France has finally conceded, albeit grudgingly, that committing statutory rape on an American girl is a crime. Even if the girl is very American (wow, naked Hollywood teenager!), and even if the rapist is a respected European artist.
This will no doubt come as a shock to many Europeans.
QUOTE: The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm
"Darn," I can already hear you saying, "now what am I going to do on my American vacation?"
It's a good question. You had plans. I understand that. Now you have to rethink things. Very inconvenient.
Perhaps you could leave your penis at home?
We do have plenty of European pricks over here already. More aren't required.
Roman Polanski, a notable European artist and intellectual, had apparently first gotten the girl drunk, then ignoring her pleas and no's raped and sodomized her. After which he found sanctuary in France against the idiotic American justice system, which just didn't understand that he was an important European artist and intellectual, and the victim merely an American teenager - a throw-away lustobject by any rational measure.
For over thirty years the French loyally protected Roman Polanski.
Despite saying no and pleading with him, by French standards the girl must have wanted it or deserved it, because she was an American.
Roman Polanski is an admired European artist and intellectual.
NO equals NON equals NEIN equals ...... NO!
Sex with a thirteen year old, even if she is an American (ergo, not a European) is a crime.
While we gladly admit that thirteen year-olds may actually be delicious sexual beings, and are entitled to pursue their zesty urges con mucho brio, we do NOT accept that an adult may have sexual relations with a thirteen year old. Legally, she is not of an age at which she can be assumed to make rational and well thought out decisions. She is not part of the adult world, she is not a full member of responsible society.
An adult conjugating a minor is taking advantage of the minor.
Liquor and sexual assault - these are not, strictly speaking, part of a normal sex-life.
Even if the girl is an American teenager and the man is a European.
No means no. If she isn't of permissible age, sane, and sober, yes also means no. Always.
Even if you are a European, and she is an American.
Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
EDUCATED TASTES
After Thanksgiving (sometime next week), we get to stare Christmas in the face. That cold hard face, those haunted eyes. That incessant nast...
13 comments:
I posted on this as well - I can't believe what is going on here!
I am absolutely flabbergasted at the support he's getting from other film makers.
Not just Europeans, either.
Polanski furnished a controlled substance to a minor, committing a 'lewd or lascivious act' upon a child under 14, plus unlawful sexual intercourse, rape by use of drugs, perversion (oral copulation) and sodomy.
Why are Martin Scorcese, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodovar, Tilda Swinton and Monica Bellucci, Debra Winger, Harvey Weinstein, Whoopi Goldberg, and others saying that that is okay? In the real world, AND in Hollywood, what he did is illegal, immoral, and pretty damn' horrific.
"I'll avoid the old "What if it was your daughter" argument, even if I do have four girls and would swim to France with a pitchfork in one hand and a blowtorch in the other to deliver justice if it was my daughter. A 13-year-old can't legally have consensual sex in California. But beyond that, the idea a drugged girl could make a clear decision about having sex with a man in his 40s is insane. No sober 13-year-old is capable of understanding what that entails. Anyone who believes otherwise is either fooling themselves, or French. "
His victim, Samantha Gailey, told a grand jury that the director had plied her with champagne and drugs and taken nude pictures of her in a hot tub during a fashion shoot. Polanski then had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance and requests to be taken home, she said.
The director originally faced charges including rape and sodomy but they were dismissed following plea bargaining and he admitted unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
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.
"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out he said 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying'. And that's why he left."
The French director Luc Besson refused to sign the petition calling for Polanski's release.
He said: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."
There's no excuse for forcing sex on a 13-year-old girl. People who defend him have no principles.
----------
"I think that there are a lot of folks in Hollywood in the late '60s and '70s who may have done a lot of things they weren't really proud of, and may have been participating in very similar things".
----------
"My personal thoughts are let the guy go" said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago".
----------
"Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion" Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe".
Producer Bo Zenga ("Scary Movie," "Soul Plane"), is one of the few executives taking a different view. "I don't actually believe that people in Hollywood would put protecting their own above a 13-year-old girl who was raped." he said.
"I think these people have honestly forgotten what this is really about. Everyone needs to go back and read the grand jury testimony to remember how vicious this rape was because right now everyone thinks we're debating whether or not Polanski got a raw deal".
Is this rape? “A man is accused of drugging and forcibly sodomizing a 13-year-old girl.”
This was Roman Polanski’s crime in 1977. He pleaded guilty to having sex with the girl in the home of actor Jack Nicholson but skipped bail and fled to France.
In what world does Whoopi live in where she thinks a man can drug a girl and force himself on her and that not be considered rape?
There is indeed no excuse for attacking a child, nor for fleeing the country after admitting guilt. However, everyone getting on their high horse about the victim's rights seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that she has repeatedly said she has forgiven him and thinks he should be given clemency. Are her views irrelevant?
I'm just not so sure what the right answer is here. Bashing Europeans and Hollywood is fun, no question, but I wonder if this issue is really as simple as "child molesters bad."
Her views are irrelevant as regards his guilt.
Her statement at the time, his confession, and the evidence, all prove him guilty.
As regards sentencing, her views should be taken into account - they will not diminish his guilt, but they are very relevant.
That does not seem to be what his partisans argue, however.
I wonder if this issue is really as simple as "child molesters bad."
Two issues - one of guilt for an action, other as regards punishment.
He's gulty. He admitted it, her testimony indicated as much, and the evidence in tha case proved it. Now that is very simple.
As regards sentencing, it is a different matter. Both the State and the victim have a voice that should count for infinitely more than any number of Hollywood types and European intellectuals.
Does the state have an interest in pursuing the matter? Yes, justice, even against the rich and admired must be seen to be done.
Does the victim have an interest? Perhaps. Closure, definitely. But the victim also wants the whole ghastly mess to be over and done with (which, had he stood trial instead of fleeing, might now be more likely). If she advocates clemency, that should have weight.
That his many out of touch with reality admirers demand clemency should in the conclusion of this matter be immaterial.
everyone getting on their high horse about the victim's rights
With all due respect, I don't think the outrage actually has much to do with 'victim's rights'. It seems more a case of anger over the idea that one can outrun justice, especially if one is rich and famous.
To a certain extent, what the victim feels now is irrelevant to the course of justice. He committed a crime, society demands that he be punished accordingly. If he does not get tried and sentenced, it will look like justice was circumvented by pressure from his powerful and important friends.
Can a trial be conducted in a manner that is not traumatic for his victim?
I don't know. I really don't think so.
There doesn't need to be a trial. He's been found guilty.
There doesn't need to be a trial. He's been found guilty.
Actually, that IS correct. I didn't realize that until a few days ago. But the lack of a (2nd.) trail will strike many in Europe, who are both unaware of the procedures on this side of the Atlantic, AND sneeringly depreciative of our judicial procedures (due to anti-Americanism and superior ignorance), as yet another travesty of justice engineered by those despicable Yanks.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Polanski is damned in any case - which is as it should be.
I'm thinking maximum security prison, in the company of the hardcore.
He can start a film club there.
Or spread some culture.
"Or spread some culture"
Spread something, in any case.
Legs.
Post a Comment