According to today’s New York Times:
American officials formally requested the extradition of Roman Polanski…over his flight in 1978 from sentencing for having sex with a 13-year old girl.
Listen, you bastards, Polanski did not “have sex” with that girl. He raped her. Actually, it’s worse than that. He drugged, and then sodomized her. A 13-year old child. “Having sex” implies consent and sanitizes what occurred. The Times refuses to call it what it is. If Polanski were an investment banker, they’d be screaming for justice from the lofty perch of the Editorial page.
And Woody Allan, of all people, should keep is fucking mouth shut. Another child molester. Takes one to know one, I suppose.
I started to write a comment here with my own thoughts, but I am in such complete agreement with you, I can’t think of a thing I would add to what you’ve already written. Except, what if “she” had been a 13-year old male child, would so many be willing to overlook the obvious rape of a minor child.I’m thinking…probably not.Thanks for speaking up…there’s too much apathy about this case.
30 years. he was not hiding. why did it take so long?lady justice should be blind, but c’mon… somebody buy her a map…
In total agreement. I’m amazed (and disgusted) by the public support he’s receiving over this, and the tacit support he’s clearly received for years. WTF?
Absolutely. I have to admit to previous ignorance re: the actual acts; and I had heard that the victim has said she wishes the whole thing were dropped. But then when I did read the details, I was absolutely disgusted by the media and justice system have made light of his actions. The word rape is never used … and yes, while it is worse because it was against a 13 year old girl, what he did was a crime – even if it were done to a fully adult woman. Makes me sick and angry (and I’m no puritan).
Yup, I’m seeing spots over this whole lovely story. And the language the Times used is unconscionable.
The word “rape” isn’t used because Polanski was allowed to cop to a much reduced charge because the girl’s family hoped to spare her the media circus that ended up being her life b/c Polanski ran away.The guy has a history of preying on underage girls. Whatever his “skill level” as a director, he is a child rapist and predator.
GOTJ: I can think of several scenarios that wouldn’t have passed muster with the Times. Don’t know why they’re letting this guy side.Daisy: France is safe haven. They have no extradition treaty with the U.S.
PG: He doesn’t have PUBLIC support. All his support stems from the entertainment community only.E: “Let’s just forget about the whole thing” doesn’t work for me.Leah: Again, I don’t know why the Times is softballing this story. For shame.Annie: I have the feeling that he’ll get his comeuppance soon.
Question. What happened to the girl?I guess this happened before I was born and I had no clue until I read this and looked it up.Now that I have, I agree with you. Why did it take 40 years for people to say something?
Guess that’s what I meant – support from public figures that’s receiving a lot of (uncritical) publicity, as opposed to support from the general public. Like producing 1&1/2 hours of entertainment every couple of years lifts you above the common dictates of humanity and decency.
I agree with everything you said. I have three daughters.And I can’t disagree, really, with anything any of what the other commenters wrote either.In the old days, family would have taken care of guys like this. If it had been my daughter? Polanski would have ceased breathing a long time ago.
What shocks me is how long it has taken to extradite him. He’s a famous director. They must have known where he lived. Ugh there’s so much that I can say about how much this disgusts me.
I think there was an article in the NYTimes a few weeks ago about how “things were different in the swinging 70’s”. Uhm, I was 13 in the 70’s, and I don’t remember being raped as being a social norm. Far from it.
Rob: You mean the “good” old days.Sid: They knew where he was. The U.S. does not have extradition treaty with out pals in France.Cat: I saw that article, too! It was a ridiculous premise. Yet another load of baloney from the Times in support of Polanski. I don’t get it.
It is f-ing disgusting the way the media are brushing over this like it’s two consenting adults who just got a little bit carried away while they were tipsy. Wholly agree with the way this man is just having his nasty abusive side swept under the carpet.
yet another reason to be pissed at the french government