Something wildly unexpected happened the other day: film director Roman Polanski was taken into custody in Switzerland for his rape of a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in 1977. The grand jury transcript is stomach-turning. His victim, Samantha Gailey, said the director plied her with champagne and drugs and asked her to remove her clothes for pictures in a hot tub. Polanski then had sex with her despite her resistance and requests to be taken home. He pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of sex with a minor, but fearing a prison term, he fled the country.
Now something utterly expected is happening: morally bankrupt libertines in Hollywood and other artistic banana republics are rushing to Polanski’s defense.
Welcome to the world of Roman Polanski, Child Rapist/Victim.
Has-been actress Debra Winger joined the first line of ludicrous defense, since she was president of the jury of the Zurich Film Festival, where Polanski was headed to receive a lifetime achievement award when he was apprehended. Let’s hope Winger is never allowed to serve on a real jury. She simply doesn’t care about Polanski’s guilt. He is a filmmaker and an artist, and for this crowd anything and everything goes.
Winger denounced Swiss authorities for their "philistine collusion" in arresting Polanski, and then whined that “this fledgling festival has been unfairly exploited, and whenever this happens the whole art world suffers.” Of Polanski, she declared with a flourish: "We stand by and await his release and his next masterwork.”
The Huffington Post, the Internet’s most infamous hangout for deranged celebrities, carried a series of pathetic Polanski defenses. Winning the Artists Are Above The Law Award was an ambitious film critic named Kim Morgan, who grotesquely channeled the Winger vibe: “I've always contended that Polanski has depicted women with complication, humanity, ugliness and most important, empathy. Polanski is an artist, an acute observer of life's darkness and absurdities on the level of Dostoevsky or Nietzsche.”
Yes, that Polanski was so full of empathy as he ignored the little girl repeatedly saying “No” while he molested her.
She then wrote “I write this not to defend statutory rape, I write this to study the visions of a troubled, talented human being, a human being who has gone through real horror himself and a human being who also happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers alive.” But she also said she opposed his arrest. She was defending a rapist – but not statutory rape, see.
An even bigger lout is Miramax studio boss Harvey Weinstein, who organized a petition of filmmakers to demand freedom for Polanski: “Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time.” (He served 42 days before he skipped out on sentencing.) Polanski is not only excused because he is an “artist,” he is a “humanist” and even a “scapegoat.” Weinstein supported a documentary last year arguing that the real injustice came not from the rape, but from the oppression of Polanski by his prosecutors/persecutors in Los Angeles.
Weinstein compounded the foolishness by circulating a petition of famous directors who’ve joined the protest. Amazingly, the list includes Woody Allen, another famous dirty old man in Hollywood, who scandalously carried on a sexual relationship with an adopted stepdaughter 34 years his junior, and then married her.
Then there’s Whoopi Goldberg, whose defense of Polanski on ABC’s “The View” was that “it wasn’t rape-rape,” since he pleaded guilty to sex with a minor. Earth To Whoopi: It was statutory rape. It was non-consensual. Whoopi claimed everybody needed to wait for facts, even though the facts of the rape are crystal clear, as is the justice this man tried to evade. None of that matters to her.
Amoral Whoopi also trotted out the “Europe favors pedophilia” defense: “We're a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13 year olds and 14 year olds -- in the rest of Europe, they are seen, often times [as adults] ..I do know that not everybody agrees with the way we see things.”
She has a point there. In France, the culture minister is outraged: “scary America...has just shown its face.”
For his part, Polanski was always mystified that anyone cared about his hideous, felonious behavior. He thought everyone wanted to do what he did, as he proclaimed in an interview with novelist Martin Amis in 1979: “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!”
But as more than one Catholic leader has observed, what if his name were Father Roman Polanski? Oh, then they’d all be singing a different tune, wouldn’t they? Hypocrites.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Catholic priests given no such benefit
October 1, 2009 - 11:46 ET by candanceWhen they molest a child, they are evil incarnate.
Stooping so far down as to defend sexual assault of a teenage girl. Nah, that "gay marriage slippery slope" argument is sooooo off track.
POLANSKI = LIBERAL "VALUES"
October 1, 2009 - 20:04 ET by reelman46POLANSKI = LIBERAL “VALUES”
Okay, you read that long ago a big time Hollyweirdo Roman Polanski did a bad thing…
now you hear some Hollyweirds are rallying to his “defense”…to HIS DEFENSE.
What did this Polanski do?
He gave a 13 year old girl a Lude and champagne.
He raped the 13 year old girl
He sodomized the 13 year old girl
Then what happened?
He was arrested and convicted of a FELONY.
He jumped bail 30 years ago.
He recently made statements defending/excusing his felony!
Now tell us silly basic morality folks why this man is being defended?
(Oh, I forgot, the modern liberal (aka democrat) is a fantasy-based creature whose religion is SECULAR socialism)
What does this also tell you about those Hollyweird “feminist” champions?
http://conservablogs...
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Good column, Brent. Kudos
October 1, 2009 - 12:05 ET by JoeBobGood column, Brent. Kudos to Susan Estrich as well for calling it right on this scum.
JoeBob
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
this piece of pond scum, plead guilty-
October 1, 2009 - 12:43 ET by JIMMY1660to a lesser crime, and then fled.
when reading the grand jury notes-this will make most people sick.
do you support pedophiles??
BHO- THE PROGRESSIVE PIRATE
Brent -- It was NOT statutory rape
October 1, 2009 - 13:08 ET by trak65As most people use the term, statutory rape implies there was consent and that the sex would have been legal but for the victim being so young. "Statutory rape" should not be used in referring to what Polanski engaged in, which was the FORCIBLE rape of a minor. It's a very important distinction that by not being made is muddying the waters of the debate. Like it or not, I think Whoopi Goldberg has a point that other countries and cultures (eg Hollywood) are more tolerant of consensual sex with a minor.
Polanski didn't use force.
October 1, 2009 - 13:36 ET by NL207Polanski didn't use force. He drugged the girl with Methaqualone.
you're kidding, right?
October 1, 2009 - 13:38 ET by jon_torlinSo that makes it right then? Taking advantage of her inability to resist as a result of that drug (and champagne) and her saying no doesn't mean a thing?
-Jon
I made no reference to
October 1, 2009 - 15:19 ET by NL207I made no reference to morality. I merely stated that Polanski drugged the girl and then had sex with her while she was in a diminished state of mental capacity.
Apparently the French are not troubled by this.
True, he apparently did not use weapons or threaten violence
October 1, 2009 - 16:03 ET by trak65...but he still forced himself on her over her objections. Describing it as "statutory" rape gives the false impression that she was a willing partner.
Another illiterate. Where
October 1, 2009 - 17:13 ET by NL207Another illiterate. Where did I refer to Polanski's actions as 'statutory rape'?
Hey genius
October 1, 2009 - 17:38 ET by BlondeStatutory rape....adult/minor. the term does no such thing as you imply.
From dictionary.com:
statutory rape
Use STATUTORY RAPE in a Sentence
See web results for STATUTORY RAPE
See images of STATUTORY RAPE
–noun U.S. Law.
sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, which age varies in different states.
I hope he fails, too.
I understand trak's point
October 1, 2009 - 17:48 ET by candanceStatutory rape does indeed imply a certain amount of consent from the child. Raping a child against their will is called "rape rape" and not the statutory version.
→ Statutory
October 1, 2009 - 17:56 ET by Cool ArrowI always thought "statutory" was a term derived from "by statute", thus rendering the act illegal (in this case) by a predetermined statute.
What Polanski engaged in, then would be both statutory and aggravated, as it included drugs and alcohol.
Jer's a lawyer. Maybe he could chime in.
Perhaps that IS the derivative term
October 1, 2009 - 18:30 ET by BlondeBut a minor child has no capacity to enter into any sort of a binding legal agreement, whatsoever. Particularly not sex.
As for Whoopi, and her stupid "rape-rape".....just regular old rape is the victim says no, the perp disregards. (Sex of victim/perp not specified). So plain old Whoopi Rape-Rape is bad enough....but when the perp is a 40+ uber Hollywood type, and the vic is a 13 year old (and granted, she was offered up by her sick mum on a platter...that bitch should have been prosecuted, too, IMO....and yeah, I used the word on purpose)....the whole sordid mess is about 400 times worse.
I HOPE HE ROTS IN JAIL.
I hope he fails, too.
→ You're right
October 1, 2009 - 18:34 ET by Cool ArrowWhat occurred with Polanski, though also statutory, fits every legal description of "child rape"
No
October 1, 2009 - 18:02 ET by RESTLESS 1Statutory rape is not "rape lite". It is because the minor child is deemed not mature enough to give consent that statutory rape is prosecuted. That is why it is prosecuted wheter or not the victim gave consent.
Besides, in the Polanski case, according to the record, the girl said no several times.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Thank you whoopi!
October 1, 2009 - 18:26 ET by BlondeUm, Yoda....um, candance.
Precisely.
Gosh...I guess I'm the only one here to pick up that exquisite sarcasm of yours. Way to go, GF!!!!
I hope he fails, too.
have to take exception
October 1, 2009 - 16:10 ET by jon_torlinThe use of saying that force was not used but rather a drug is rather troublesome to say the least. Force WAS used, it was the means that was used, be it drugs or physical restraint, which indeed, using a drug that caused her to be in a diminished state of mental (and physical) capacity would be considered force.
After all, in a mental institution, should a patient in said facility become angry/irate/violent, they use restraints, and they also use sedatives of one form or another which lessens the patient's ability to fight back. Doesn't matter if it was injected or taken in pill, the drug was forced INTO the girl.
By that action, a girl was subjected to acts that she did not consent to in any way shape or form. That's what I call force.
Maybe the French don't see it the same way, or maybe they are too used to being passive(as opposed to passionate like some people believe). How screwed up if that's the case.
-Jon
Did I say this wasn't
October 1, 2009 - 17:11 ET by NL207Did I say this wasn't rape? I said force, i.e. violence, was not used to subjugate the girl. Therfore, under most statutes, this was not a forcible rape. It also was not a statutory rape, because the girl could not give informed consent, even if she had been of legal age, due to the actions of Polanski. In the majority of jurisdictions in the US, this is classed as the crime of rape and where applicable, second degree rape. Why not first degree or forcible? Because Polanski did not threaten or phyiscally coerce the victim.
Notice that Polanki's plea deal was not a rape conviction but instead some lesser sexual misconduct charge.
actually NL
October 1, 2009 - 17:44 ET by botgfear and intimidation were used --- read the testimony
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I read the
October 1, 2009 - 21:22 ET by NL207I read the testimony.
That dirtball, Polanski, gave that kid a sopor. He didn't need to use force because that girl wasn't going to be resisting.
That Polanksi knew what dosage to give her so she was zonked enough not to resist but still alert enough to know what was going on, suggests to me this was not the first girl he had done this to.
I have difficulty understanding why the DA in the case accepted a plea deal on this. I think a maximum effort prosecution for 1st degree rape would have resulted in a conviction for the lesser included offence of Rape 2nd. The prison term for that is much more severe than the plea he copped.
I eventually agreed with you NL207
October 2, 2009 - 06:21 ET by jazz_fanNot at first when you claimed drugging a girl before raping her is not using force. He intimidated her, drugged her, raped her three different ways and then ran away out of fear he might have to serve more than 45 days. I hope they bring him back and give him a short sentence. If he's in the general prison population, a long sentence will not be necessary and he'll fully understand what he put that little girl through.
The original deal was contemptible but what do you expect from a DA who's dealing with a celebrity? You're probably right that he did the same to other girls, probably not just in this country. Maybe he's been doing the same during his long exile but most Euro-trash seem appalled that we'd call him to account so they would no doubt turn a blind eye as long as it wasn't their own daughter being abused. Yes, let's try to be more like Europe and see how that works out for us.
no still means no
October 1, 2009 - 13:26 ET by rowdygirlI hate to think what else goes on in Hollywoodland that they consider "no big deal". Apparently the rape of anyone, let alone a child, is no cause for concern. I thought that saying no meant it was non-consensual and therefore considered a crime. ??
Even if the victim wasn't a minor, it should still be considered a real rape because she said NO.. repeatedly.
How can ANY woman ever find this acceptable ?
My question too!
October 1, 2009 - 15:48 ET by Forest for the TreesRG,
That is my question too - so many of these Holywood people are defending Polanski's rape of that 13 year girl, makes one wonder how they can defend such actions unless they have either done the deed themselves or condone such behavior as 'normal'.
Very scary indeed!
Look at transcripts of serial rapists and they think their actions are justified or are no big too.
I'm just saying... awfully curious of these people.
HMMMMMM!
child molestation
October 1, 2009 - 13:29 ET by sevenPerverts defend perversion.
rape
October 1, 2009 - 13:59 ET by hiltongroganWhat despicable scum! What in the hell is wrong with these hollywood losers that raping a 13 yr old kid is acceptable? Call it whatever you want...normal men don't have sex with 13 yr olds, normal men don't have to give drugs and alcohol to have sex with someone, normal men don't use their age, power and position to entrap, drug and rape a little kid. Where is the outrage from the left? What happened to all the feminists? Where are all the democraps sticking up for the little guy and the opressed???
What's wrong with them?
October 1, 2009 - 14:43 ET by Seabeach4348What's wrong with them? They're losers just as you said! They're losers with money. I'm not saying that this is true of all of the Hollywood crowd; I'm saying this about the ones who are making excuses for this smug, overrated, scumbag pervert and for the ones who think that "it's OK" and that it happened 26 years ago so cut the guy some slack, and that the Europussies "think differently" about it and that we American knuckle-draggers should just lighten up and forget it!
My question: what kind of PARENTS would allow their 13-yr old daughter to spend time, ALONE, with a 40+ year old dirty old man, completely unsupervised, to take nude photos??? And then when something like this happens, these "parents" get all wee-wee'd up over it and just can't understand what went wrong??
Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but I just don't get it.
Natasha Kinski
October 1, 2009 - 16:02 ET by Red JeepThen there was Roman's affair with 15 year old Natasha Kinski...
Moron Alert:
October 1, 2009 - 15:02 ET by Seabeach4348Looks like Whoopi's out loose again without taking her meds!
<<Whoopi claimed everybody needed to wait for facts, even though the facts of the rape are crystal clear, as is the justice this man tried to evade. None of that matters to her.
Amoral Whoopi also trotted out the “Europe favors pedophilia” defense: “We're a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13 year olds and 14 year olds -- in the rest of Europe, they are seen, often times [as adults] ..I do know that not everybody agrees with the way we see things.” >>
Liberals always want to "wait for facts" when one of their ilk is in the frying pan; ever notice that? Depends on the person in question's political leanings whether or not he/she is a victim or an evildoer who the libs will pass judgement on and convict based on their "feelings".
Ok, Whoop! Just let some dirtbag drug and rape your 13-yr old and I want to see how open-minded and willing to wait for all the facts you are going to be!
Oh, and would not Polanski's refusal to take the girl home when requested constitute kidnapping as well?
And isn't Whoopi usually out there for women's rights and usually comes to the defense of women because she believes that women always seem to get a raw deal?
And, as usual, I can give a rat's butt on what the Europussies think about this. Let them fight their own battles next time a despot threatens to take over their homelands!
WAIT??? for the facts???
October 1, 2009 - 17:39 ET by botgTHE FACTS have been in the grand jury testimony for DECADES
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0610081polanski1.html
(warning explicit testimony)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
"Then there’s Whoopi Goldberg,.."
October 1, 2009 - 15:28 ET by Red JeepOh, the Toys R Us spokeswoman. How nice. To Whoopi, I guess, some 13 year olds should be playing with Barbie dolls and others...well, we just are not as mature as Europeans, doncha know...?
poor little Roman...
October 1, 2009 - 15:43 ET by BO STINKS"a human being who has gone through real horror himself." And what exactly was the horror you went through, little pervert? Were you drugged? Were you sodomized? Were you raped? Were your pleas ignored? No-o-o-o, no they were not. That's the point, isn't it, little pervert? If you had been the victim, instead of a child, then the perpetrator would have been in prison for the last 40 years.
As for the Eurotrash excusing this miserable excuse for a human being: well why should we be surprised? Europe is filled with pedophiles, just as Hollywood is filled with pedophiles. God will judge them:
"But whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble and sin [that is, who entices him or hinders him in right conduct or thought], it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be sunk in the depth of the sea." Matt. 18:6
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
Your two quotes alone are a
October 1, 2009 - 16:40 ET by nolotrippenYour two quotes alone are a double-barreled assault on the dead souls of La-La Land, and they won't understand a word.
The Perv-anski List is a GOLDMINE for us!!
October 1, 2009 - 15:58 ET by carolina09Next time one of the deranged high-school graduates in Hollywood want to lecture us on values and politics...ask...
Are you now, or have you ever been, a rapist sympathizer?
carolina - you had me laughing out loud! From your lips
October 1, 2009 - 17:07 ET by BO STINKSto God's ears.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
"in France, the culture
October 1, 2009 - 16:39 ET by nolotrippen"in France, the culture minister is outraged"
In other news, France has a minister of culture.
Polanski's a pedophile!
October 1, 2009 - 16:51 ET by CobraManPolanski's a pedophile, plain and simple. Just like Woody Allen. Both had sex with minors. Both had their pedophilia revealed to the world. Both were Hollywood heroes. And both were protected by their fellow members of Hollywood and other similar members of "entertainment" venues around the world. Both were excused for their behavior and the people who voiced their displeasure of this behavior were demeaned and despised, both publicly and privately. Does anyone sense a trend here? I do.
Members of Hollywood (and by Hollywood I mean the entire world-wide society of actors, writers, and directors) are exposed as pedophiles. Does Hollywood condemn them for their pedophilia? No, they PROTECT and DEFEND them! There's no defense, no excuse, and, therefor, no protection for such behavior, but does Hollywood care? Of course not. After all, this is Hollywood. The Land of Make Believe. So they make believe that pedophilia isn't really bad, or that one of their own didn't actually commit pedophilia, or any other crime for that matter.
Why do they do this? It's simple. He's one of them and they all need to protect their image. Their image is the most important thing to them (and their fans, apparently). After all, no one wants to to watch a movie or see a play that employs a disgraced actor or actress, writer or director.
Since their livelihood, even their very self-worth, is intimately connect with their image, they MUST protect that image, and the image of the others they work with or admire as a mentor, at all costs. Even at the cost of defying their own sense of morality and betraying the dignity of innocent people.
Hollywood, the Land of Make Believe. Where Image is more important than Substance.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Justice delayed is justice
October 1, 2009 - 17:20 ET by BuffNBoneJustice delayed is justice denied.
For those supporting Polanski, they could volunteer to serve a day or two of what his sentence eventually is. They would be in with the general population and identified as someone giving aid and comfort to a child molester.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
sicko
October 1, 2009 - 18:43 ET by WatchesThe guy's a sicko and I'm glad they finally got him. Justice delayed is better than no justice at all.
"Forget it, Rape. It's
October 1, 2009 - 20:08 ET by Jack BauerDang, sounds familiar, just can't place it.
Hey, maybe Dakota Fanning
October 1, 2009 - 21:05 ET by RR GOPHey, maybe Dakota Fanning will get the part of the rape victim in an upcoming film about the life and times of Roman Polanski?
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Hail the artist hero legend
October 1, 2009 - 23:33 ET by AbraxosPolanski should be grateful for the chance to return to the US. Not only will he be hailed with a hero's parade in Hollywood, but after a few weeks in jail – further enhancing his legend – he'll be free to troll America again, singing like Maurice Chevalier... "Thank heaven... for little girls."
Chris Rock was just on Leno & insulting Polanski defenders
October 1, 2009 - 21:37 ET by Free StinkerChris Rock was just on Leno and he was insulting all the folks who are defending Polanski.
"Defending the guy because he made good movies? Yeah, like 30 years ago he made a good movie. Even Johhny Cochrane didn't have the nerve to pull that with OJ! 'Look how many yards OJ rushed for in this game' . . . "
You Had To Make It A Jewish Thing, Didn't You?
October 1, 2009 - 23:53 ET by The7SticksSee, you might have been able to make a point without playing the Catholic card. What is it with you and the Catholic card? Why do Catholics like you always have to make it a Jewish thing no matter what it is, whether it's child rape or any other crime? Fine, raping and sodomizing a thirteen-year-old girl is bad enough, but did you have to make it a Jewish-Catholic thing? And by the way, you left out the detail that Polanski fled because the judge was about to renege on a plea bargain the judge already promised to uphold. I should know, because my dad was able to use the senility of that particular judge to get a sentence of serving three out of five years for two counts of armed robbery (thankfully, nobody was harmed in those incidents.) and now he is a reformed man.
And can we stop acting like this thirteen-year-old girl is still a thirteen-year-old girl? The woman's now forty-five, and we shouldn't be treating her like a child right now. She's made it clear that she doesn't want to go through testifying again, and I've made it clear that I will NOT support my tax dollars going towards a farce of extradition and a re-trial. I get that it was child rape, but since he hasn't done it again, all I want is to fine him and rescind his Oscar so he can pawn it to help pay that fine. Maybe they can also confiscate his Swiss chalet, turn it into a childcare center or a mental health center, and he can be the first mental patient in a stray jacket there. How's that for compassion?
"And by the way, you left
October 2, 2009 - 00:22 ET by ckc1227"And by the way, you left out the detail that Polanski fled because the
judge was about to renege on a plea bargain the judge already promised
to uphold."
I guess I missed something, and maybe you can help me out with it....exactly where does it say all is forgiven when fleeing to avoid jail time because a judge decides not to go along with a plea bargain?
"I get that it was child rape, but since he hasn't done it again, all I
want is to fine him and rescind his Oscar so he can pawn it to help pay
that fine."
http://www.youtube.c...
Like I've said before...
October 2, 2009 - 10:05 ET by stage9Liberals always find themselves on the wrong side of moral issues. Why? Because by jettisoning God, they no longer have anything to anchor morality to. Raping a child isn't wrong, because WHO is the authority to say it's wrong? You say it's wrong. I say it's right.
After all, this debauchery is common practice in Hellswood. If we were to call out every actor or actress who engaged in some lewd and criminal act, we wouldn't have a movie industry anymore....
Wait a second....on second thought...let's run with that.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
Hypocrites in Hollyweird?
October 2, 2009 - 10:24 ET by 1611LilacLadyWhy how shocking!
>>dripping sarcasm<<
Isaiah 5:20a Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil. . . KJV