and the judge at that time, Polanski has to return to the jurisdiction in which he was sentenced to make his case. The courts have no power to simply pardon someone convicted of a crime, as with any sort of appeal there has to be a demonstration of an error in application of the law or new evidence. In Polanski's case, he admitted to raping the girl, the issue is whether or not the plea bargain he made was improperly and illegally ignored by the judge.