Weep Not for Roman Polanski
Sep 28th, 2009 | 29 responses
There is a huge controversy building over something that should not be controversial at all: the arrest of 76-year-old film director Roman Polanski on charges going back to his rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
Kate Harding has a superb piece in Salon reminding Polanski’s defenders that the man “raped a child“:
Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). Let’s keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she’d rather not see him prosecuted because she can’t stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.
Read the rest of Harding’s piece — it’s essential to understanding this story.
Cross-posted at Comments from Left Field.
29 Responses to “Weep Not for Roman Polanski”
agreed. hard to believe this is the slightest bit controversial. the intervening 31 years has left the crime no less monstrous. hang 'im high!
ITA!! Polanski should have been arrested years ago. A lot of these people portray Polanski as the victim because the Swiss had the nerve to arrest him. I say good for the Swiss. The guy was a coward for fleeing the country in the first place.
It was time to pay the piper. One cannot run forever.
I think the man is scum, slime, etc and deserves to rot in jail.
However given the time and effort that will go into the fight over extradition, the battle over venue, the issues of finding an unbiased jury and the fact that at 76 he is likely to die before all of this is done, I am not unsympathetic to those who question if it is worth the time.
But I certainly would not be upset if they succeed.
Check for a Blue Moon. I find myself in full agreement with you on this one. Kudos to you, Kathy Kattenburg.
And yes, Kate Harding's article was to the point and excellent, a breath of fresh air amidst the jaded “how dare they nab Polanski” coverage.
I was surprised because I thought there was a statute of limitations. OTOH, I certainly think it's justified to get him on this crime and have no sympathy at all for him. I'm just surprised it didn't happen sooner.
There is no statute of limitations on apprehending a fugitive that has already pleaded guilty or been found guilty. Statute of limitations concern the time between the commission of a crime and charges being filed. Otherwise, escape and flight post conviction would be much more prevalent.
In this case, charges were filed, Polanski plead guilty, a sentencing hearing was scheduled, and he then fled the country before the sentencing hearing occurred.
Which also begs the question of why CNN and other MSM organizations keep referring to his actions as 'alleged'. He plead guilty, did not contest the facts in evidence, and the victim has been consistent through the years to the specific events. What is 'alleged' about that?
Jim – Two quick points, hope they help. The Statute of Limitations is generally the time between commission of the act and the issuance of the indictment. Once issued the indictment remains valid. In addition, Polanski fled the jurisdiction. When one flees the jurisdiction the Statute of Limitations is tolled until the individual re-enters the jurisdiction. Since Polanski never re-entered the jurisdiction, the clock on any Statute of Limitations would never have started re-ticking. But, it will be interesting to see how creative his attorneys can get on this issue if he is returned (there is something in addition to the Statute of Limitations sometimes referred to as the Statute of Ultimate Repose beyond which further action cannot be taken, but with his guilty plea that would seem to be unlikely to help him).
A note to any Polanski apologists, though I don't see any here. Polanski was never “in exile”; he was a fugitive from justice. It's time he was returned and held to account.
AR, This: “begs the question of why CNN and other MSM organizations keep referring to his actions as 'alleged'.”
…is perfectly spot-on.
It really makes me sad to see all of the celebrities who have come out in support of Polanski. Whoopi Goldberg, who I usually like, said something along the lines of “I know it wasn't rape-rape”. What the hell is “rape-rape”? How does it differ from other rape? Is she implying there's some sort of date-rape where maybe she said yes and maybe she said no? With a 13-year-old?
It is worse than that. Did you read the link Kathy provided? The descriptions of what actually happened? Or the Grand Jury testimony of the victim?
I will never understand the ability of Hollywood and its Liberals (not all Liberals, just the Hollywood ones) to justify the actions of 'one of their own'.
How refreshing it is to agree with EVERYONE on a post!!!!
Has that ever happened before?
Now if we can just get you pesky liberals to stop being wrong on everything else, we'll all join hands and sing “Kum ba ya”.
LOL
JD -
Yeah, nice to have everyone on the same page.
Now if we could just get people to stop saying that anyone who disgrees with them is “wrong”. Oops, sometimes I just can't stop my fingers from typing such things.
AR — Yes, I know the details. Wish I didn't.
“I will never understand the ability of Hollywood and its Liberals “
See, this is the thing that is so deeply disappointing to me. I'm not one to criticize Hollywood types for using their influence for causes they believe in. I certainly am rare to criticize “liberals”, being a pretty staunch liberal myself. My confusion is: how can these austensibly progressive people, who supposedly hang their political hats on things like equality of justice, equal protection under the law, speaking truth power, leveling the playing field for those without priviledge, women's and children's rights, etc, how can people who believe in these things side with a rich, powerful man over athe innocent little girl he vicitmized in such a brutal way, just because he happens to be an excellent film maker?
In fact, there's something a bit weird about seeing so many far right people suddenly be so interested in justice for a rape victim. I mean, the rape apologism, slut-shaming, she-asked-for-it type language I've seen in the past on this very site regularly blow my mind (not to mention the more right-leaning sites where I occasionally dip my toes). The cynic in me has the thought that some of those who are strongly condemning this particular rape are doing so because they dislike the “Hollywood liberal elite”. I hope that's not the case, and that the next time a story comes out about a right wing man committing a sex crime, or the next time the victim is a woman of color, or the perpetrator is a famous football star, they will be just as disgusted by the crime, just as unwilling to turn their backs on the victims — or worse, blame the victims.
Thanks, AR and tidbits. And AR is right about the “alleged”.
roro – as a whole, I think you will find the Right is much more in favor of strong laws against statutory rape, so not sure where you were going with your criticism. Many on the Right support the death penalty for statutory rape when the victim is young enough, in fact. Your argument might carry more water if you were talking about adult/adult date rape, but not this type of activity.
AR — I'm not sure if you're saying that right-of-center commenters do not throw around victim blaming during rape cases (maybe you're asking for examples?), or if you're trying to say that they do victim-blame for adult rape victims but don't for child victims. I'm happy to talk to you further on either of the subjects, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Just to note: it's already been established through this particular case (and countless others) that left-leaning people are just as happy to throw a victim to the wolves as well, depending on the circumstances.
roro – I was simply responding to what you said there's something a bit weird about seeing so many far right people suddenly be so interested in justice for a rape victim.
I was trying to be nice, instead of saying what I really felt about what you said, which was to tell you to go f*ck your own sanctimonious a$$hole.
WTF man? That was highly unnecessary, particularly as it was not me but you who started in with the wah wah Hollywood Liberals thing.
Dear AR; just take it down a bit. We've got the policy, you know, dont attack each other or the writer. Debate away otherwise. Thanks.
dr.e
When the question involves the rape of a 13 year old, I don't thing there are any partisan or ideological divides among most Americans.
Dr. e. -
Sorry. I would like to say it won't happen again, but it probably will.
At least I used symbol substitution for the naughty words (used to work!).
roro – well, sorry dude, but in case you haven't noticed, it WAS the Hollywood Liberals that have jumped to his defense.
You are the one who took a specific comment that I limited strictly to those who are indeed reprehensibly defending the undefendable (are you ready to defend Polanski?) and then made an ad hominem attack on the Right as a whole as being pro-rape, and only objecting to this case because it involves a Liberal.
You even objected to my pointing out correctly that it is the Right that pushes for stronger laws and punishments against child rape, which again is true. I did not say the Left or Liberals are pro-child rape or even imply any such smear, unlike your smears.
I stick by my deleted comment, btw. At least I know you saw it.
BTW – in Polanski's own words from 1979:
If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!
Whole article: Roman Polanski: 'Everyone else fancies little girls too'
ht: the corner
thanks AR, I appreciate your help in keeping TMV high energy and civil. And you most often do. So thanks.
The issues about protection of the young and other topics can be especially blood-pressure raising in our times. And, writers, commenters, including you, make very strong statements without the 'extra' English on the ball, as my vet hubby would say… ahem, perhaps with a little 'blue' thrown in privately. At TMV debate, discuss, disagree, agree, teach… all of these are part of the dialogue here.
kindest regards,
dr.e
dr.e
AR — Look, I have in no way defended Polanski; I think the guy is scum, and I've said nothing to the contrary. I am deeply disconserted by the large group of influencial people who are standing up for this guy. The “Everyone else fancies little girls too” article is mind blowing. We're in total agreement on all that.
Perhaps I broadened the discussion too far; it does make me scratch my head when I see feminists and the right suddenly in lockstep on a particular issue, and particularly on an issue closely related to something like women's rights. I still think that the policies and rhetoric of the right contribute significantly to a culture that tacitly condones violence against women, which is why I carry significant cynicism in this case. If this was the wrong place to discuss that, I do take responsibility and apologize for moving the conversation in that direction.
roro -
I still think that the policies and rhetoric of the right contribute significantly to a culture that tacitly condones violence against women
We can agree to disagree on that.
One question. Do you agree that as a whole Hollywood and the film industry is controlled by the Left/Liberals? If so (and I have to think you would agree with that), how then do you justify your statement in light of the overall portrayal of women in film, and their treatment by the film industry and its power brokers? There are of course the few exceptions each year, but if there is a more degrading and misogynous industry than Hollywood short of stripping. hooking or porn, I cannot think of it.
I, too, apologize for uncouth words when I got heated, but I still vehemently reject your characterizations of the Right towards women.
[...] Weep Not for Roman Polanski (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Not only are there some so low that they defend Polanski (a rapist and a fugitive), but they even are continuing the rad-lib line and attacking the evil Establishment for daring to do such an “awful” thing as prosecute the rapist and fugitive.
Hollywood (and to a lesser extent, the others taking the hard-left line, including in the media) is presently engaging in some of the worst self-destructive PR efforts conceivable.
Not one of them has noted aloud the coincidence that this event involves the Swiss, who recently were made to knuckle under to ObamaCo tax-related demands (identity of Swiss account holders). No squawks then, but now, “Whatever happened to Swiss neutrality?” (What's next, a lament and requiem for Swiss “sovereignty”?) If the Swiss can be made to divulge identification of bank account holders, certainly they can seize and hand over a low-life rapist and fugitive like Polanski, even if this offends the far Left.