Now the backlash has begun - joiners... The French have reversed their position on the matter, no longer calling for Polanski's release. "We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job." A spokesman for the French government told reporters. And Cheers alum and former hot chick, Kirstie Alley, has been tweeting up a storm against the celebrated director. But all of them are missing the Big Picture and I'd personally (and sorrowfully) like to point-out what utter fools the Los Angeles District Attorney has made of them:
They say that rape is not about the sex, but the control, and if the details of the encounter are to be believed - and let's not forget that the judge was irrevocably corrupt, which puts everything we know about it into question - then this particular encounter sounds more like a guy who got-off on introducing a young girl to the big, wide world of Sex. Polanski made certain that he was her first in many, many ways - as programs like ABC News have repeatedly pointed out in lurid detail. I've no idea how much control plays into this from any angle, so I can't technically say it was "rape." Regardless, just because I, personally, believe that coercing someone into having sex - regardless of the methods used - is technically "rape" doesn't mean I can change the legal definition of the term.
And BTW, Kirstie, if I do it to a girl, it's called "date rape;" if a girl does it to me, it's called "getting laid." Let's not forget that: if I get a girl drunk and bang her little lights out, I'm a creep; if she does it to me and I get upset, I'm gay.
Of course, I personally believe 13 is too young for anyone to be having sex - and all that "Romeo and Juliet did it" stuff be damned; in the 20th and 21st Centuries, 13 is too young for anyone to be having sex. Even if they're 13-year old boys who have sex with really hot teachers. No, really hot. Oh yeah! Remember that shit? Now, by that same token ("Pfft - what's the problem? Heh. Who's the 'victim' here?"), one could say, "Well, she got to have sex with Roman Polanski!" Except, yeah... that's another one of those double-standards America likes to keep firmly in-place. Either which way it goes, what he did was deplorable and inexcusable; there's no defending what he did.
Except that's not The Point.
The Point here is that Roman Polanski served the time he was supposed to, according to the plea deal made at the time. The Point here is that the judge saw an opportunity to make political headway by changing the terms of said deal midway through - technically speaking (from a Hollywood POV, Ms. Alley), that is breach of contract (actually, it's "Detrimental Reliance"), and gave Polanski every right in the world to GTFO of Dodge.
Roman Polanski did not "flee;" he escaped the tyranny of a corrupt judge.
The Point here is that Roman Polanski's criminal responsibility has been fulfilled. Later, the victim settled a civil suit with him out of court, so his financial responsibility has been fulfilled - and, legally (even morally) speaking, whether or not you agree with his criminal sentence, both he and the victim agree that his compensating her relieves him of any further, punitive actions. The Point here is that this happened 30 years ago and everybody involved agrees that the legal process was crooked and contrived and the matter has been settled! The Point here is that Roman Polanski has once again been beset by a corrupt legal official who is representing the American judicial system, who has now misrepresented the American legal system and American "morality" to the entire rest of the world!
The Point here is that Los Angeles is one of the most crime-ridden cities in the whole world and instead of "taking a bite" out of the vicious megaviolence facing the citizens of L.A., the Los Angeles District Attorney has opted to surf the fucking internet to find out what a 76-year old man who has contributed more to society than 99 out of 100 people in the whole world is doing and where he's going to be! The Point here is that he is only pulling this shit because this 30-year old case is a slam-dunk because people like you, Kirstie Alley, are stupid enough to buy-in to the slack-jawed, Martin Bashir "child rape" mentality: all a D.A. in this country has to do is play the Race Card or the Child Molester label to convict a victim in the court of public opinion.
After that, the legal reality no longer matters.
I love you, Kirstie Alley - I really do - no matter how fat or stupid you get, but you are so far off the mark here that I could cry! Grow the hell up. No one in their right mind is suggesting that sex with children is "okay" or should be decriminalized for famous people; we're just not all gullible enough that we'll swallow whatever comes after "child rape" in a sentence.
You got suckered, pretty lady - you got had, fat actress! I'm really sorry because you're a really cool chick who ought to be doing the cougar-thing and dropping "accidental" muff shots in Variety. Wake up, sweety. This is what it is and it makes all of America look like the Puritanical morons only (by my estimation) 93-95% of us actually are.
© C Harris Lynn, 2009


































