fuck you, apologists
Sep. 29th, 2009 01:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
threeplusfireReminder - Roman Polanski raped a child
Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
The media circus is unpleasant. It's absurdist. The way the media functions in this day and age is often depressing, disheartening and aggravating. But what's more absurdist and disgusting is the Polanski apologist crowd. The idea that we should forget he pled guilty to raping a child because he's made great movies or suffered during WWII is fucking obscene. I would like to know how many of these celebrities would be signing a petition if Polanski was a Nazi war criminal or stole their retirement savings. Does anyone honestly believe we would let Bernie Madoff run away to France for thirty years?
Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
The media circus is unpleasant. It's absurdist. The way the media functions in this day and age is often depressing, disheartening and aggravating. But what's more absurdist and disgusting is the Polanski apologist crowd. The idea that we should forget he pled guilty to raping a child because he's made great movies or suffered during WWII is fucking obscene. I would like to know how many of these celebrities would be signing a petition if Polanski was a Nazi war criminal or stole their retirement savings. Does anyone honestly believe we would let Bernie Madoff run away to France for thirty years?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-29 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-29 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-29 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-29 07:08 pm (UTC)I've lost all respect I had for her. This makes me sad. :(
no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 01:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 01:47 am (UTC)Oh excuse, I forgot that part where a person says no means I should go ahead and have sex with them!
no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 01:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 01:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-29 10:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-29 10:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-29 10:25 pm (UTC)I'm going to boycott the work that any of these celebrities who sign the petition do.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-29 11:28 pm (UTC)I know the state has the right to prosecute and that they don't need her cooperation or consent, specifically because in these cases the victim may be intimidated by her attacker and unwilling to confront him. But he's been out of her life for decades, so that isn't the case here. LA prosecutors could have back-burnered this case (unless he had the balls to show up and try accepting his Oscar in person), but they didn't.
At jury impaneling the lawyers ask whether you think prison is for incarceration (protecting the public from the offender), rehabilitation, or punishment. I don't care that this dude has made movies or that he suffered in WWII. I do care that he is apparently rehabilitated, and the public in France and Switzerland and wherever presumably doesn't need to be protected from him. Yes, it would have been nice to punish him at the time, but why drag all this up again when punishment would be the only remaining reason? The only people benefiting are a few lawyers with political aspirations, and the scandal-mongering media. Not the victim, not the public at large -- who, btw, got IOUs instead of state tax refunds this year, because California couldn't afford to give them their money back. But California's going to spend the money and man hours on this?
I don't mind having an unpopular opinion. I don't blame anybody for having a "rape is wrong and should be punished" reaction, because you're not wrong about that. Just pointing out that it's possible to have thought the matter through and still come down on the side of leaving him the hell in Europe.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 01:42 am (UTC)No one in their right mind would want this sort of madness. But then, it wouldn't be happening if Polanski hadn't fled in the first place. It wouldn't continue to be brought up every time he gets nominated for an award or someone makes a documentary if he had accepted the punishment for the crime he took a guilty plea for in the first place.
People don't get so outraged about the resolution of other old crimes - the recent case of that kidnapped girl found living in the backyard springs to mind. Or twenty, thirty year old homicides. There was recently a man arrested for a string of killings going back close to forty years. In my mind, raping a child stands as probably one of the single worst things a human being could ever do.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 04:00 am (UTC)I don't know anything at all about the history of flight risks, but I wonder if Polanski is the bad example the system learned from. The judge knew better than to let Madoff out on bond, after all.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 01:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 05:52 pm (UTC)The man is filth. He should have been detained ages ago. I hope he receives what is truly "fair".