Eminentoes
Roman Law
The Polanski case divides liberals.
Too bad the arrest of Roman Polanski didn’t occur last week. The global elite could have paused from its discussions about the United Nations Convention on the Child (which includes teens) to kick the issue around.
“Absolutely horrifying,” said the French culture minister Frédéric Mitterrand. That Polanski drugged and raped a thirteen-year-old in the 1970s? No, that he has been finally nabbed for it.
Perhaps the Polanski case could have served as a topic for a break-out session at the Clinton Global Initiative proceedings also held last week in New York. The sexual exploitation of young women has become one of the former president’s signature issues. As he explained to David Gregory in his Meet the Press interview last Sunday, “there’s this whole problem of trafficking, which has gotten worse in the economic downturn, which disproportionately affects young women.”
Whether the Clinton White House adhered to the Tailhook Convention or the UN Convention on the Child remains an open question. But certainly the former president would agree with actress Whoopi Goldberg that judgments in this area require a range of nuance. Goldberg has defended Polanski by saying: “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”
How does the National Organization for Women feel about rape-rape? Will it now boycott The View? No, as in its embrace of Clinton, who apparently didn’t commit abuse-abuse with Kathleen Willey and company, NOW takes outrages on a case-by-case basis.
Still, while Polanski has enjoyed a robust defense in the last few days from a legion of Hollywood directors and actors, other liberals are treating him like a more vicious version of Austin Powers. Times have changed since the 1970s when Polanski could get 40 days in jail for a crime that would imprison him for 40 years today.
Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post is glad to see justice done here, as is the editorial page of the New York Times, which says the case is about an “adult preying on a child.”
Don’t look now, but a small fissure has opened up between European and American liberals. The Times even said “we disagree strongly” with the “prevailing mood” in Europe. Maybe an Obama-Sarkozy summit in Gstaad will have to be arranged.
Polanski’s only defender on Hardball was Willie Brown, whose defense-lawyer-style liberalism failed to impress his sparring partner, an indignant female attorney. A careful Chris Matthews kept his distance from the bickering.
An Anderson Cooper segment on CNN about Polanski’s fate wasn’t all that favorable to him either. Jeffrey Toobin, its legal expert, adopted a justice-is-justice tone and said that broken plea bargains never justify fugitive flight.
Apparently Polanski has been hoist by his own petard: the recent documentary that he encouraged, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, which was supposed to accelerate his rehabilitation, has retarded it, by baiting American prosecutors into tracking him down. Like Austin Powers, Polanski misjudged the new liberal world that he inhabits, with its mixed signals of permissiveness and regulation.
For whatever reason, the indulgence that liberals recently extended to Michael Jackson no longer covers him. Maybe his timing was poor. Had he been picked up during Bush’s term rather than Obama’s, the New York Times editorial would probably have seen it as a “distraction” from the war on terror and “one more example” of run-amok moralism. ACLU liberals would have complained about procedural violations, and the Democrats would have seen it as a needless offense to a favorite ally, the French.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
rick| 10.1.09 @ 6:45AM
Whoopi needs to define what rape-rape is. Is there such a thing as raped cubed? Rape to fourth power? Brings back memories of the definition of "is" from a previous sexual predator.
Darin| 10.1.09 @ 7:02AM
So I guess Rick Sanford didn't have an "affair-affair". Oops, my bad. Conservatives can be held to standards. Liberals cannot since they have no standards. Never mind.
flel| 10.2.09 @ 2:04AM
What does your comment have to do with the criminal act of a non-political party? To try to equate the reaction to a marital problem of a politician to the criminal act of a filmmaking star is assinine. You may want to check the name of the governor too before you start spouting off.
Berl Goetz| 10.5.09 @ 6:16PM
That's what I love about this medium: anything goes! Even spouting-spouting.
mojorising| 10.1.09 @ 7:12AM
rick, You took the words right out of my mouth. Perhaps "rape-rape" is akin to "double secret probation." All kidding aside, Polanski should do at least 5 years in prison for fleeing before his sentence has been passed, besides being the creep that the grand jury testimony revealed.
Robert Rosencrans| 10.1.09 @ 7:21AM
Apparently liberals love having sex with children. Woody Allen, the poster child of liberal causes, did the same thing without the drugs and is also one of Polanski's biggest supporters. This is what liberal men do, and liberal women who have no moral standards, apparently love them all the same.
janet| 10.1.09 @ 7:24AM
Who the hell is Whoopi to offer what "she thinks happened"? Was she there? This is just another example of liberal elitists who think they are above the law and who prove yet again that they have no moral compass. If it fits the mantra of "feel good" then it's acceptable. What I want to see is the feminist outcry against the rape of a female, let alone a minor CHILD. Where is the public rage against the sexual exploitation of children?
Melvin| 10.1.09 @ 7:40AM
There is one word that is not being emitted by anyone about Roman Polanski. And that word is Pedophile.
Roman Polanski is just as much a Pedophile today as he was a pedophile 40 years ago.
The double standard that Hollywood is showing on full display is beyond comprehension even for Americans that call themselves Liberals.
But I suppose we must keep in my that we are dealing with Euro-snob wannabes who fancy themselves as Euro-elites with unfathomable culture and gravitas and buggering underage children is perfectly acceptable if your in the motion picture industry..
Americans are constantly being accused by the Europeans of being too uptight about sex, and our bodies. Call it being old fashioned, but I really find it disgusting of having sex with a thirteen year old girl of whom I had to give drugs to make her incoherent as did Roman Polanski.
Whoopi Goldberg's calling Romans Polanski's crime as not as rape-rape is something new for the dictionary, but Ms. Goldberg's mind has always resided in the gutter of human thought so that comment from her isn't surprising.
Doesn't this support of pedophiles by Hollywood just want to make ya go out and see a movie?
Anonymous| 10.1.09 @ 7:52AM
At Polanski's age, will he still be considered "fresh meat" on the cellblock? Whoopi should comment on that.
Shamus| 10.1.09 @ 8:12AM
This is a peculiar legal situation. The original plea agreement may be void, so Polanski faces life in prison. It's ironic that his original sentence was so light and that his flight may subject him to serious punishment.
davemcd| 10.1.09 @ 8:19AM
Aas some one wiser than me stated, "if it was Father Roman Polanski, Catholic Priest, instead of Roman Polanski, Director, would the Left react differently?" A great question to which we all know the answer. There are no Statute of Limitations on pedophilia-pedophilia, Whoopi.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.1.09 @ 2:08PM
Davemcd: Your right on the money about this. If this was Father Polanski, a Priest from the “Evil” Catholic Church, he would’ve been seen as a monster in everybody’s eyes (and rightfully so), no matter when this crime may have occurred.
But this guy’s from Hollywood, and it was the 70’s, and everybody was under the spell of Disco at the time, and he was “only” trying to recover from the Manson murders, and Oh yeah?, he didn’t mean to agree to a plea deal either, where he plead guilty to this crime, he was confused.
The Left’s double standard's is so shocking, and never fails to make me laugh. He had sex with a child Whoopie, there is no looking the other way, or making excuses for his conduct. You cannot defend him now, and ask for leniency for him, he had sex with a child, he was, and is, a monster.
And any Hollywood actor, who’s ever worked with him since this occurred, should be ashamed!! And everyone who’s signed that petition to block his extradiction should be too. But they won't be, it's a Hollywood thing!!
janet| 10.1.09 @ 7:22PM
The double-standards and hypocrisies of Hollywood, liberals and leftists are so numerous to keep count. This is just the latest example so it doesn't even surprise me anymore. The only thing about this whole story that made me shake my head was when I read that Woody Allen signed a letter protesting the arrest of Polanski. I guess coming from one pedophile who ended up marrying his stepdaughter after having an affair with her when she was a minor during his marriage to her mom -- I guess that could be called consistent from a leftist's point of view.
Lastly, and this is neither here nor there, but it irks me that Polanski is called Polish. He is of Jewish heritage whose parents lived in Poland. I do not consider him a true Pole, as I am, but rather a Jew who had relatives living in Poland for a time. His actions and moral relativism are more in sync with a liberal Jew then a more conservative Roman Catholic Pole who happen to make up the majority of Polish people.
Extremely Extreme Extremist| 10.1.09 @ 10:00PM
According to Wikipedia: "[Polanski's] father was a Polish Jew and his mother, born in Imperial Russia due to Partitions of Poland, was brought up as a Catholic as she had a Jewish father and a Polish Roman Catholic mother."
As I understand it, ethnic Jewishness is conferred by the mother (anyone who knows more or better, feel free to chime in). If so, then he's not, in fact, a Jew, or not fully a Jew, or...something.
On the other hand, the same Wiki entry claims that his parents were agnostics, which means he wasn't raised as a Catholic either. This rings true to me, because it suggests that he was raised to believe that no objective moral truth can be known, even if it exists, and that therefore all there is is arbitrary human law. This would go a long way toward explaining where Roman's head was at in 1977, and where Hollywood's is at today.
Maia| 10.2.09 @ 1:23AM
Janet,
Though I called you Mr. (apologies for that), I emailed you privately my opinions on your comment. I took mild offense to your suggested correlation between Polanski's Jewishness and moral relativism. I find that a weak analogy and while I admire Poles for their stoicity and historical Slavic hardiness, I don't think Polanski's being "liberal Jewish," (suggest you look up the word liberal like everyone else) makes it more likely for one to rape and sodomize a 13 year old than a Polish conservative Catholic. Unless you of course believe in the ages-old adage that Jews are of course devil-worshippers. I was born without horns. Maybe I got clipped them at birth. Will have to ask my father. Other than that, will let everyone know if my liberal Jewish background (am now conservative) makes me a less moral person than Catholics.
Daisy| 10.2.09 @ 2:42AM
Maia, Janet tends to paint with a very broad brush, but I don't believe she has malicious intent. She types before she thinks sometimes. We've had a dust up or two of our own.
I am a conservative Catholic and I think of folks like you as family.
janet| 10.2.09 @ 3:17PM
Maia,
Was your private response to me in connection with your role at AmSpec or just a personal response?
Sorry if it offends you, but Polanski IS shining example of liberal Jewish Hollywood at it's worst. I'm not sure what really offends you most - the liberal, the Jewish or the Hollywood differentiation since you are or were all three (believing you to be conservative now). I'm not impressed with some intern touting her Eastern European studies as some kind of crendentials implying that your analysis of Poland is superior. Although I have almost 20 years work experience in the Court system, I do have advanced degrees in International Relations from a Top 1o university, and have lived, travelled and worked in Europe, so you need to accept differing viewpoints. Read the Trilogy by Henryk Sienkiewicz (if you haven't already). It's best to read it in Polish (not sure if you speak or read Polish) but if not, Kuniczak's translation is superior. You will get a deep understanding of why Poland is Poland. It's not unnoteworthy to mention that Poland is the most devoutly Catholic country in all of Europe. It's also noteworthy that Poland as well as France are both distancing itself from Polanski. Sorry if my "broad brushstroke" as Daisy suggests (her defense of you is the icing on the cake for me in all of this) offends you. Poland was one of the most tolerant countries in Europe towards the Jews for hundreds of years. Poland benefitted from Jewish contributions to the arts, literature, and culture, but I feel Catholicism has so deeply effected Poland, like no other country, that I can make distinction with how Catholicism formed the morality of Polish society vis a vis the morality of liberal, Jewish, Hollywood of which Polanski represented when he committed his crime.
Maia| 10.2.09 @ 3:33PM
It was a personal response. Although honestly, if I weren't an intern here, I don't know if I wouldn't have caught the comment. Of course, I'm junior to everyone here combined. I know that Poles have been very good to the Jews. I know someone whose grandparents on both sides were in the Resistance. Thanks for the recommendation. Polish is on the list of languages I have yet to learn. I grew up nearby Hollywood so you can label me Hollywoodish, and I am socially liberal on some issues. Bottomline: I'm not a true believer in either party but obviously lean to the right since I'm here at AmSpec.
Pekar| 10.5.09 @ 10:55PM
A couple of slight corrections are in order here: 1st, Woody Allen was never actually married to or lived with Mia Farrow, so Soon-Yi Allen nee Previn was never actually his stepdaugher. She was the adopted daugher of the woman with home he was in a "long-term relationship" (as Hollywood's legion of never-marrieds might refer to it as). Moreover, it appears she was 18 or close to it when her affair with the Woodman began.
Not that I'm condoning his behavior, which was creepy and just really, really inappropriate. Polanski's conduct on the other hand is on a whole other level. Plying a 13 year old with alcohol and quaaludes then violating her repeatedly isn't just inappropriate it's depraved and the people defending him now have more than a few screws loose.
Andrew B| 10.1.09 @ 8:32AM
Somewhere, Fatty Arbuckle is saying "Jeez, how come Hollywood didn't stick up for ME this way?"
Alan Brooks| 10.1.09 @ 8:33AM
Good point yesterday, that Whoopi wouldn't like it if her 13 year old granddaughter were drugged (i.e. date raped) and molested, let alone if she were 'just' molested.
If you called Whoopi on the phone and asked if her granddaughter is available, she might call a detective to scare you off. Like if you called Joseph Jackson in 1970 and asked if La Toya or Janet was available, he would have gotten mean as hell.
Alan Brooks| 10.1.09 @ 8:35AM
"Americans are constantly being accused by the Europeans of being too uptight about sex"
but if you slept with a kid in Italy, you might wind up sleeping with the fishes.
Becky| 10.1.09 @ 9:23AM
It's not like he killed a fish or anything as violent as that , so I guess for his defenders have the pre reformation mindset that as long as the politics line up, good deeds are redemptive. It is part of Ted Kennedy's elevation in left/liberal circles.
Here we go with another Hollywood organized political/social statement to lecture the rest of us on why we are wrong in our thinking of how the world works.
So far, Jewel and Kirsty Alley, are showing some common sense on the topic.
Is it me or does Whoopi seem dumb-dumb.
muriel| 10.1.09 @ 9:54AM
These Polanski supporters are all leftover's from the insane culture of the 60's mindset "whatever feels good, do it" It doesn't matter who you might exploit in your quest for self indulgence. Just objectify women to exploit them. Thank you radical feminists for lowering the dignity and value of women to merely an object for men's gratification.
dasboot| 10.1.09 @ 9:58AM
Whoopi Goldberg is ugly-ugly. She can afford to make those comments because no one would rape-rape her unless they were completely out of their mind on PCP. Even then..
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 10.1.09 @ 10:27AM
One thing I have to credit polanski with, on what would constitute proper justice for this vile piece of filth, I find myself agreeing with two liberals: Juan Williams and Bob Beckel. I don’t recall the exact quote but on Sean Hannity’s Great American Panel recently, Beckel said words to the effect that if this deviant had done the same to his daughter as he did to that child, Beckel would shoot him. Williams suggested more recently, also on Hannity, that he liked Beckel’s idea. So Roaemary’s baby has done a great job of reuniting this country - excluding fellow dingy clods Woodhead Allen, Whoopy Doopy and other vile low lifes. However, in typical liberal fashion Beckel and Williams are much too lenient. I think shooting is too good for this odious vermin. Waste of lead, brass and powder. Something more painful and longer lasting comes to mind. If I were in the same position as polanski, the punishment I would most fear is being locked in a small room and being forced to watch every single second of beavisbud’s taped teleprompter recitations until Ba‘al Zebub finally returns Liebling to the eternal dung heap from which he crawled.
Gill O’Teen ??
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!
Grzmlyk| 10.1.09 @ 10:57AM
It's really quite easy to resolve this. Just look at Polanski's politics. If he's a liberal, he's a a hero, a wronged man, a victim of puritanical vengeance, a stud, a gifted artist, a bon vivant who fell prey to a 13-year old seductress.
If he's a conservative, he's an evil pedophile, a predator, a rapist, a miscreant, a lousy excuse for an artist, a destroyer of childhoods and a menace to society.
Now since it's pretty obvious he's a liberal, why, oh why, are we persecuting him?
Hey, Chinatown is one of my all-time favorite movies. And I still think the creep should rot.
Earth to libs: 13-year olds are too young to make sexual decisions. Regardless of how many libs disagree, it happens to be the law.
And rape is rape, whether it's perpetrated by a liberal artist or a conservative Fox news commentator.
Missy| 10.1.09 @ 10:46PM
Just read the young girl's Grand Jury testimony--it'll turn your stomach. Polanski tricked the young girl's mother by telling her he wanted to do a photo shoot of her daughter for Vogue magazine: She was 13, he was 43; she was given drugs and alcohol and she told him NO repeatedly. She also stated that she was afraid of Polanski when they were alone. He even filmed the entire episode.
He raped her orally, vaginally and anally--how is this not rape rape?
Polanski is a monster; lock him up and throw away the key.
anonymous| 10.2.09 @ 3:33AM
Polanski had it all planned out. He phoned the mother minutes before the rape, probably to tell her he was going to be late driving her daughter back home.
Warrior | 10.1.09 @ 2:09PM
Mark Foley was a scandal for sending emails, repeat, sending emails to a teenage boy who was a former page. Insufficient evidence to put him on trial for any criminal charges. This was a HUGE scandal to the left. The conservatives are out of control and the word scandal was used in a million headlines and new casts. Meanwhile Gary Studds was off limit after having sex with underage males and was censured against the will of the democrats.
Roman Polanski, well it really wasn't rape-rape?? That's classic.
Jim O'Brien| 10.1.09 @ 2:58PM
There is one set of laws for "working families" - words frequently invoked by Ted Kennedy - and another set of laws for the Kennedys, other politicians, and Hollywood. That's why socialists such as Obama, Rangel, Frank, Feinstein, Dodd, and Pelosi are so willing to impose burdensome new laws and regulations on their constituents. The law-makers won't ever be subjected to prosecution, or at least that's what they think.
Cheated on your taxes? No problem, you can be a Cabinet Secretary. Arrested a few times? Then you'd make a good Obama Czar. Engaged in behavior which causes AIDS? Then you can screw up the entire mortgage lending business, but blame it on the bankers.
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 3:18PM
Eternity will deal with Roman Polansky. But I won't mind if he gets a little pay back while in prison.
Dave| 10.1.09 @ 5:26PM
Be fair. Let's not forget how Polanski began to redeem himself after he escaped to France. Once there, he promptly began a sexual liason with Nastassja Kinski. Miss Kinski was 15 at the time, a whole two years older than the American girl! Let's give credit for moral improvement where credit is due.
anonymous| 10.2.09 @ 3:19AM
There was no "moral improvement." He started with the 15 year old and moved on to the 13 year old. Kinski was 15 in 1975 and living in Los Angeles when she met Polanski. In 1977, Polanski raped the 13 year old. In 1979, Polanski directed Kinski in the movie "Tess." She was then 19.
Pingback| 10.1.09 @ 7:38PM
The American Spectator : Roman Law | Law firm live today. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Extremely Extreme Extremist| 10.1.09 @ 10:29PM
I think we need to remember that Polanski isn't being returned to America so we can each deliver what we feel is justice in his case. He's being returned to face the law, and his punishment will be determined in court, where all the facts will be heard and weighed.
It may well be true that there are certain mitigating circumstances that need to be taken into consideration, as his supporters claim. It may also be true that there are not. In either case, it's only right that he present himself before the law so that that determination can be made.
Those who are decrying Polanski's extradition are essentially claiming that there are some people to whom the law does not apply. It is such as these, it seems to me, that the law most exists to protect us from. (Also, I find it more than a little hilarious that the Frenchies, the supposed champions of equality and enemies of privilege and aristocracy, who have lopped off many a perfumed head in an attempt to prove it, have been shielding this pampered rich boy like he was the Dauphin himself.)
Alan Brooks| 10.1.09 @ 11:55PM
Sex has become something unappetizing and commercialized, like the smell in an 'Adult' bookstore.
Alan Brooks| 10.2.09 @ 12:11AM
"The Woodstock Sixties brought everlasting harm to our politics and culture. William Murchison."
Now we see it IS everlasting.
ElDiaOctavo| 10.2.09 @ 10:01AM
Speaking as a man, all I can say is that all men know how far is too far. By my measure, Polanski is not a man. Perhaps his father did not put him through "man school", I don't know. I do know he would not be allowed to sit at my table and eat my food. He is not man enough.
I do not wish to live in a world where sexual relations between an adult male and ANY thirteen year-old girl are acceptable to anyone under any circumstances. There are places a civilization cannot be allowed to roam and remain civilized.
Gardener| 10.2.09 @ 6:43PM
This is not a liberal or conservative issue; this is a MORAL issue. Polanski is vile and nasty. He hurt a little girl.
Richard Baker| 10.3.09 @ 1:32PM
When Polanski is jailed here in the US, the Convicts will beat the tar out of him as a baby-raper. Remember, Convicts have children on the outside too. Poor Roman.
nanjing| 10.6.09 @ 2:17AM
you may also be interested in
Roman Law 1
Roman Law 2
fghgfh| 2.25.10 @ 4:14AM
Mac AVCHD Converter,
Blu-ray to AVCHD for Mac
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.3.10 @ 10:29PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com