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
A rambling melange of pop-culture.
6 comments:
This is The Point!!!
I have maintained, from Jumpstreet, that Polanski's behavior in 1977 was reprehensible and it certainly makes you lose respect for him as a man - though I freely admit I am torn as to whether or not his artistic contributions to society are ample atonement. He really has done a lot for society via his art, but I can't bring myself to say that makes up for allegedly raping a minor...
Now, according to E! News, court documents indicate that Polanski's agreement to pay the victim a $500,000 settlement was never honored; Polanski apparently never paid! Again, according to E! - which cites court documents - as of 1995 (the deadline), Polanski still owed the full amount plus $100k in interest!
A blogger for the network made a good point when asking the director to turn himself in: the victim is being forced to relive the events and now her family is having to deal with the matter, as well. She complained of harassment by reporters, who have been camped outside her home since this horrible saga began (again).
If true that Polanski never paid a dime to her, then even I say he should make good on something here! Though I still say it's a bad idea to "turn himself in" to a corrupt legal system which is prepared to crucify him yet again.
The statute of limitations for sexual assault is seven years in many states. This is nothing more than political self-aggrandizement by the Los Angeles D.A. And Polanski's refusal to settle anything in this matter could be seen as maintaining his innocence. But it looks really bad, Mr. Polanski - especially after you admitted "it was the wrong thing to do."
Learning that, according to some sources, Polanski never paid his victim as he'd agreed to (which I find a little hard to believe, since she hasn't said this - I mean, if the guy never did anything for her, I would think she'd still harbor at least a little resentment; even if she still forgave him, you'd think she'd have mentioned he never paid her at some point throughout the years) forced me to re-evaluate my position on the case.
First and foremost, the apprehension of Roman Polanski has exactly fuck-all to do with the crime he committed - nothing, zip, de nada - this is nothing more than a slam-dunk publicity case for the D.A., period, end of story. So while I stand by my position on those grounds, I admit I've felt uncomfortable defending the guy.
I had to wonder if I was so shallow and hypocritical as to believe, even if I couldn't quite admit it, that he shouldn't be held responsible for what he did simply because he is a good artist. I knew there was more to it than that, but it's a complex issue and I couldn't put my finger on anything above and beyond that until earlier:
Has the guy not made good, yet? Why do Americans insist on branding people with a scarlet letter? No one ever truly seems to "do his time" in this country; no matter how long they are imprisoned, how much restitution they make, their record follows them everywhere. I've always said that once a person complies with his sentence, the crime(s) should be removed from his public record, except in certain cases (and child molestation is one of them, as are violent crimes).
Roman Polanski isn't Michael Bay, now! He's done some incredibly important work. Still, even Michael Bay's work has served society - we need entertainment, after all. So it's not as though I believe celebrities are above the law; I would feel the same way if Polanski were a Nobel Prize-winning scientist or a Poet Laureate.
But if he never paid her, the whole thing becomes even more complicated. I still don't believe he should be forced to return to America, nor do I think he should return on his own; he'll never get a fair trial here. I do, however, believe he should have to pay the victim the settlement to which he agreed before he is released.
Polanski didn't serve his time. He ran away. He raped a child and is exactly where he deserves to be, in jail awaiting extradition.
No, no, no, now:
The judge in the original case agreed to Polanski serving 42 days in jail undergoing psychiatric counseling or whatever, but then changed his mind!
Even the prosecuting attorney for the case admitted the judge was corrupted by the fame the case brought him!
Whether or not you, I, or anyone agrees with the sentence, Polanski fled with good reason. But if it's true he never paid the girl like he agreed to do, then... he should at least be forced to do that.
America has formally requested Polanski be extradited here to be sentenc... um, to get a "fair trial amongst his peers." Or some bullshit.
Interestingly, LA cops swept the streets this week, crippling a Mexican drug cartel which had taken foot in the city. I applaud their efforts in this matter.
I am still truly saddened and sickened by how quick the court of public opinion sentenced Roman Polanksi - again. As I said before, if the genders had been reversed, none of this would be an issue. That also sickens me.
The American legal and judicial system is irretrievably corrupted and serves no purpose aside from forwarding political careers. That also sickens me.
We won't even get into the whole "justice" vs "revenge" thing... what's the point?
I'm conflicted on this entire matter, but I'm certain no good can come of this.
Post a Comment