Comments on: Would Polanski get a pass if he were a paedophile priest? Religion, faith and ethics Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:25:07 +0000 hourly 1 By: gerri Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:29:50 +0000 READ THIS ARTICLE BY PHILOSOPHER B.H. LEVE AND OPEN YOUR MINDS AND HEARTS YOU BIGGOTS…

Sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl is obviously a serious crime.

And being an artistic genius never constituted, for any crime, an attenuating circumstance.

Having said that, and considering the wave of madness currently sweeping the country, we should also remember the following:

1. The “illegal sexual intercourse” that Roman Polanski acknowledged he was guilty of 32 years ago is not, for all that, the deadly crime, even crime against humanity, that the avengers hot on his heels have been denouncing for the past 10 days. Yes, it is a crime. But there are degrees in the scale of crimes. And it is an insult to good sense, an assault on reason, a door left open to all kinds of confusion, to muddle everything, to try to make everyone believe that a rape is a crime of the same nature as, for example, the one his wife Sharon Tate was a victim of, eviscerated several years earlier, to risk, in other words, because that’s what we’re really talking about, seeing Polanski join Charles Manson in the penitentiary where, starting January 1, 2010, he will have the possibility of parole.

2. This affair is all the more senseless as the principal complainant has chosen to forgive, to turn the page and, if possible, to forget. Leave me alone, she begs every time the Justice Spectacle, or just simply the Spectacle, shines its spotlights on this part of her past! Leave me alone and, while we’re at it, forget this man that I, his victim, think has paid enough! But no. Defenders of victims’ rights are there knowing better than the victim what she wants and what she feels. We are dealing with people who would step over the victims rather than let go of their prey and renounce the drunken desire to punish. It is shameful.

3. When the victim withdraws her complaint, isn’t it up to society, that is to say the judge, to pursue the matter? Yes, without a doubt. From a strict judicial point of view, it is indeed the right of society. But this will be neither the first nor the last time that the strict judicial perspective misses the demands of compassion as well as those of intelligence. And just as I have never abstained from pointing out, in the Law of this America that I love, customs or punishments, found in every legal system, that distort the pure democratic idea, likewise there is no reason not to say it: arresting a man today about whom it was decided a long time ago, after 42 days in prison, that he wasn’t a pedophile, tracking him like a terrorist, and extraditing him like a former Nazi is perhaps right according to the law, but not according to justice.

4. Would it be, like we’re hearing everywhere, that his celebrity was giving Mr. Polanski refuge? No, of course not. I have spent my life trying to pull minuscule lives, nameless and faceless victims, from obscurity — and I would have exactly the same views if Mr. Polanski weren’t Mr. Polanski. Except… Except I precisely wouldn’t have to maintain them. Because he wouldn’t have been arrested. His dossier would have been buried for years. And there wouldn’t have been any prosecutor, on the eve of an election (because many American judges are elected by the people like mayors and sheriffs), to arrange this high-profile arrest. Celebrity is not protecting Roman Polanski; it is doing him a disservice. Far from Roman Polanski hiding behind his name, it is his name that is drawing attention to him. And if there is a double standard in this affair, it is making Polanski, not an ordinary defendant, but a symbol — and his eventual appearance a politico-media “grand bazaar” more than a fair trial.

5. The root of the matter lies in the whiff of popular justice that masks everything and transforms the commentators, the bloggers, the citizens, into so many judges sworn in on the great tribunal of Opinion — some weighing the crime, others the punishment; we have even seen one of the virtuous, apparently an expert in chemical castration, propose for this new Dutroux (sic) a definitive treatment… Strange sort of outrage in those who don’t find fault when it’s a truly powerful person who acts like a child predator in front of our faces (ah, Mr. Berlusconi’s escapades) but who become implacable when it’s a seemingly powerful person who, like Polanski, has no other weapon but his talent… Singular kind of moralists who take an evil pleasure in replaying over and over the details of this sordid affair in order then to throw the first stone…

This lynching is a disturbance of the public order more serious than Roman Polanski remaining free.

This tenacity on the part of the gossips, and this desire to see the head of an artist on a pike, are the very essence of immorality.

Either one of two things, Your Honors. Either Polanski was this monster — and we shouldn’t have given him either an Oscar or a César; we needed to boycott his films; we needed to turn him in to the authorities every time he vacationed with his family at his home in Switzerland. Or you have never found fault, ever, with his announced appearances on the red carpets of every world festival; you feel as I do the formidable hypocrisy of this prosecutor, craving recognition, who woke up one morning to deliver him like a trophy to the public condemnation of the white-hot anger of voters — and we must, like his victim, plead that he finally be left in peace.

Read more at: ri-levy/on-the-polanski-affair_b_310397. html

By: poppy Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:51:54 +0000 people love jumping to condemning!!!!!!!!!
if you want to condemn polanski, then condemn the 80% of the male population of this planet!!!!!!!
at some point they all have done or tried to do something similar……i am a woman, i was a girl once! i am talking from experience…
polanski happened to be famous so he has to be the scapegoat…thats all…he is no different ! the whole planet should go to jailthen if you want justice!!!!!!!

By: Hmmm Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:10:41 +0000 In Italy, they discriminate against Gypsies and Romanians.

And they also have record approvals for their political leader (always a sign of not-so-swift populations)

So I would hardly look to them for inspiration for a better society.

By: barbara Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:43:22 +0000 12 is the age of consent in Vatican City; 14 in Italy

By: BklynOG Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:48:13 +0000 It may seem hard but the bottom line is…………….
He did the crime let him do the time !
with his money and power, he will just get a slap on the wrist and a fine.
gonna follow this case.

By: Georgina Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:21:54 +0000 I think many posters missed the point of the Polanski-priest comparison which had to do with public reactions to cases of pedophilia involving priests on the one hand and celebrities on the other, not if more priests than celebrities got away with sex crimes or if Hollywood would be more likely than the church to cover up pedophilia than the Vatican. A pedophile priest would be (rightly) torn to shreds if he tried to defend himself by saying that the incident happened a long time ago or that he should be forgiven because of his great accomplishments. But this is precisely what Polanski’s defenders are saying.

I agree that there is an extra layer of repugnance if the pedophile is considered a moral authority and is in a position of trust. But saying that this is the chief reason why we condemn pedophile priests is tantamount to arguing that raping children is no big deal as long as you’re you’re not their priest, teacher or scout master, etc. Pedophilia is wrong whether the perpetrator is a priest or a celebrity.

By: Hmmmm Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:40:53 +0000 “Rape, defined as the use of force to procure sexual gratification, knows no age limit.”

Wrong. Rape is defined as having sexual intercourse with a person, without a person’s consent.

And a 13 year old child cannot consent, because they are still at the age where they can be easily manipulated or pressured into sex by 30-year old pedophiles.

“The government has no business telling people who they can and cannot have sex with.”

Yes they can. Especially when those people are trying to molest or otherwise take sexual advantage of young children.

“A 30-year-old woman can no more defend herself against an attacker than can a 13-year-old girl”

You really think that? You believe that a 13 year old girl has the same physical strength of an 18-30 year old woman? What an odd thing to say.

“Age is completely irrevelent when it comes to sex.”

NAMBLA thinks so too. Funny enough, a lot of them ended up in jail for child rape.

By: cali Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:07:01 +0000 all of u condemners, dont be so sure he is a pedophle…she wasnt 6 years old..she was a 13 years old teen looking 18…
come on everybody…you are so naivelly judgmental and so angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Mufaso Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:05:19 +0000 If Polanski used force to obtain sexual favors it wouldn’t matter to me if the girl was 13 or 30; rape is rape regardless of the age of either the perpetrator or the victim. My point is that if the sex was consensual, no crime has been committed. But if indeed he drugged and then had sex with this girl, then clearly she was unable to give consent, and he is guilty of rape and should be dealt with accordingly. Age is completely irrevelent when it comes to sex. The government has no business telling people who they can and cannot have sex with. Rape, defined as the use of force to procure sexual gratification, knows no age limit. The age of the victim or of the perpetrator makes no difference in my book. A 30-year-old woman can no more defend herself against an attacker than can a 13-year-old girl; therefore the penalty for the rape of a victim of either age should be the same.

By: Michael French Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:53:08 +0000 Opinions on Polanski are coming out of the woodwork.
The scales of justice are not blind.
Money, power, talent, celebrity will win everytime.
This is how the system works.
He bought skilled lawyers – had plenty of money to flee – paid off the victim.
The system is fantastically corrupt.