Scorsese, Allen, Aronofsky&others join "FREE POLANSKI" petition (1 Viewer)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...g-as-youre-a-great-film-director-2025067.html

Johann Hari: So that's OK then. It's fine to abuse young girls, as long as you're a great film director

The Swiss government has admitted "national interests" may be a factor


So now we know. If you are a 44-year-old man, you can drug and anally rape a terrified 13-year-old girl as she sobs, says "No, no, no," and pleads for her asthma medication – all according to the victim's sworn testimony – and face no punishment at all. You just have to meet two criteria – (a) you have to run away and stay away for a few decades; and (b) you need to direct some good films. If you do, not only will you walk free, there will be a huge campaign to protect you from the "witch-hunt" and you will be lauded as a hero.
Roman Polanski admitted his crime before he ran away and, for years afterwards, he boasted from exile that every man wanted to do what he did. He chuckled to one interviewer in 1979: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see?


"But... fucking, you see... and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"
But this is not enough, it seems, for the Swiss government to return him to the US to face trial. They have found a legalistic loophole that enables them to let him go – while admitting "national interests" may be a factor. This may be a reference to pressure from neighbouring France to free their citizen. As a Swiss citizen, I think I can say without being offensive, we all remember the bargains Swiss governments have made in the past to preserve their "national interests". This is in a long tradition of helping criminals and calling it Swiss hard-headedness.
The campaign to release Polanski has leeched into the open a slew of attitudes I thought were defeated a generation ago. Whoopi Goldberg said it wasn't "rape rape".
Others hinted darkly that she wasn't a virgin. So if a 13-year-old has been abused before, she's fair game for all future rapists? The French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levi, who led the campaign, said a little bit of child molestation isn't his problem when Great Art is at stake. He wrote: "Am I repulsed by what he got up to? His behaviour is not my business. I'm concerned about his movies. I like The Pianist and Rosemary's Baby."
That's worth saying again – this campaign was led by a man who thinks the drugging and raping of a child is "not my business", when compared to a film about Satan inseminating Mia Farrow.
The novelist Robert Harris, who is a friend of Polanski's, said: "It strikes me as disgusting treatment." He wasn't talking about the child-rape. He was talking about the attempt to punish the child-rape. He said Polanski was being subjected to a "lynch mob"? Where is this lynch mob? All I can see are people patiently suggesting the law should be enforced and he should be given a fair and open trial. This is the opposite of a lynching: it is sober justice.
Do these defenders of Polanski understand what they are saying? Harris has four children. If a great film director drugs and rapes them tomorrow, will he call the police, or will he say it would be "disgusting" to do so? Would he say the police and prosecutors trying to protect his children were a "lynch mob"? If the rapist ran off, would he say that after three decades on the run (boasting about his crime) he should walk free?
Now the campaign has succeeded. So congratulations to Whoopi and Bernard and Robert: an unrepentant, bragging child-rapist won't face his day in court, thanks in part to you. Have fun at the victory party. But you may want to leave your daughters at home.
 
Ok Thumped, I'm going to do this once

So now we know. If you are a 44-year-old man, you can drug and anally rape a terrified 13-year-old girl as she sobs, says "No, no, no," and pleads for her asthma medication – all according to the victim's sworn testimony – and face no punishment at all. You just have to meet two criteria – (a) you have to run away and stay away for a few decades; and (b) you need to direct some good films. If you do, not only will you walk free, there will be a huge campaign to protect you from the "witch-hunt" and you will be lauded as a hero.

and a suitably hysteric opposition who suddenly decide that "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I never cared about this before but NOW, 30 years later, I'M OUTRAGED"

Roman Polanski admitted his crime before he ran away and, for years afterwards, he boasted from exile that every man wanted to do what he did. He chuckled to one interviewer in 1979: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see?

pretty horrible thing to say. Mind you there were loads of horrible things in 1979 that wouldn't be acceptable today. And to an extent he's right, if he had killed somebody it wouldn't have had as much appeal to the press.


"But... fucking, you see... and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"

I think this is the crux of the issue, from what I can see, attitudes in 1979 were very different to this kind of thing. Just as an example, there are LOADS of songs about having sex with underage girls that couldn't and wouldn't be made anymore. I would be interested if anyone can show me some people who were outraged at this statement in 1979 and wrote about it in a similar way to this article.

But this is not enough, it seems, for the Swiss government to return him to the US to face trial. They have found a legalistic loophole that enables them to let him go – while admitting "national interests" may be a factor. This may be a reference to pressure from neighbouring France to free their citizen. As a Swiss citizen, I think I can say without being offensive, we all remember the bargains Swiss governments have made in the past to preserve their "national interests". This is in a long tradition of helping criminals and calling it Swiss hard-headedness.

yeah probably correct, but I notice this article is NOT about how outraged you are that they are hiding nazi gold or whatever other crimes you are referring to.

The campaign to release Polanski has leeched into the open a slew of attitudes I thought were defeated a generation ago. Whoopi Goldberg said it wasn't "rape rape".
Others hinted darkly that she wasn't a virgin. So if a 13-year-old has been abused before, she's fair game for all future rapists?

I really don't think anyone is saying that but Whoopi Goldberg's statement was pretty fucking dumb alright. Does anyone actually believe that Whoopi Goldberg is in favour of rape though? I think they have just grabbed gleefully on an absolutely dumb statement that is barely improved by context and used it to tar everyone who is defending polanski with the same brush.

The French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levi, who led the campaign, said a little bit of child molestation isn't his problem when Great Art is at stake.

That's horrible, where did he say this?

He wrote: "Am I repulsed by what he got up to? His behaviour is not my business. I'm concerned about his movies. I like The Pianist and Rosemary's Baby."

he didn't say it here, where did he say it?

That's worth saying again – this campaign was led by a man who thinks the drugging and raping of a child is "not my business", when compared to a film about Satan inseminating Mia Farrow.

Who said anything about a comparison? or are we actually saying that all art should be judged by the behaviour of the person who makes it?


The novelist Robert Harris, who is a friend of Polanski's, said: "It strikes me as disgusting treatment." He wasn't talking about the child-rape. He was talking about the attempt to punish the child-rape.

30 years after it happened when the victim has specifically asked that it not be pursued. And he was not talking about "the attempt to punish the child-rape", he's talking about the sudden decision to pursue Polanski.

He said Polanski was being subjected to a "lynch mob"? Where is this lynch mob? All I can see are people patiently suggesting the law should be enforced and he should be given a fair and open trial. This is the opposite of a lynching: it is sober justice.

why did it take you 30 years to suddenly insist on 'sober justice' ? Why was this article not written 5,10,15,20,25 or 30 years ago? Why do you SUDDENLY care?

Do these defenders of Polanski understand what they are saying? Harris has four children. If a great film director drugs and rapes them tomorrow, will he call the police, or will he say it would be "disgusting" to do so?

I am yet to see a single person (except Whoopi Goldberg kind of, see above) defend his crime. And in answer to your question he would either call the police or perhaps call you

Would he say the police and prosecutors trying to protect his children were a "lynch mob"?

no he would not, obviously.

If the rapist ran off, would he say that after three decades on the run (boasting about his crime) he should walk free?

has Polanski been boasting about his crime for 30 years or are all your quotes 29 years old? When was the last time he 'boasted' about it? Can anyone link me to this?

Now the campaign has succeeded. So congratulations to Whoopi and Bernard and Robert: an unrepentant, bragging child-rapist won't face his day in court, thanks in part to you. Have fun at the victory party. But you may want to leave your daughters at home.

because it'll be a victory rape party is it? A party where all the rapists meet up and rape 13 year olds? Cos that's what's going to happen is it? Is that what you're saying? I don't see any other way of of reading that.



And while we're at it how come there are no campaigns and outraged articles to get Jimmy Page and David Bowie and all the other 70's rockstars who raped 13 and 14 year old groupies arrested? Oh sure, they say it was consensual and none of the girls (that I know of) want these rock stars prosecuted but no 13 year old can give consent and what we want here is justice. COLD SOBER JUSTICE.



Oh, and if anyone actually cares about my opinion I think what Polanski did was absolutely despicable and he should have been prosecuted properly at the time. I think things are COMPLETELY different now to how they were back then and people shouldn't be ignoring that. I also think the victims feelings should be taken into consideration and if they don't want it pursued then maybe it should not be pursued.

I don't think there is a 'witch hunt' going on against him but I do think that the people who are calling to prosecute him are ganging up together in the worlds most smugly outraged mob who are being driven by a righteous zeal that approaches a religious crusade so convinced are they that they are correct.

I also think the 'free polanski' side are a bunch of foolish idiots mixed with well-meaning friends who should keep their mouths shut.

and I don't really know what the solution is. Aside from maybe turning your brain back on.
 
30020time20bomb.gif
 
So can we start an arrest David Bowie campaign or not then? That was the main drive behind my post.
 
New posts

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

21 Day Calendar

Mohammad Syfkhan 'I Am Kurdish' Dublin Album Launch
Bello Bar
1 Portobello Harbour, Saint Kevin's, Dublin, Ireland
Mohammad Syfkhan 'I Am Kurdish' Dublin Album Launch
Bello Bar
1 Portobello Harbour, Saint Kevin's, Dublin, Ireland
Bloody Head, Hubert Selby Jr Infants, Creepy Future - Dublin
Anseo
18 Camden Street Lower, Saint Kevin's, Dublin, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads... If we had any... Which we don't right now.

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top