Friday, October 02, 2009

Roman Polanski: better late than never

(N.B. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)

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.

Interviewer: Why?

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.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hear, hear, FS; bang on the money, as usual.

JuliaM said...

"The number of luvvies leaping to the defence of this child-buggerer is astonishing."

And yet, not surprising...

Quiet_Man said...

Pretty much sums up my view of the whole matter, very eloquently put too.

Anonymous said...

http://conservative-vision.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

A couple of things:

There is no doubt he sexually abused a girl of 13 some 30 years ago and should have served time. The only problem now is that the victim, who is now married with children, has openly said that she has no interest in pressing charges and that she had already settled for financial compensation out of court with Polanski years ago.

Also, he has been coming in and out of Switzerland openly for years, so why only now have they come after him?

Surely at his point the wishes of the victim, who is now old enough and mature enough to decide what she wants, should count for something, or are you all of the opinion that only the state has the right whether to decide if something is right or wrong.

If so, then take your alchohol and cigarette entitlement cards, ID cards, registered child minder listings and enjoy them.

The Filthy Smoker said...

The only problem now is that the victim, who is now married with children, has openly said that she has no interest in pressing charges

There's no problem. The case has already been settled and Polanski has already been found guilty. She doesn't need to press charges - she already has.

Also, he has been coming in and out of Switzerland openly for years, so why only now have they come after him?

Who cares? At least justice has been served eventually.

Surely at his point the wishes of the victim, who is now old enough and mature enough to decide what she wants, should count for something

Her comments have been ambiguous, as if she's sick of talking about it, rather than has forgiven Polanski. Besides, now the court has passed judgement the views of the victim - which may well have been distorted by the money she has been paid - are no longer relevant. And, yes, the state (ie. the law) does decide what is right or wrong and the law must take its course. The victim's willingness to forgive does not change that.

Gnostic said...

Polanski should do the time, no argument. These luvvies are probably the same Hollywood shitheads who think we should be all taxed to hell and back over CO2 driven thermageddon. Which has now, by the way, been very thoroughly negated by real scientists using real empirical evidence and not some over-priced, inaccurate, technological fortunetelling machine (like the Met Office has).

Rob said...

"The number of luvvies leaping to the defence of this child-buggerer is astonishing."

It shows the complete moral vacuum in which they live. Their ego is everything; they imagine themselves in the same position and gasp "But I'm an artist, they can't do that!"

Why now?

As the writer said, why not? Will the arts establishment be so good as to draw up a time limit, for each crime, after which you cannot arrest luvvies?

As for the victim, she doesn't want the thing to continue because of the press harassment she would receive. That's hardly a ringing declaration of clemency.

Southerner said...

If the 13 year old girl two doors down from you was raped by a 43 year old man on the next street, you wouldn't be talking about weighing his talent and brilliance against the 13 year old's suffering. The whole neighborhood would want to hang him before he did it again.

Polanski made a decision decades ago to run from the California judicial system. Every few years since the 70s (when I was in high school) there would be an article in the newspaper saying that the whole situation should be worked out so that Polanski could come back to Hollywood and make his movies instead of being exiled to Europe.

Apparently, being convicted in absentia of child rape didn't cause Polanski to re-examine his life, as numerous reliable sources (including photographers) have documented his continuing taste for underage girls while in exile.

He should have done prison time long ago, in which case he would have been a free man many years ago by now, although possibly still banned from the USA as an undesirable.

Finally, his friends keep bringing up the fact that he lost his birth family during WWII, and his wife and unborn child due to a murder. This is all tragic, but tragedy should lead you to a greater state of maturity, and give you greater compassion for other victims of tragedies, it should NOT turn you into a middle-aged man who drugs and rapes underage girls who have been lured to his home under false pretenses.

Polanski is a classic narcissist/sociopath with no true conscience. Other people were put on this earth for his use, and he is so special that ordinary laws and social norms simply do not apply to him.

Southerner said...

What does the word "luvvie" mean?

JuliaM said...

It's English slang for an actor.

A certain type of actor, mainly, the ones who attend functions and air-kiss and gossip and would scratch each other's eyes out for a good part or just a good table at the Iny...

Anonymous Coward said...

@Southerner: From a deprecated theatrical habit of calling one another "love" or "darling" - a luvvie generally refers to someone who's in with the theatrical crowd, with overtones of cliquishness and name-dropping. It's a bit like calling someone a queen, I think, though not necessarily an insult.

Good post. The Pianist is among my favourite films - but said film didn't rape anyone, the director did.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Well, I can understand why you might want Polaski to be punished, FS, but anybody who has read Kenneth Anger's Hollywood Babylon can tell you the film industry has a dark and sordid past when it comes to the sexual predilections of some of its most famous icons.

I think this pervasive mood contributes far more to the utterances from Polanski's peers rather than any dominant political ideology?
Surrounding yourself with midgets and cocaine must eventually take its toll I guess?

North Northwester said...

Anonymous
"Surely at his point the wishes of the victim, who is now old enough and mature enough to decide what she wants, should count for something, or are you all of the opinion that only the state has the right whether to decide if something is right or wrong."

Maybe it should count for something - and it doesn't look like it'll be necessary for her to go into court, but it is legislators' duty to enact right into law (to some value of 'right') and it is for the courts and police to enforce such laws.
Drugging, raping and sodomizing children is wrong. Law exists to punish those who do such things to intimidate would-be child rapists.
A young girl's freedom, sanity and health were all assaulted by an adult man, and it'd be a better world if that man had not been lionized and enriched for work he did during an undeserved period of freedom. Law is for collective self-defence - especially but not only for the benefit of children who are pretty defenceless against ruthless and selfish adults.
His rightful imprisonment will serve as a lesson to those who think they can abuse children about them and maybe get away with it.

Anonymous, freedom is not some abstract value conjured up by the big foreheads of the past - it's a real and necessary condition of civilised life, and the victim's freedom - and this includes future victims, comes before the freedom of saggy old pedders like Polanski.

john in cheshire said...

Send him back to the USA to be punished. Who he is or what talents he has is immaterial. If it was my child, or my sister, or my niece, I would want the man castrated, regardless of who he is. In fact, the more famous he was, the more severe the punishment it should be; pour encourager les autres. It would be nice to see some footballers jailed for their excesses. They seem to be the modern-day equivalent of the film star/producer/director.

Joe Public said...

Paul Gadd's looking for rehabilitation too.

Southerner said...

I'll add that the articles in American newspapers over the years have been none-too-subtle about saying that Polanski's behavior would be "no big deal" in France or elsewhere in Europe, and that only the laughable Puritanism of Americans caused poor Polanski to be prosecuted in the first place for an offense that would have been overlooked in Europe.

The first time my children went to Europe as young adults, I reminded them that each country has its own set of laws, and that if they weren't positive that something was legal in whatever country they were visiting, they needed to be careful to avoid doing it or possessing it, etc. By the time you are 43, you should know that if you rape a 13 year old in Puritanical America, you better be on the first available flight to somewhere with no extradition treaty.

It is Polanski's bad luck that he has been returned to the US at a time when the average American has had a belly full of foreigners breaking every law, and signing up for benefits to which they are not entitled, and then saying that they shouldn't be punished because they come from a different culture, and don't speak much English, didn't realize they were committing a fraud, etc.

For instance, it is reportedly not considered to be a serious crime to kidnap and rape a woman in a number of countries, as long as you are willing to marry her afterwards. There have been a number of cases of foreigners pretending that they didn't understand America's customs well enough to know that this was a serious offense here. Sometimes this claim is made after they have already lived here for several years. We are just now finding out that the Somalis that we have given green cards to are returning to Somalia to attend Al Queda training camps to learn how to blow up trains and buildings when they return to America, etc. That's a completely separate matter, but there IS a rising sentiment that multiculturalism is a huge failure, and that if people prefer Sharia law or the Napoleonic Code, etc., they shouldn't live here.

Anonymous said...

"Not that the victim did consent in any case"

that was not accepted by the courts, which dropped the rape charge. The charge is "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Given the time of the offence (77), attitudes are likely to have been very different to the gravity of the offence.

I would also like to understand what the problem is with the alleged misconduct of the trial judge in the plea bargain.

Tim Worstall said...

"There is no statute of limitations on the crime."

Not sure about that (genuinely don't know). There might well be a statute of limitations on statutory rape.

But even if there is it's irrelevant. For he's already been found guilty of it. Statutes of limitation in the US are about how long before a prosecution is started, not how long it goes on after it has.

It's also irrelevant because he is a fugitive from justice. And that's a crime he commits again each day by not turning himself in.

Anonymous said...

"There's no problem. The case has already been settled and Polanski has already been found guilty. She doesn't need to press charges - she already has."

He wasn't found guilty, he pleaded guilty.
Originally published in The Washington Post, August 10, 1977
Polanski, 43, pleaded guilty to one of six charges facing him, thereby avoiding a trial.
http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html

cartermagna said...

Um, where are these countries you speak of where a 45 year old man ass-fucking a child is considered just a little bit naughty rather than a major crime? I'm sure most European countries have a similar view on this.

He pleaded guilty rather than was found guilty? So he's guilty then. Still pretty simple.

Jules said...

if you can't do the time, become an overrated director and then rely on liberal art-fart tossers to fight your corner when your fugitive sins catch you up.

tate, manson and his awful childhood nothwithstanding, he's a still a fugitive from a serious crime that he's never answered for - and in which the facts are documented and appear to be safely beyond dispute.

no special treatment. extradite him. justice better late than never.

Current said...

In Washington DC there lives a chap called "Roissy". He is a pickup artist and a complete arsehole.

His comments on this were hilarious...

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/roman-polanski-alpha-male/

I think his is correct about why so many women are rushing to Polanski's defense though.

Southerner said...

Cartermagna, it has been a while since I have read about these cases, but I think that there was one defendant who was from a rural area of Mexico (there are areas of Mexico where the only language spoken by most locals is an indigenous Indian language rather than Spanish, and these people no doubt have very different customs.) I think that there have also been men from Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan who argued that it wasn't wrong to "carry off a bride."

I didn't mean to imply that Polanski's behavior was LEGAL in France, etc.

Junican said...

I know nothing about this guy, Polenski, but to the best of my knowledge, there was never a 'trial' in which evidence was produced. He may or may not have done what he was accused off - witness the fact that saint Jacko settled out of court - you know the case. It may well be that the whole rape thing was a put up job. Who knows?

Thirty years ago is thirty years ago. One would reasonably assume that a proper trial would have to be organised in order to ensure that justice was done. Where are the witnesses, where is the proof?

Mr Devil, your whole arguement is based upon hearsay. That will not do.

lotocoti said...

I know nothing about this guy...
Before you went any further, Junican, perhaps you should've perused the transcripts from his plea hearing.

John B said...

if the male in question was 13 years old himself then you might—might—be tempted to turn a blind eye

Not gonna dissent on the Polanski point - it wasn't proven to be rape, but a 4osomething-year-old man who fucks a 13-year-old girl needs jailed anyway.

But I'm disturbed by your use of 'might' above - you seem to be suggesting there might be circumstances when it's appropriate to prosecute a 13-year-old boy who has consensual sex with a 13-year-old girl, rather than taking the view that anyone who isn't mad would take on the topic.

Antipholus Papps said...

Re. Death and the Maiden: I hope Sigourney Weaver recognises the irony in defending the man who directed her in a film specifically about bringing belated justice to a man who had raped her character many years before.