|
In 1977, film maker Roman Polanski, whose life story reads like a tragedy, pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. The plea followed a damning testimony, available in full on The Smoking Gun, from 13-year-old Samantha Gailey who told the LA grand jury how, during a photo shoot at the house of Jack Nicholson, Polanski had provided her with Champagne and part of a Quaalude tablet before having sex with her, despite pleas to “keep away”.
Although Polanski served 42 days in jail undergoing court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, fear of further incarceration forced Polanski to flee the US to France in 1978.
Fast forward 30 years and after spending decades avoiding a US and international arrest warrant, Polanski’s freedom was brought to a halt when he was arrested on Saturday by Swiss authorities upon entering Zürich to accept a film festival honour.
Why wasn’t he caught earlier? After all, Polanski supposedly owns a chalet in Switzerland. And what’s the expiration date on a statutory rape conviction anyway? The Christan Science Monitor has answers to all the water cooler questions.
Meanwhile, as Polanski sits in Zürich Jail waiting for America to make a formal extradition request, the rest of the world is busy showing their support/contempt for him:
Surely time heals, doesn’t it?
The thought occurs that while Polanski’s crime against Samantha Gailey was utterly wrong, the 1970s were a different time, and his behaviour was not aberrant by prevailing entertainment-industry standards. If every member of British rock bands touring America who seduced an underage girl had been arrested, our music industry would have been decimated. – David Gritten, The Daily Telegraph (UK)
But is putting a man in prison after 31 years from his sexual intercourse with a minor in California and fleeing justice going to do justice? What good does it do to imprison anyone, whatever their lifetime achievement, after the deed ceased to matter for the parties involved? — Marcin Sobczyk, Wall Street Journal Blogs
He’s already paid for this. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film. – Anne Applebaum, The Washington Post
And I used to like those Swiss….
When I learned, years ago, that they had blithely allowed German military trains to transit their country during the Second World War, while claiming Swiss “neutrality,” I was shocked, but tried to excuse them on grounds that they were protecting their country from invasion and armed warfare … Arresting Roman Polanski the other day in Zurich, where he was to receive an honorary award at a film festival, was disgraceful and unjustifiable. – Joan Shore The Huffington Post
He still raped a child.
Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans … But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted. – Kate Harding, Salon
Yes, his life was truly, truly heartbreaking. But is it possible for a man to be a brilliant director, survive the Holocaust, tragically lose the love of his life to a brutal murder, and still not rape a 13-year-old? Of course. – Lauren Bans, Double X
This was a thirteen-year-old girl… somebody’s daughter. Yes, she now says she has forgiven him, but I seem to recall the Pope forgiving the guy who shot him some time ago. That doesn’t mean we let the perpetrator walk. – Jazz Shaw, The Moderate Voice
On Twitter…
@gracebfrance TO THE USA, Leave Roman Polanski ALONE!U got a 89years old playboy director who f*cks 2 19years old girls u hypocrites!
@junglist4life Hoping that by some unlikely chance, Roman Polanski now will see some prison time and maybe get a little bit of quid pro quo.
@ baawfatml They can’t get Osama bin Laden but they can get Roman Polanski.
@ tvcritics Roman Polanski, love his films but he did supposedly take advantage of a younger person years ago, so I think the arrest was right.
@ Swoopy So glad the Los Angeles district court spends it’s time on important things like arresting Roman Polanski (eye roll)
| 
43 Comments
So Mr Polanski is admittedly guilty of drugging and raping a 13 year old, yet a large percentage of the populace appear to think that, after doing a runner and hiding out behind his wealth in palaces, that he should be spared his day at court.
What if the same story applied to a recently-vilified ex-citizen of Qld, recently resident in Ryde, NSW? Would the calls for clemency ring out across the land? Of course, he would be hounded (again) and dragged before the bench.
The issue is not money or fame. It is all about serious assault.
Has Crikey caught the latest how it appears the extradition may have been triggered by his attorneys pushing to have the case thrown out as the LA prosecutor had not tried to extradite him and were not taking it seriously. The LA prosecutor responded and now we have the result.
Gee. Another case of white, male, liberal, bourgeois hegemons choosing to defend the indefensible because they believe artists should be immune to scrutiny. Those supporting Roman Polanski should consider a clerical career with the Catholic Church where their complicity to child sexual abuse will be shared and welcomed no less.
A.C. Grayling sums it up quite nicely. At least, for me.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6852996.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2270657
A.C.Grayling eminent English philosopher has nailed the issue down succinctly and correctly http://bit.ly/2oJLNO
I agree with all above? I am repulsed by the outrage over this. I even heard someone assert, that the now woman involved has probably ‘got over it’? She apparently has said that she’s forgiven him - how big of her? What if he was black? Or poor? What if the victim was male? Some of the comments via those outraged have just left a very bad taste in my mouth. What if that young girl spent the last 30 yrs mentally anguished and ill? Too bad I suppose?
JOHN BENNETTS Your assertions re a current well known situation are spot on. Sometimes I wish I hadn’t been born female, as it just keeps on keeping on doesn’t it? Very wearing!
ARIOCH _ The other similarity is that the Catholic Church still wants their revolting history covered up. Remember the parents of the two daughters during the Pope’s visit?Both raped by a priest as little girls, I mean 5 and 7 yrs old? The CC representative(Bishop?Archbishop?) more or less castigated them as attention seekers, and urged them to go home and get on with it. One of their daughters committed suicide, the other tried to, survived and will be living with disabilities forever! They didn’t get their request - a meeting with the Pope, and a personal acknowledgement and apology? Christian ‘love’ at its worst?
This situation just shows, that we still have a long way to go, re the rights of those who are the victims of these gutless and revolting crimes! Thankfully, the Law allows for these crimes to follow legal processes 20, 30 and even 40 yrs later, as is now happening in NSW! Thank goodness!
Kate Harding tells it as it is. Roman Polanski’s supporters say he did not know his victim was 13. How does this rather dubious claim change the fact that he raped the girl? Even had she been old enough to consent she did not making his actions as aberrant as they were illegal. Gritten sings the praises of rock history’s most misogynist scum. Those who exploit the naivety of underage groupies. He is conveniently ignoring the fact the Polanski incident was non-consensual by any standard or definition let alone with regard to the age of consent. The girl told him no repeatedly. Gritten’s apologistic view is evidence of his own internalised misogyny. Any dirtbag defending rockstars who rape children should be watched closely.
I don’t care how long it’s been since the rape, Polanksi should face the music.
Roman Polanski knew Samantha’s age as he was masquerading as ‘a family friend’ and asked her mum if he could shoot some photos of her for a fashion magazine. He drugged the girl and raped her.
Just wondering what would his supporters say if he were an aged ….catholic priest??
Would anyone want another Ferguson in his neighbourhood?
Roman Polanski participated in and organised many infamous orgies. He is a monster.
As for Samantha she has had enough of the ‘fame’ and her name being splattered all over front pages of the newspapers all over the world.
Adults are responsible for the kids. Not the other way round.
The best rationalisation is Grittens’: “the 1970s were a different time, and his behaviour was not aberrant by prevailing entertainment-industry standards.” So, it was world’s best practice. How about now? Has celebrity sleaze diminished?
Celebrities are protected, all the way down to footballers. Even long after they’re dead. The art establishment excuses and protects the career paedophile Donald Friend to this day (see Kerry Negara’s docco). Friend was the Dolly Dunn of the art world, but we have to shield the “industry”, don’t we?
I am staggered by some of the articles. What about the mental scars this lady takes to the grave? Polanski should face the music and should also get more time for running away. I don’t care if he found a cure for cancer, the fabric of our society would be doomed if he was pardoned due to his contributions to society in an artistic capacity. If Catholic priests can still get gaol for assaulting children 40+ years ago, Polanski can also get gaoled. Essentially, he is a peodophile.
I am gladdened that the lady concerned has asserted that she will NOT be taking mental scars to the grave (SIMMOBC take note), however this is immaterial. This scoundrel has admitted to his crimes but was too weak to stay around to accept his punishment. Society cannot accept this behaviour.
Besides which, there are many people, of both genders, who find themselves in similar situations in their youth. Forgiveness by one victim of a forceful rape with the assistance of drugs in no way condones repetition of these behaviours by others, nor does it relieve the perpetrator from punishment. It does display her willingness to take charge of her life and to live it. The lady is obviously a survivor, not willing to remain a victim for her whole life. That is to her credit and it is heartening, but it does not address the questions of sentencing, punishment and social expectations.
I am very happy to see that justice, having been denied and delayed, will now be done.
Let the courts decide the punishment, whatever that may be. The citizens of the world now know that this gutless, weak person will, at last, face up to his obligations to society.
“The biger they are, the harder they fall”. This truism applies to more than just rugby union.
“Essentially, he is a peodophile.”
Not really.
“…Not really…”
You’re right.
He’s a child rapist.
Thanks for pointing that out, Daniel.
well here we have something really astonishing MPM, Simmobc, deccles, John B, liz45 Heathdon and me all sharing the same opinion. Despite the vast differences in our political views it seems none of us can understand the rationalisations of child rape.
“…Not really…”
Daniel probably thinks Polanski would have to be a child molester to earn the label of paedophile. Daniel ought to buy a dictionary. Child molestation is only a single manifestation of paedophilia.
Polanksi’s sexual attraction to a 13-year-old girl constitutes paedophilia. He is, or at least was at the time of the incident, a paedophile. Regardless of the age of his victim he still raped the girl. He is, and remains, a rapist. His supporters, their complicity to misogyny, are benath contempt.
As to his crime, that he basically drugged her with alcohol and Quaaludes is enough for me, her age is incidental but in those days, as previously posted, every boy band would be in jail, most film directors, many lawyers, politicians, cops so that is of little consequence.
BUT! That a country such as Switzerland, which has augmented its GDP for generations with the ill gotten gains of the most evil criminals on Earth, to stand up for truth and decency against this man is hypocrisy taken to new heights and should be condemned by all.
If I or any of the other posters on this thread had drugged and r@ped a 13 year old child, and then fled somewhere without an extradition treaty, there to lurk for decades before being arrested on an excursion to a nation with an extradition treaty to Australia, who would excuse our actions.
No one.
Polanski is the same, it’s just that certain so-called commentators are demonstrating just how out of touch with the rest of society they are by ignoring the despicable nature of the crime or attempting to downplay or whitewash it.
He was an adult, he made an adult choice to break the law, unlike the 13 year old girl who told him no and who he drugged before an@lly r@ping her. He now needs to deal with the consequences of his act. His celebrity status is no “Get Out of Jail Free” card.
He did the crime, let him do the time, in a US prison filled with criminals who don’t like child rApists. Perhaps there he may have the opportunity to understand that what he did was wrong.
What does it say about those who are defending this crime and its perpetrator? Don’t any of them have kids or grand kids? How would they react if the young girl was a much loved daughter or grand daughter? OK as long as the perpetrator was also a clever/gifted artist, singer songwriter, film director perhaps? Sickening!
Now that’s strange. Last night I posted a comment on this in which I mentioned two long-dead paedophiles, Donald Friend and Dolly Dunn. The point being that the establishment protects celebrity paedophiles- not to mention other types of criminality. Gritten’s rationalisation said it all: “the 1970s were a different time, and his behaviour was not aberrant by prevailing entertainment-industry standards.” World’s best practice in those days then. Has anything changed? Friend’s apologists in the art scene are as active today as they were thirty years ago. See Kerry Negara’s docco on the subject.
But my comment appears to have been cut by the moderator. Am I missing something here? An oversight?
LIQUID LEN,
You are suggesting that there is hypocrisy where there is none. The contemporary Swiss government and its complacent forefathers in the war are not and never should be judged as the same entity. Blaming the Swiss authorities who arrested Polanski for the actions of their forefathers is about as rational as me blaming you for the actions of yours who in millenia past may or may not have murdered their slaves for all I know. Neither would I go so far as to say that the evils of the nazis, however undeniable, outweight those of any given rapist or paedophile. Such moral relativism is as tasteless as it is highly questionable at best.
Exactly, LIZ45. The cruel apathy of those supporting Polanski is as about as sickening as it gets. Were their own child the victim of such a crime I doubt they would like their daughter’s assailant walking free simply because of his fame and fortune and the fact the creep managed to excape justice all these years. But then again the apathy of the elite knows no bounds.
“Daniel probably thinks Polanski would have to be a child molester to earn the label of paedophile. “
Well, he did molest a child. This makes him a child molester/child rapist. Does this make him a paedophile? Is Polanski sexually attracted to children, outside of this one documented case that occurred decades ago?
”, let him do the time, in a US prison filled with criminals who don’t like child rApists. Perhaps there he may have the opportunity to understand that what he did was wrong.”
I especially love veiled references to male-on-male prison rape when it comes to debates about child molestation. It really shows the hollowness of the holier-than-thou stance of some people. Apparently rape is OK if it happens to the ‘right’ people.
1. A 40 something yo man who inebriates, drugs , rapes, violates and ejaculates in the rectum of a 13 yo girl and subsequently claimed that it wasn’t really wrong.
2. A man who flees from the criminal justice system.
All of the above is not in dispute.
(Edit)
“…Is Polanski sexually attracted to children, outside of this one documented case that occurred decades ago?…”
Are you even old enough to know who Nastassja Kinski is?
Humour me and look up how old she was when she first started ‘dating’ Polanski.
The man is a child rapist and a paedophile.
(Edit)
Just thought I’d add a link to what I believe is the perfect retort to the Let him go people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/a-petition-to-the-state-o_b_305017.html
What a dispicable crime. It doesn’t matter that time has passed, or that he had a tragic life. Rape is rape. A person who resorts to the use of drugs to tranquilise their CHILD victims, and render them defenseless is the worst form of predator. And then to run away. What a coward. Why has it taken so long for him to be arrested? Because he is wealthy and protected by his status and his location?
He is a rapist, a criminal, and a sleazy lowlife. I was not aware of this issue until today, and any shred of respect that I may have had for Roman Polanski is out the window. As a woman who has experienced being drugged and taken advantage of, I think he is just disgusting.
The only way that a person is worthy of redemption and forgiveness is when they demonstrate remorse. And by staying out of reach of authorities symbolises his sense of justification for committing this crime. If he was sorry, he would have gone back, done the time and faced the consequences of such an act of selfishness, and disrespect. He is a pissant.
WHEN A WOMAN SAYS NO, IT MEANS NO. End of story. When are people going to stop supporting perpetrators of crime against women?!! Grrrrrrrl power roll on.
(And Nastassja Kinski was fifteen when she started a relationship with Polanski.)
“And Nastassja Kinski was fifteen when she started a relationship with Polanski.)”
Which happens to be the age of consent in France. So unlike the incident in the USA, Polanski has no case to answer for.
DANIEL,
So the age of consent in France is 15? And, gee, I guess it would be crazy to suggest that legislators are simply normalising and reinforcing male privilege or anything of the sort? That would be feminazi talk of course, right? Your simplistic views about what does or does not constitute paedophilia would be a lark if they weren’t so dangerous. Go study the subject beyond the single sentence Junior Dictionary definition and you will find it encompasses much more than sex offenders. If you’re incapable of comprehending the paedophilia at the core of something as mainstream as the sexualisation of schoolgirl uniforms chances are you’re incapable of comprehending the rather obvious objectives of the director when it came to dating a 15-year-old. Simply invoking the age of consent laws in a debate about the dynamics and complexities of the Polanski and Kinski affair to attempt to vindicate the creep would have you escorted off campus to a soundtrack of laughter. Any critique of the value of consent considering the inherent power imbalance in such a relationship is conveniently swept aside to fulful your delusional white, male, liberal, bourgesois fantasies about adolescent girls and how “if the law says it’s awright then it’s awright, mate.” Sick. Plain. And. Simple. Sure, I mean it’s not illegal to be a misogynist piece of …. but then neither is it illegal to hate Jews or homosexuals but it doesn’t make it right either, does it? If you identify as left it’s time to reconsider your political allegiances. Your comments have exposed your complicity to misogyny and patriarchal hegemony which make you as bad as any bishop who hates women. Period. Fact: Polanski’s victim testified to a grand jury that she cried and told him no NO NO. If her testimony gave a truthful version of events Polanski is a rapist. If it did not he is still a misogynist piece of ….. and I couldn’t care less if he goes to goal. If you want to waste your energy defending child rapists and living in denial about Polanksi’s penchant for young girls you may as well as become a Catholic priest.
“Which happens to be the age of consent in France. So unlike the incident in the USA, Polanski has no case to answer for.”
Daniel,
Roman Polanski is attracted to girl children which constitutes paedophilia. A 15-year-old is still a child regardless of age of consent laws. You can talk about age of consent laws and try to redefine the definition of Child and that of Paedophilia until you’re blue in the face but it doesn’t change the fact that Polanski is a misogynist and a rapist. You seem perfectly happy to support his apparent right to be the former and the privileges that years of exile have accorded him with regard to the latter criminal matter. Why?
Daniel,
Age of Consent laws have no bearing on what does or does not constitute Paedophilia. Paedophilia isn’t a legal term it’s a psychiatric term. A sociological term. But there is no such criminal charge.
Just because French legislators decide that the age of consent will be 15 does not make a 15-year-old an adult. Neither does it make men wanting to have sex with 15-year-olds girls particularly nice people either. You were trying to argue that Polanski was “not really” a Paedophile. I’m waiting for evidence that will prove otherwise.
I simply think that it is too early to label Polanski a pedophile in the psychological sense of the word without any analysis by mental health practitioners. As for the age of consent thing, I entirely agree with you Arioch, I was merely arguing from a legalistic point of view.
Also I’m hardly defending Polanski. I’ll copy+paste this from an earlier post in case people missed it.
“Well, he (Polanski) did molest a child. This makes him a child molester/child rapist.”
Hardly a defense of Polanski.
How funny that, far from this being a Polanski-supporter vs Polanski-hate comments page like I thought it would be, it’s turned into an ‘is Polanski a pedophile or just a child rapist?’ comments page. One would imagine it hardly matters. But I applaud the fact there’s no argument that Polanski at least needs to be put before a court for this crime. At least, not on Crikey it seems….
Tell me, DANIEL, do you demand to see the psychiatric evalutions of every single sex offender whose crime was against a child to convince you of their paedophilia or just those enjoying fame and wealth? I do not remember seeing scores of letters to the editors from any DANIEL asking their publications to provide the proof that Joe Average Paedophile is, indeed, a paedophile why? Classist much? I know first year sociology students with even a remote engagement with gender theory who could dissect and dismiss your doubts into oblivion.
Are you being serious or not because I’d like to know before I start ignoring you.
DANIEL,
Any one of us could ask you the same question. You’re the one quick to criticise however selectively the idea that a man with an obvious interest in children is a paedophile. “Not really.” Only by any standard or definition within a sociological context at least. If Polanski were a Catholic priest would you leap to lengths to argue otherwise? A tradesman? How about if he were an unemployed gormless and ugly sex offender in the daily news? Would you be posting on blogs and questioning the label of paedophile? Would you object to the term paedophile until shown the signature of psychiatric evaluators? Or do you reserve this service for the rich and famous? You’re still to answer this simple little question. I am serious. Sexual violence is a serious matter. There is nothing serious, nor particularly mature or humane or academic for that matter, about abstracting what constitutes paedophilia simply because Polanski makes remarkable films. Donald Friend was a great Australian painter. Nothing can change that. Neither can anything change the fact that he interfered with boys as young as 10.
It is all very well to accuse Roman Polanski of being a paedophile but as long as the law is so flexible-who is to know what age will be the next age of consent? He has no case to answer. As to why The Swiss would lock-up-extradite, whatever, an old man who likes young bimbos solely on the basis of what an American State, pissed by the fact Polanski has eluded them for so long, has cried rape too often and too loudly and on dubious moral grounds. As only the Swiss would know, all grovel to the power of the American dollar.
I am gobsmacked by Ms Alstergrens’s contribution. I usually agree with this contributor, but where is she coming from?
Firstly, the contention that the law is flexible. Flexible??? For goodness sake, he admitted to having drugged the little girl, to having sex without her consent, and agreed to being sentenced by the court by pleading guilty to a reduced charge due to a plea bargain. Where is there flexibility in that?
If it was my own daughter, I would have expected a custodial sentence of at least ten years. If he did that to my own arse, under similar circumstances, I would seek unprintable retribution.
This admitted criminal decided to skip bail and leave the country. My comments appear at the head of this article. There is no need for me to reconsider, on the basis of known facts.
Quite simply, this self-confessed criminal has no reason to be let off the charges to which he has pleaded guilty and he must now return to the courthouse from which he fled and accept his sentence.
Of course, if his sentence is excessive (!), then he has avenues for review via appellate courts.
Vernise, I don’t understand your contention that he “has no case to answer” at all.
As for your use of the word “bimbos”… I will let the sisterhood to comment further.
You disappoint.
Dear John: My remarks were made against a background of different countries lowering the age of consent, as is the case with France just announcing their lowering the age of consent to fifteen. Indeed many countries keep altering this rule. This makes it difficult to adjust the laws without some sort of uniformity.
With modern medicines help and good food many females are able to bear children at younger and younger ages. It is doubtful that the French ‘age of fifteen’ will last for a long time.
Naturally I am less than delighted at the thought of Roman Polanski having got-so far-away from his ‘crime’. But as someone far wiser than me once said. “Justice delayed is justice denied.
I only use the name bimbo to describe ten to sixteen year old girls whose mothers have mindlessly allowed themselves to be bullied by other mothers, and by their peers. Together with the peer group pressure of the children themselves to encourage children, to become tarty. Hell, I even seen seven year old girls wearing all the latest clothes one would expect a hooker to wear, plus makeup and tawdry jewellery, nail polish on toes and fingers at the age of seven. As yet I have not met a professional tart who would dream of looking like this. And I have met many.
I’m not trying to defend Polanski, he looks and sounds to be a man I would hate.
So who are the beneficiaries of Mr Polanski being brought to trial. The victim? No, she got over it years ago, Roman Polanski? He is too old to inflict further damage. It sets a precedent? No. However it does remind people that there are rules in society which are worth adhering to. But when, all over the world the laws on this issue are changing; why should a man be brought to trial for something which may be legal tomorrow. (I have since learned he skipped the USA defaulting on half a million dollars he should have payed the victim. This is loathsome and deserves every bit of censure which can be thrown at it).
Spare me the thought of the ‘Sisterhood’. One only had to read the comments on ‘home birthing’ to see what a sort of female speaks for them. They have a spectral shroud political correctness around them. The deliberate stupidity, their always being determined to have the last word, the fact that they have afforded themselves every advantage obtained by my generation and have demeaned it. Their rudeness to everyone who disagrees with them is unconscionable and they are devoid of humour.
Political correctness has done more to wreck our ability to think than football. All it has done is produce a society of mindless nitwits paraphrasing meaningless slogans. We have become a society who blames everything onto someone else. The very art we produce is constantly under threat by these tiny-minded, self-righteous bigots.
Sorry to be so late replying to you but I’ve only just sat down at the computer.
Most Sincerely
Venise
Venise Alstergren,
(Edit)
ARIOCH: (Edit) I do not appreciate being told I am in favour of paedophilia. I was merely questioning whether, in the light of the French lowering the age of consent to fifteen, may encourage other nations to lower it even more. This would eventually see Roman Polanski being tried for something which in France and Switzerland-possibly-is legal. This would be regrettable.
(Edit)
PPS: The next time you accuse me of encouraging paedophilia I will seek legal opinion.
Venise Alstergren,
(Edit - Please deal with the issues raised rather than other commenters)