Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child [UPDATED]

(Hat tip: Joe Carter at First Thoughts)

At Slate, Kate Harding writes the definitive rebuttal to all the Roman Polanski apologists:
Roman Polanski 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.


Polanski was "demonized by the press" because he raped a child, and was convicted because he pled guilty. He "feared heavy sentencing" because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon by the legal system. Shore really wants us to pity him because of these things? (And, I am not making this up, boycott the entire country of Switzerland for arresting him.)

As ludicrous as Shore's post is, I have to agree with Fecke that my favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum, who finds it "bizarre" that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case.
There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.
There is also evidence that Polanski raped a child. There is evidence that the victim did not consent, regardless of her age. There is evidence -- albeit purely anecdotal, in this case -- that only the most debased crapweasel thinks "I didn't know she was 13!" is a reasonable excuse for raping a child, much less continuing to rape her after she's said no repeatedly. There is evidence that the California justice system does not hold that "notoriety, lawyers' fees and professional stigma" are an appropriate sentence for child rape.

But hey, he wasn't allowed to pick up his Oscar in person! For the love of all that's holy, hasn't the man suffered enough?

[Read the whole thing]

Additional commentary that highlights the blatant hypocrisy at play here.

HotAir asks just how liberal do you have to be in order to be excused for raping a 13-year-old:
Needless to say, this reminds me of the left’s umbrage at conservatives daring to bring up Chappaquiddick after Teddy died. Yeah, he left a woman to drown and then made jokes about it afterwards; he was for universal health care, though, wasn’t he? Same with Polanski: Dare we deny the man who made “Chinatown” an occasional drugging and raping of a child? Sure, a kid gets traumatized for life, but on the other side of the scale: “Rosemary’s Baby.” It’d be sweet if the left could come up with some sort of mathematical formula by which we could tell whether an artist or liberal politician has exceeded his quotient of moral indulgence. I’m assuming “Chinatown” wasn’t so awesome that Polanski would be excused for shooting a kid in the head at point-blank range, so evidently the film’s “worth” less than that but more than a child-rape. Let’s figure out just how much of a liberal hero you have to be to get away with certain crimes.
(emphasis added)

And Creative Minority Report asks us to "Imagine He Were a Priest":
Just for a moment I want you to imagine that Roman Polanski was a priest. Frightening, yes? But for the sake of my point imagine that he's a priest who drugged and raped a thirteen year old.

Imagine he's a priest who fled to France so as to avoid punishment for his crime. Imagine that he flaunted his freedom in America's face for decades.

Now imagine that Roman Polanski as a priest was apprehended by the police after all those years. Now, imagine what the media would be saying...

And writing at Politics Daily, David Gibson has similar thoughts:
... There is the obvious parallel to the cases in the Catholic Church, which have rightly scandalized the public and the media. Prosecutors and plaintiffs' attorneys have been dogged in pursuing these cases -- whether out of concern for their careers or for justice -- and the outrage was so widespread that the State of California created a one-year window in 2003 during which the statute of limitations on abuse crimes by Catholic priests (and others) was lifted. That meant the victims of men who were often long dead could finally get their day in court, or find some sense of justice and closure -- and for cases that were no more egregious than Polanski's abuse of Geimer. Polanski is alive, at least.

Comparisons are by their nature invidious. But what if Roman Polanksi were wearing a Roman collar? Would "Monsignor Polanksi" receive the same considerations? As Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit, writes at the Post's "On Faith" site, "Imagine if the Knights of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal." And rightly so, as Reese says. But Polanski gets an Oscar in absentia in 2003 and earns sympathy because he can't receive it in person...

I always did like singer-songwriter Jewel. This just confirms me in my high regard for her.

UPDATE #3 (30 September)
More from HotAir on the "how liberal do you have to be to get a get of jail free card" question:
... Polanski’s defenders cite his brilliance as an Important Director of Important Films as a reason it’s not only wrong, but outrageous, to punish him for his past crimes. This is similar to the arguments made in favor of releasing convicted cop-killer Mumia abu Jamal from prison, a point of view enthusiastically held by at least one high-ranking member of the Obama Administration: that fabled Rohrschach inkblot of liberal stupidity, Van Jones. Mumia’s delicate writing hand is much more important than the one he used to shoot Officer Daniel Faulkner in the back.

The Left also issues Get Out of Jail Free cards to people other than artists. The Polanski defense is a nostalgic karaoke rendition of the 1998 anthem “Perjury About Sex Is Not A Crime,” sung on Bill Clinton’s behalf. Perjury, infidelity, and what the antique feminist movement used to call “sexual harassment” were small prices to pay for Clinton’s inspirational leadership.

You can’t say the Left is entirely soft on crime, however. There are some scofflaws they’ll never stop trying to put behind bars. CIA agents who kept America safe from terrorists, for example. None of the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay was innocent, or thirteen years old, and none of them were drugged, raped, and sodomized, but the Obama Administration is keen on prosecuting the people who interrogated them. If Roman Polanski had covered his victim’s face with a wet towel, maybe his defense would be a bit less energetic.

Another individual the Left wants brought to justice is Karl Rove, for the crime of being Karl Rove. The other charges against him range from being nebulous to absurd, but rest assured, it would be a great day for America if we could frog-march that villain into the vacant cell left behind by a liberated Mumia abu Jamal. Best of all would be the trial and imprisonment of George W. Bush, a fantasy the Left holds with the intensity of a small child shivering through a sleepless Christmas Eve. Bush actually did the stuff Clinton just talked about - liberating the people of Iraq from monstrous tyranny, fighting AIDS in Africa - but it earns him no slack from liberal vigilantes. He did more for women’s rights than anyone alive today - you can ask the women of Afghanistan about it, now that their faces aren’t wrapped in upholstery - but he didn’t do anything really important, like make a movie about the sexual oppression of suburban America.


George Bush’s first offense was denying America the brilliant, socially aware, technocratic leadership of Al Gore. The statue of limitations will never run out on something like that. Meanwhile, forcing a beloved Hollywood director to end his life in the slammer for a little error in judgment, like rape, would be unthinkably crass… as long as his Party credentials are in order. That is why the same people who turned their backs on Elia Kazan weep for Roman Polanski today, and will weep again at his career retrospective, on some future Oscar night. The Party may have changed its name, and adjusted its methods, but it still remembers what Kazan did to it, and his sentence extends far beyond the end of his life.
I'll never forget that bunch of leftist communist sympathizers in Hollywood - lefties like Nick Nolte and Ed Harris - sitting on their hands when Elia Kazan was awarded an Oscar for lifetime achievement. And when it comes to irony, it's hard to beat this quote from the late Rod Steiger regarding Kazan's Oscar award:
"Age and ability in the arts or anything else, in my opinion, does not excuse a crime,'' says Rod Steiger, star of "On the Waterfront."
Funny thing is, Kazan's informing on a bunch of commies wasn't a crime. Drugging and raping a little girl, however, is.

May all the Hollywood lefties and pervert apologists see Polanski do hard time in a California prison.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


At 9/29/2009 9:56 AM, Blogger Phillip said...

Now imagine if he were a priest.

At 9/29/2009 2:14 PM, Blogger CrankyCon said...

It's amazing the sort of depravity people will defend. Sickening.

At 9/29/2009 9:35 PM, Blogger matthew archbold said...

come on. he didn't rape rape that girl. (HT Whoopi Goldberg)

At 9/29/2009 9:52 PM, Blogger Donald R. McClarey said...

The attitude of the cultural bottomfeeders in defense of this child rapist reminds me of aristocrats in Europe who were expected to be able to have their way with peasant women. Polanski is of their class and thus they rally to his defense. Odd that so many of the Hollywood dimeratti embrace Marxism without realizing that their defense reeks of the privilege of an exploitative class. (Actually it is not so odd. Most of them probably believe that Karl is somehow related to Groucho, Harpo and Chico, and I write this only half in jest. Never underestimate the ignorance of most Hollywood minions.)

Good points here by neo-neo con:

"In answer to those who wonder what’s up with these people, I submit the following explanations for their point of view:

(1) moral relativism run amok. There are no objective standards of behavior. Who are we to judge, anyway?

(2) worship of the elite by the elite, or the would-be elite (see also this)

(3) the sexualization of children. You can see it everywhere: fashion, entertainment, and in any school in town. And yes, it’s a very slippery slope.

(4) the desire to be seen as a spiritually evolved human being, a forgiving sort who is far above the primitive desire of others for revenge and retribution rather than peace and love (it’s so Old Testament, you know)

(5) the end of the idea that society is a player in the game, an entity with an interest in setting standards for human behavior."


At 9/29/2009 10:11 PM, Blogger lamt said...

The vile and licentiousness liberal left should be a chilling spectacle to put the fear of God in all of us--if the cold-blooded murder of unborn children is considered 'a right' to them, can we in all seriousness expect them to acknowledge the absolute depravity in the rape of a 13 year old girl?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger