Monday, December 28, 2009

Polanski ponders the unfairness of it all

The film industry's favorite sex offender is back in the news. Mr. Polanski has written a letter of thanks to all his supporters as he takes his Christmas holiday at a Swiss Chalet while awaiting extradition to the United States.

Apparently this man's penchant for young girls barely raises an eyebrow from the otherwise hyper-hostile feministas:

"My personal thoughts are let the guy go. It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things"

So said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

Peggy, a forty year old man raped and sodomized a thirteen year old girl at Jack Nicholson's house while she was ostensibly there for a 'photo shoot'. This occured after he had attempted to lubricate his efforts with the aid of alochol and quaaludes, which Mr. Polanski had slipped into her drink. And yet, the primary concern on the mind of the founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation is the cost such a prosecution would be on the government. Well, no worries there, Peg. The government not only can spend its money on other things, it most certainly will spend its money on other things. Lots of other things, and lots and lots of money. That is not the issue.

Enforcing the nation's laws will require an expense, but the reasonable person will appreciate that those costs are a burden worth bearing for the sake of remaining a nation whose laws govern the peace. The nation is not made uncomfortable by the expenditures of the legal process. Just ask Conrad Black. No, it is Polanski whose life will be made uncomfortable, and who shall also run the risk of discovering the definitive downside to non-consensual sexual relationships.

Our Polanski defenders are quick to point out that Samantha Geimer, the victimized thirteen-year-old now forty-five and mother of three, has said the charges against the director should be dismissed. Good for her. I very much hope she has been able to move past the abuse she suffered at the hands of this self-obsessed whack-job. Yet still I doubt she will look back fondly upon her time spent in the company of Mr. Polanski. As for the State, we the people are obligated to bring this man to justice, regardless of the healing that the victim has been able to achieve.

On the television show "The View," Whoopi Goldberg said, "I think he's sorry. I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society."

Really? Well, what did Mr. Polanski have to say on the matter? His comments to Mr. Martin Amis in 1979 are likely a truthful reflection of his actual thoughts on the matter:

“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!”

He doesn't sound particularly sorry. In fact, two years after the fact it sounded as though he believed his uncontrolled lusting for early teenage girls is the norm. 'Everyone wants to f- young girls.' Well, no Roman, not everyone wants sex with preteens and the like, and fewer still want to dope them up and rape them.

Jonah Goldberg had a pretty good column on the matter back in October. But by far and away my fav Roman Polanski post was written by everybody's favorite, April Gavaza, over at the Hyacinth Girl. Her post titled Worthless Piece of Crap summed up the issue quite nicely.

In an opinion piece in London's The Independent, pro-Polanski petitioner and producer Harvey Weinstein, wrote:
"Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honored. . . . This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally."

The government is acting criminally Mr. Weinstein? According to the Grand Jury testimony, Ms. Geimer (then Gailey) stated "I was going 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid." The girl's testimony stated she repeatedly asked Polanski to take her home, but he did not.

How exactly would you characterize that?

The crime was to lure the young Ms. Geimer's mother into a false sense of security, to take the young girl up to his house for a 'photo shoot', to ply her with booze and spike the booze with quaaludes, then force his member into every oriface the young girl had possession of, over her protests.

Would Mr. Weinstein consider these acts to be a 'so-called' crime if the young girl had been his daughter, or his grand-daughter for that matter? Not likely. Common people just aren't that much to this guy. Oh sure, the idea of common people has appeal, but the actual common people, up close and personal? Throw-aways. This same Mr. Weinstein has characterized Ms. Geimer as a loose young girl who should have known better, and has placed the blame for the incident squarely on the child's overly trusting mother. Quote Mr. Weinstein: "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion."

Right. As demonstrated here Mr. Weinstein?

Thirty years ago Mr. Polanski did not demonstrate compassion for the young Ms. Geimer... or for her poor mother for that matter. His flight from justice and refusal to return to the United States to face the court has resulted in these issues becoming a life long sentence for her, as the press returns to her door again and again. Will Mr. Polanski be an upright guy, take responsibility for his actions and spare her this pain?

I don't believe he has chosen to live his life that way.

No comments:

Post a Comment