As we’ve been documenting here since Sunday, “Hollywood Self-Implodes over Polanski” as Roger L. Simon describes in his latest post. Of course, one doesn’t expect any sense of conventional morality from Tinseltown. But two previously well-respected authors who established their reps as moderate or (more or less ) conservative figures coming to grips with the Cold War have done a fair amount of damage to their reputations — at least for the moment — by attempting to defend Roman Polanski.
First up, Anne Applebaum, the author of the justly-celebrated Gulag, doubles down in her continued defense of Polanski, which you can read at Hot Air, along with Ed Morrissey’s response:
Applebaum crosses the line into some despicable territory here. She argues that once someone gets into a jacuzzi, regardless of their protestations and their refusals, that a girl is fair game for a rapist no matter what her age. No no longer means no if the shameless hussy leads on the poor, victimized male.
Meanwhile, Robert Harris, the author of two Cold War-oriented novels, Fatherland and Enigma, the former adapted to the small screen by HBO, the latter to the big screen, defends Polanski in the New York Times because of the director’s work in helping to craft an ultimately unproduced screenplay of another of Harris’s works:
I make no apology for feeling desperately sorry for him. The almost pornographic relish with which his critics are retelling the lurid details of the assault (strange behavior, one might think, for those who profess concern for the victim) makes it hard to consider the case rationally. Of course what happened cannot be excused, either legally or ethically.
But Ms. Geimer wants it dropped, to shield her family from distress, and Mr. Polanski’s own young children, to whom he is a doting father, want him home. He is no threat to the public. The original judicial procedure was undeniably murky. So cui bono, as the Romans used to say — who benefits?
America’s criminal justice system, which doesn’t take kindly to suspects fleeing to Europe, for one. A somewhat sympathetic piece by Jessica Grose linked to by Glenn Reynolds links today notes “the provocation that [Polanski] himself gave to prosecutors”:
In 1978, when he was brought to trial, Polanski fled because he believed the judge sentencing him was not going to accept the plea bargain he’d agreed to, a 90-day mental evaluation at Chico State Prison. In 2008, filmmaker Marina Zenovich—who had no prior relationship with Polanski—released a documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, that corroborated Polanski’s fear that his plea bargain wouldn’t have taken effect. Polanski tried to use the information presented in the film to get his case dismissed. Even the prosecutor from the original trial said in the documentary that he didn’t think the judge, who is now dead, had been fair to Polanski.
And for a while, it seemed as if Polanksi’s strategy might work. Earlier this year, a new judge was willing to consider dismissing the case against him. But first, he wanted Polanski to show up in court. Polanski, however, would not appear.
This is Polanski’s biggest problem: The judge’s terms were reasonable. He gave Polanski three months to surface in L.A. and even hinted that the director would probably not serve jail time if he appeared. And yet Polanski refused. From the point of view of prosecutors, Polanski practically dared them to act.
And after over 30 years of being a fugitive from justice, they did. Fatherland’s chief protagonist is a policeman doggedly investigating a series of crimes involving his colleagues, some of which date back to World War II; in real-life Harris wishes the repercussions of the most notorious acts of a friend would simply vanish.
On the other hand, in Hollywood, for some Cold War matters, the statute of limitations never expires.
Something about this bothers me, and now I think I know what it is.
I did what Rush suggests: “Ask yourself, who benefits from this?”
At first glance – no one benefits. The victim, certinaly not. Polanski, rotting in jail my make us all happy but what good does that do him or us?
Who really benefits from all this is feminists. It is another nail in their coffin being fitted for males only.
And the administration is also probably not unhappy with this discord. “Let no good crisis go unused,” Obama’s proletariat minister said.
Just follow please, this is kind of convoluted, but it fits together:
Recall the past 50 years and the turmoil over racism? Racism was once defined, solely, as “judging a person and his abilities by his skin color.” In the 60′s and therafter, it adopted a plethora of meanings. Whites, in adjudging themselves guilty of “racism” passed ever more stringent laws preventing and rectifying “racism.”
However, this process went way overboard, in fact turning the definition on its head (“reverse racism”). “Affirmative Action” was a cure worse than the disease and busing destroyed the school systems of most American cities.
Now that we have elected Obama, the hope was that racism would be ended. Looks like we elected the wrong black man, if we were hoping that. But at least he admits that 100% of the opposition to his program of dismantling and redistributing the American ecnomy is not based on “racism.” The reminder of the opposition is based on “fear” and “ignorance,” so he pontificates. Unbelieveable. But the press swallows it hook, line and sinker.
We are still mired in Jessie Jackson’s definition of “racism” when a scoundrel like the Charles Rangel can escape prison.
About Roman Polanski, yes what he did was deplorable, although I still fail to see that the girl was 100% innocent,or that you can apply today’s mores to yesterday’s accepted behavior. Yes, i can understand you want him hung, but execution should be saved for people who kill other people, otherwise we are doing “two eyes for an eye.”
Now about the definition of “sexism.” This also once had a single definition. Laws similar to those prohibiting discrimination against blacks were passed about females. Again, this was not enough for feminists and they kept pushing. A new class of criminal, called a “sex offender,” was created. Again, like the definition of “racism” the definition of “sex offender” was quite elastic and quickly expanded.
As the people pushing for more stringent laws regarding “racism” could point to horrible excesses like the Duke Lacrosse case (which turned out to be a hoax) and of course, slavery (which has nothing to do with present-day reality) to gain support for more stringent laws to “fix” racism.
So the people promoting feminism can point to cases like Roman Polanski to support their drive for more laws making what was formerly acceptable behavior, by men, criminal.
Today there are a million US “sex offenders” and climbing rapidly.
Laws establishing “Affirmative Action” caused great harm but the media pushed the process with inflammatory condemnations of “racism.” We were taught to belive that telling an ethnic joke was just as vile as an ethnic gang attack reuslting in murder, it was all “racism.”
Unlike “racism,” where violaters were fined or forced into bankruptcy, “sex offenders” were jailed. Statutory rape became a crime and gradually became enforced.
Men were sent to jail for “exposing themselves.” This could include a drunk urinating behind a tree. The criminal justice, which formerly overlooked teenagers having sex, constructed an intricate framework of stringent laws with felony teeth, such as two 16-year-olds having sex was legal, but an 18-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old could, or maybe not, be considered statutory rape, with a 20 year jail sentence.
A huge entrapment industry sprang up, with hundreds of police agencies setting internet traps baited with seductive young girls, and criminals were created by luring men to meetings with imaginery beautiful women, and by police offering to traffic in child porn. Prison sentences for such “planned crimes” are a significant portion of the violater’s life.
The US applied its new standards to the world at large, and when foreigners were entrapped, they were treated according to US law, giving new meanings to the definitions of “national borders” and “illegal immigration.”
Illegal touching has evolved from “sexual harrassment” which itself went from 1) threatening to fire a woman if she refused sex; to 2) looking too long at a woman who was wearing a miniskirt. (I remember our weekly staff meetings, a circle of chairs with no table, where our supervisor always wore a mini-skirt). “Illegal touching” meant if a youth gang was breaking windows at your house, and you touched one of them, you were arrested for violating the rights of a child.
The IMBRA law (passed by Congress at 03:00 with no public debate) effectively prevents American men from being able to escape American feminism by placing criminal barriers on overseas marriages.
All of these new “criminals,” including peeping toms, are now broadly classified as “sex offenders.”
This has the effect of putting the lowliest misdemeanor violator into the same class as a child rapist. It seems that is what the media and feminists want everyone to believe (and to codify in criminal law and punishment), that all men are sexists, potential child rapists, etc.
The point is, like “racism,” which was used to remake society according to the most radical of the “civil rights” crusaders, “sex offender” is a term bandied about and used by the most radical of the feminists to also remake American society. Of the two forces, feminism is more pernicious. Racism may hurt America, feminism can kill it.
“Sex offender” is supposed to make you think of a child rapist, but most “sex offenders” are anything but.
Yes, the feminists are laughing, all the way to the sperm bank, at the male conservative talk-show hosts lynching themselves with their own (self-guilt, as when the media accusation was racism?) rope, with their holier-than-thou speeches to outdo each other’s condemnations (similar to the media, faculty and prosecutors going after the Duke Lacrosse team).
Who benefits from jailing men who drug, rape, and sodomize children? Society does.
Who beneifts from not jailing them? Criminals and progressives.
How are Fatherland and Enigma Cold War books?
NCC,
As Orrin Judd noted in his review, Fatherland is a brilliant retelling of our detente with the Soviet Union; Enigma is built around the Soviets’ Katyn Forest massacre. Much like the movie version of Orwell’s 1984, only by burying the subtext of each book (particularly so with Enigma) could Harris have had a chance of Hollywood adapting them.
Ed
Let us imagine an 80-year-old retired white sheriff’s deputy from Alabama, hauled up on 40 year old charges of raping a 13 year old black girl.
Now let us imagine a whole slew of poeple rising to his defense saying, oh, I dunno…. “It was a long time ago”…. “this ‘so-called’ rape”…. “this is a witch hunt”…. it wasn’t ‘rape-rape’..”the arrest is ‘revolting’”…etc etc.
Now let us imagine exactly what ALL of these Hollywood luminaries would say about the case, AND about the people describing it as such.
Let us just imagine.
Uh huh.
Imagine Rush Limbaugh drugged, raped, sodomoized and orally copulated with Malia Obama after giving her drugs and alcohol. Rush didn’t think that the judge was being fair, and flew off to a life of luxury and Satellite Radio show in Paris. Then imagine Conservatives being upset because Rush couldn’t come to New York to pick up his Marconi awards.
Should Rush be extradited?
” A long time ago” only matters when the criminal is a leftist. Like the Ayers ” I was only 8″ defense from Obama or the Tookie Williams defenders. But when it comes to former KKK or Nazis its never a long time.
Marko, since you found something wrong with 1 out of my 500 sentences, I am still 99.8% correct, in your eyes?
I am NOT defending Roman Polanski. I am saying the fems are overjoyed about this, and using it to say ALL “sex offenders” are IDENTICAL to this case, so there will be even more stringent laws passed and many more men will be imprisoned, for far LESS serious crimes.
You let your emotion, not reason, rule you. Precisely what the left wants, so there are more laws and more government control. Just another useful idiot, dupe? Whatever Karl Marx said.
Take a look at what men are being imprisoned for these days. Now it is felony for evade alimony payments, and these “sex offenders” are imprisoned. Now how does this help anyone? How can you make payments when you’re in prison? Kind of hard to get a job, isn’t it?
No-fault divorce, the wife finds a better-looking man, you’re stuck with a lifetime of alimony. Don’t pay, rot in prison.
When the testimony is unsealed, and even the French government back-pedals from their hard-line refusal to extradite, it’s obvious that something is very wrong.