Roman Polanski: better late than never
Nick Broomfield made a tit of himself on This Week last night when he found that Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo—pissed though they invariably are—take child-rape a tad more seriously than a bunch of ignorant luvvies.
The scene was set with a clip of Peter Fonda using perhaps the most specious reasoning I have ever come across.
Interviewer: Do you think Mr Polanski should be punished?
Fonda: No. I think Dick Cheney should be punished.
Fonda: Because he's a criminal. He's a war criminal.
WHAT?!! Is this the Chewbacca defence? Hey man, it's like Bush is the real terrorist, yeah? Fucking hell-fire. After all these years, is the Iraq war really the only thing these Film Actors Guild twats can talk about?
Peter, it's not an either/or situation. I assume there is more than one jail cell in California so how's about using one of them for a guy who anally raped a 13 year girl, jumped bail and has spent 30 years evading justice?
As you will know, dear reader, Fonda isn't the only FAG spokesman to have spoken out in support of the Oscar winning kiddy-fiddler.
Polanski's friend, Swiss filmmaker Otto Weisser, was among the first to publicly run to his defense.
"This is for me a shock. I am ashamed to be Swiss, that the Swiss is doing such a thing to brilliant fantastic genius, that millions and millions of people love his work," Weisser said upon learning the director had been detained by Swiss authorities. "He's a brilliant guy, and he made a little mistake 32 years ago. What a shame for Switzerland."
A "little mistake"?
Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor...
Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop
The number of luvvies leaping to the defence of this child-buggerer is astonishing.
"He is sweet and very strong and is very, very demanding, in the tradition of an auteur," said Sigourney Weaver about being directed by Polanski in 1994's "Death and the Maiden."
Yeah, Sigourney. It's so unfair isn't it? It's like that nice Fred West. No one ever mentions his lovely brick-work, they just keep banging on about all them women he killed.
Studio chief Harvey Weinstein told CNN in a statement: "We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation."
And what, Weinstein, should these filmmakers do? Hold a rally to get the law changed so that anyone with an Oscar can go around butt-fucking kids? What is the matter with these people?
Goldberg, star of The Color Purple and Sister Act, said: "I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape."
You're right, Whoopi. It wasn't "rape-rape". It was child-rape. If you're implying that fucking a child isn't really rape if it's consensual then I think the law might take a slightly different view on what constitutes consent. If the male in question was 13 years old himself then you might—might—be tempted to turn a blind eye, but seeing as Polanski was 45 at the time, there really is no excuse.
Not that the victim did consent in any case:
“I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No’, and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she said in an interview [in 2003].
This really couldn't be much more clear-cut. Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape. There is no statute of limitations on the crime. It makes no difference whether Polanski is or is not a threat to children today. He broke the law and then broke another law by jumping bail. The man is as guilty as sin and the fact that Sigourney Weaver thinks he's a smashing bloke is of absolutely no fucking consequence.
Which brings us to Nick Broomfield, who decided to go on This Week to present the FAG line to a British audience. Alas, he found Andrew Neil to be a tougher interrogator than his mates down the Groucho Club:
Andrew Neil: "Let me put a simple proposition to you. He was convicted of a pretty terrible crime. He should serve his sentence."
This rational line of enquiry threw Broomfield completely. After a brief pause, he replied:
"Yes. But I think we also need to ask another question, which is 'Why now?' and 'Is the law very expedient?'
I think with all this hoop-la, I rather agree with Peter Fonda. You'd think that Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld or somebody who'd really committed some big crimes was actually convicted."
Hell's teeth, man. Dick Cheney has got absolutely nothing to do with this. When will you tedious tub-thumping liberal tossers change the fucking record? And, last time I checked, drugging children and fucking them up the arse was a pretty "big crime", a crime that Roman Polanski, unlike Dick Cheney, has been convicted of.
As for the question of "Why now?" The answer is, as The Huffington Post points out, "Why the fuck not?"
The argument that he's been allowed to roam free for 30 years, therefore he should be allowed to stay free is moronic. Just because some lame-ass law-enforcement authorities had their collective thumbs up their asses for three decades does not give Polanski a get out of jail free card.
Should we not arrest Nazi war criminals because they've been living in Argentina for 65 years and might be "liked" by their neighbors? Who cares when justice ultimately gets served, as long as it gets served. Let's keep things in perspective here: the Los Angeles DA's office has not committed any crimes. Polanski has.
Michael Portillo exposed the hypocrisy of Broomfield's position by pointing out that no lefty fuckwits started yelling when Pinochet was arrested in similar circumstances. Nor would they be complaining if the same thing happened to Tony Blair.
Portillo: "When Pinochet was arrested in London after a very long time, I expect most of the greats of Hollywood thought it was a jolly good idea.
But the arbitrariness of the way these indictments are served up in different countries, I think, does raise some interesting questions for the future. And you may be quite pleased with what happens in the future.
Who knows whether Tony Blair one day will be passing through Spain and Balthazar Garzon takes out an indictment against him."
Broomfield: "I can't wait for the day."
Dianne Abbott: "Yeah!"
Broomfield: "I can't wait for the day."
Should that day ever come, neither Broomfield, Fonda nor any other Hollwood pecker-head will be kicking up a stink and complaining that it was all a long time ago. Unless, of course, Blair gets done for child molestation, in which case—apparently—he'll just be one of the boys.