394 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

And please, you don´t have to wonder what kind of person you are for owning Polanski movies or even enjoying them.

Agreed. You should separate the artist from the art. Condemning Polanski should not have to mean blinding yourself to the worthwhile work that he's done. But it also works the other way: admiring Polanski as a filmmaker does not mean that you need to subscribe to the belief that he ought to be above the law.

Although it'll be interesting to see whether the BBC will put showings of his films on hold for Reasons of Sensitivity™.

[Zorin Industries]

I would have - will, just pass me the knife - chopped his cock off.

That way he would have still been able to make films so as not to disappoint his admirers in Hollywood and his fans worldwide.

I make no apologies for this.

You don´t have to apologize - unless you want to be applauded for this. Because even if your reaction might be human and understandable, it does not help in any way to achieve what you think one could achieve: stopping a rapist from committing this crime ever again.

Because - and I got this from a police officer assigned to rape cases - a rapist is always committing his crime to counter his feeling of being powerless. The rape itself makes him feel powerful again. If you humiliate the rapist and show him that he has no power you are actually recharging his batteries. That´s why those men so often commit rape again.

If you throw them in jail the prisoners will punish them and rape them as well. Which will make the rapist absolutely powerless in turn. And when they leave prison they will have the almost uncontrollable urge to act out their need again.

And make no mistake - even if castrated they will use other ways to rape their victims with. So, castration, while surely a huge laugh guarantee and shoulder-clapping incentive in bars or on certain message boards, will not make the situation any better but even worse.

Every police officer or psychologist familiar with these cases tell you the same: you can only try to change these men or women with extensive therapy (psychologically or with drugs) and hope for the best. Or you can lock them up in a mental facility (which will worsen their state as well but maybe protect future victims as long as the perpetrator does not break out).

By the way: most rapes are committed within families or by friends. The unknown "monster" leaping out of the bushes is extremely rare.

What does this have to do with Polanski? IMO he is not a typical rapist. His crime was different (as to how different many posts here have already explained this). But I never debated whether he committed a crime or not - he did! I debated the validity of his arrest right now.

It's a bit surprising that this case took over 30 years to get to where it is now. I mean the man was awarded an Oscar by a high profile American Actor(they all knew where he was). What was France stance on this? Is this a case of justice or morality? When the Max Factor heir jumped the U.S after alleged rape charges he was apprehended in Mexico a few months later. So what did Polanski have with France to keep him away from jail?
I bet this kind of thing is not very uncommon in Hollywood but when it does get aired then I suppose the law has to take over.
Now am wondering what kind of person am I for owning some of his movies and trying to order Ninth Gate on Blu?? I really don't know.

Just to to be clear: no high profile American Actor awarded Polanski an Oscar - the majority of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences voted for him as best director.

Just to be a bit clearer.... AMPAS is made of up a lot of actors too....

[Ambler]

what did Polanski have with France to keep him away from jail?

Is there an extradition treaty between France & America? I assumed Polanski chose France because it offered a relatively safe haven from the vagaries of U.S. justice.

By the way, it would seem that many journalists - and indeed some of the contributors to this thread - do not differentiate between rape and statutory rape.

[Dekard77]

The good thing about all this is that the law can finally take it's course now that he is in custody.
I know the theory behind admiring the man for his work etc but then again when it's put right in front of you wonder if we can appreciate him the way he should be. Also I believe that if he did not get caught in '77 he would have easily continued this behaviour maybe.

[Zorin Industries]

The good thing about all this is that the law can finally take it's course now that he is in custody.
I know the theory behind admiring the man for his work etc but then again when it's put right in front of you wonder if we can appreciate him the way he should be. Also I believe that if he did not get caught in '77 he would have easily continued this behaviour maybe.

"Continued this behaviour"...?! There are 13 year old girls outside of America you know.

And I am not defending him because of his work but the gross inaccuracies and stigmas surrounding his arrest, judicial treatment and subsequent treatment. And before anyone reminds me about a 13 year old victim in all of this, I really think the woman in question's own motives and behaviour that day and since should be called into question too (note I said "too" and not "instead of").

And now I see that imbecile Arnold Schwarzenegger is chipping in with his opinions. Though he really should look at his own cruel and inhumane behaviour regarding the gay population of California's rights and liberties before he starts talking about "justice" and how someone from Hollywood is not above the law. Of course they are not, but let's remember Schwarzenegger only got elected Governor Of California because of his Hollywood status (and the fact his wife had a few family in-roads into politics and getting candidates voted in) so it is not for this Austrian idiot to be dictating what Hollywood does and doesn't allow. Abusing those privileges has worked wonders for him.

[Tybre]

what did Polanski have with France to keep him away from jail?

Is there an extradition treaty between France & America? I assumed Polanski chose France because it offered a relatively safe haven from the vagaries of U.S. justice.

There is, but France opted not to extradite a national. Now the US could have requested he be tried in France for his crimes in Cali (why they did not is beyond me) but then I don't know if France can turn down that request, or if it's less of a request and more of a "You try this guy right now".

[Trident]

what did Polanski have with France to keep him away from jail?

Is there an extradition treaty between France & America? I assumed Polanski chose France because it offered a relatively safe haven from the vagaries of U.S. justice.

There is, but France is like China in that it opts not to extradite nationals. Now the US could have requested he be tried in France for his crimes in Cali (why they did not is beyond me) but then I don't know if France can turn down that request, or if it's less of a request and more of a "You try this guy right now".

This case is an extremely difficult question of international law. The bottom line would perhaps be that the whole case was from the start botched up so thoroughly that getting the case tried in front of a French court would have not been desirable for the parties involved. On Polanski's side the reason for this doesn't really have to be explained. But on the Californian side it would seem the entire procedure was deemed so dubious and debatable, especially on the part of Judge Rittenband, that the authorities refrained from pushing their case further. To all intents and purposes the impression was given that Polanski actually did them a favour leaving the US jurisdiction. An impression that became more prevalent with every year that went by without the case being pursued further.


But the case has now got another dimension with Polanski's arrest. Based on an international warrant the Swiss authorities arrested him with the intention of extradition to the USA. Now, international law regards this as the correct procedure between two countries having an extradition treaty. But, big but, the Swiss authorities would first have had to examine the reasons for which the suspect is to be arrested and extradited. This examination, according to international law, would have to be made on the basis of Swiss law at the time of the respective offence.

What does this mean? Polanski is accused of and has confessed to 'statutory' rape. This being an offence that is subject to the statute of limitations by Swiss law. Ordinarily the Swiss authorities would have to examine the case of Polanski and arrive at the conclusion that the crime is statute-barred, i.e. no arrest, i.e. no extradition.

In this case, Swiss authorities didn't examine the causa, claiming the extradition treaty between Switzerland and the States governed the application of US law, i.e. no examination. Theoretically that would mean any person for which the USA requests an international warrant and extradition could immediately be sent without further inquiry. The current Swiss government, eager to please, insists on washing its hands off any responsibility for the further procedure.

It's an immensely complicated issue and you will have a hard time finding two lawyers, even two American ones, having the same opinon on this matter.

[Loomis]

The good thing about all this is that the law can finally take it's course now that he is in custody.
I know the theory behind admiring the man for his work etc but then again when it's put right in front of you wonder if we can appreciate him the way he should be. Also I believe that if he did not get caught in '77 he would have easily continued this behaviour maybe.

"Continued this behaviour"...?! There are 13 year old girls outside of America you know.

Exactly what point are you trying to make, Zorin?

And before anyone reminds me about a 13 year old victim in all of this, I really think the woman in question's own motives and behaviour that day and since should be called into question too (note I said "too" and not "instead of").

I know. The little hussy. Obviously, the thirteen-year-old girl was a manipulative minx. Her "behaviour" clearly made the whole thing happen. Hell, you're not just saying She Asked For It™, you're saying she engineered it. I mean, no, of course you're not saying that - I can't believe you would be. But think of how it reads.

And now I see that imbecile Arnold Schwarzenegger is chipping in with his opinions. Though he really should look at his own cruel and inhumane behaviour regarding the gay population of California's rights and liberties

'Course he should. Why is it that Polanski's defenders always use the distraction technique by rabbiting on about other crimes and infringements of liberty that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion? Nick Broomfield was on This Week with Andrew Neil last night and as soon as they asked him his views on the Polanski situation he started blathering away about "But why don't they arrest Bush and Blair?". In an instant, a discussion of Polanski becomes a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the Iraq War.

I mean, the idea of pursuing a criminal investigation before greater injustices have been sorted out! How dare anyone pay any attention to a thirty-year-old case of child rape before California has been turned into the most gay-friendly place on earth (which I thought it was anyway, just about - what exactly are these infringements of gay Californians' rights? What's this "cruel and inhumane behaviour" that Schwarzenegger's supposed to have gone in for?)?

I might use this as an excuse if I'm ever arrested. "Yes, officer, I was indeed speeding, but Osama Bin Laden hasn't been caught yet - why don't you people get your priorities sorted?"

[Zorin Industries]

The good thing about all this is that the law can finally take it's course now that he is in custody.
I know the theory behind admiring the man for his work etc but then again when it's put right in front of you wonder if we can appreciate him the way he should be. Also I believe that if he did not get caught in '77 he would have easily continued this behaviour maybe.

"Continued this behaviour"...?! There are 13 year old girls outside of America you know.

Exactly what point are you trying to make, Zorin?

That someone said he got caught which is what stopped him. But I am saying that there are other girls elsewhere (and not just in Hollywood), but the reality is he did not get involved with any other child post 1977 - when, if he was a problem, could have had his pick (for what of a better word).

And before anyone reminds me about a 13 year old victim in all of this, I really think the woman in question's own motives and behaviour that day and since should be called into question too (note I said "too" and not "instead of").

I know. The little hussy. Obviously, the thirteen-year-old girl was a manipulative minx. Her "behaviour" clearly made the whole thing happen. Hell, you're not just saying She Asked For It™, you're saying she engineered it. I mean, no, of course you're not saying that - I can't believe you would be. But think of how it reads.

I am not saying SHE engineered it. But there was something afoot that day - and it wasn't strictly in Polanski's court either.

And now I see that imbecile Arnold Schwarzenegger is chipping in with his opinions. Though he really should look at his own cruel and inhumane behaviour regarding the gay population of California's rights and liberties

'Course he should. Why is it that Polanski's defenders always use the distraction technique by rabbiting on about other crimes and infringements of liberty that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion? Nick Broomfield was on This Week with Andrew Neil last night and as soon as they asked him his views on the Polanski situation he started blathering away about "But why don't they arrest Bush and Blair?". In an instant, a discussion of Polanski becomes a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the Iraq War.

I am not distracting or weirdly diverting in my opinions here. Mr Schwarzenegger has made his comments known (which as Governor of California and the state in question, he really shouldn't...for reasons of legal fairness if nothing else) and as he is using the "Polanski's Hollywood pedestal should not make him above anything" I really think Arnold should look at himself when it comes to using star power to get what you want. And as he also discusses the law and liberties then I think his hatred of homosexuals and promotion of the archaic Prop 8 rulings DO ACTUALLY MAKE ME REFERENCING HIM SLIGHTLY RELEVANT.

I mean, the idea of pursuing a criminal investigation before greater injustices have been sorted out! How dare anyone pay any attention to a thirty-year-old case of child rape before California has been turned into the most gay-friendly place on earth (which I thought it was anyway, just about - what exactly are these infringements of gay Californians' rights? What's this "cruel and inhumane behaviour" that Schwarzenegger's supposed to have gone in for?)?

Where shall I start... (?)

A law that says it is wrong for gay people to marry.

A law that says it is wrong for gay people to have Next Of Kin rights.

A law that says it is wrong to teach and discuss homosexuality in schools.

A law that cites gay marriage as being against the will of the straight people.

A law that allows religious zealots to decide the civil status and rights and future of gay people.

Mr Schwarzenegger has got well and truly behind this Proposition 8 and really should know a little better. As when his political fizzles out and he is no longer allowed to be a politician it will be Hollywood he turns to - and remember who runs Hollywood (yep - the gays and the Jews - and the latter are very against Prop 8 too).



I might use this as an excuse if I'm ever arrested. "Yes, officer, I was indeed speeding, but Osama Bin Laden hasn't been caught yet - why don't you people get your priorities sorted?"

[Loomis]

That someone said he got caught which is what stopped him. But I am saying that there are other girls elsewhere (and not just in Hollywood), but the reality is he did not get involved with any other child post 1977 - when, if he was a problem, could have had his pick (for what of a better word.

Perhaps he felt he needed to be very, very careful.

A law that says it is wrong for gay people to marry.

A law that says it is wrong for gay people to have Next Of Kin rights.

A law that says it is wrong to teach and discuss homosexuality in schools.

A law that cites gay marriage as being against the will of the straight people.

A law that allows religious zealots to decide the civil status and rights and future of gay people.

I'm against all of that (although having recently seen MILK I'm surprised that the folk of San Francisco are putting up with it), but it really doesn't have squat to do with Polanski, does it?

Honestly, I thought California was incredibly enlightened and liberal. Medical spliff and so on.

[dee-bee-five]

That someone said he got caught which is what stopped him. But I am saying that there are other girls elsewhere (and not just in Hollywood), but the reality is he did not get involved with any other child post 1977 - when, if he was a problem, could have had his pick (for what of a better word.

Perhaps he felt he needed to be very, very careful.

A law that says it is wrong for gay people to marry.

A law that says it is wrong for gay people to have Next Of Kin rights.

A law that says it is wrong to teach and discuss homosexuality in schools.

A law that cites gay marriage as being against the will of the straight people.

A law that allows religious zealots to decide the civil status and rights and future of gay people.

I'm against all of that (although having recently seen MILK I'm surprised that the folk of San Francisco are putting up with it), but it really doesn't have squat to do with Polanski, does it?

Well, I would suggest that it, at the very least, means Arnie forfeits his right to take the high moral ground over the Polanski case.

If Polanski has charges to face, then, of course, he should face them. I'm just suspicious of why now?

[Loomis]

Well, I would suggest that it, at the very least, means Arnie forfeits his right to take the high moral ground over the Polanski case.

Perhaps, in his mind, an "anti-gay" stance is the moral high ground. He is, after all, a Republican.

[Dekard77]

The girl may have been there with aspirations of being a superstar/model but if she didn't want to be part of his sexual seduction then that is her choice. He can't force it on her.

Gay rights have nothing to do with this case. Gov Arnie may have gone with the popular idea at that time not to support gay rights. I can't be for sure what made him decide that but he couldn't have been alone.

What I meant by his continued behaviour if he didn't get caught he would have continued meaning might have got rude awakening about his forceful behaviour.

Monica Bellucci and Twilda Swinton are on Polanski's side.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, I would suggest that it, at the very least, means Arnie forfeits his right to take the high moral ground over the Polanski case.

Perhaps, in his mind, an "anti-gay" stance is the moral high ground. He is, after all, a Republican.

Let's not forget the terrible gay jokes he made in T3: "Talk to the hand", anyone?

Also, Dekard? Unless you're trying to make fun of Ms. Swinton, her given name is Tilda.

[Dekard77]

Sorry Mr. Blofeld. Pls do not electrocute me. Pleaseeeee

[Ambler]

Roman Polanski is guilty of statutory rape under Californian law and does not deny it. However, it seems odd to me that the prosecutors made no effort to pursue those who had sex with Samantha Geimer nee Gailey before her encounter with Polanski. Can anyone here explain that?

Edited by Ambler, 03 October 2009 - 05:42 PM.

[DR76]

I don't care how long it took for Polanski to get arrested. He has to face the consequences of his actions. Why should he be excused?

rape victims DO NOT GET DRESSED UP TO GO AND TRAIPSE UP AND DOWN THE RED CARPET WITH GRINS ON THEIR FACES BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE TAKING THEIR PHOTOS AT THE PREMIERE OF DOCUMENTARY FILMS ABOUT THEIR ALLEGED ATTACKERS).

Why not? Perhaps she was at that premiere for a reason. To remind everyone what Polanski had done to her. Did you expect her to remain huddled inside her bedroom for the rest of her life?


Once again, society shows how little they really care about rape victims.

[Loomis]

And I am not defending him because of his work but the gross inaccuracies and stigmas surrounding his arrest,

What "stigma"? The stigma of being branded the child molester that he is? What offends you more? Getting a 13 year old girl drunk and under the influence of quaaludes and champagne, and then sodomizing her, or calling Roman Polanski a "pervert" and a "child molester"?

And before anyone reminds me about a 13 year old victim in all of this, I really think the woman in question's own motives and behaviour that day and since should be called into question too (note I said "too" and not "instead of").

The "woman" was a 13 year old girl. He was in his mid-40's. He knew exactly what he was doing. He raped her, he sodomized her, fed her drugs and alcohol and didn't take "No!" for an answer. She's not old enough to consent to any of that activity, much less with a man 3-times her own age.

Pathetic.

And shame on Pierce Brosnan for having anything to do with Roman Polanski. I thought Brosnan had sunk to new lows in the wake of his firing from the series, but clearly he had new depths to sink to. His son Dylan is almost 13. How would Brosnan feel if Polanski got his teenage son drugged, pulled his underwear down, and repeatedly sodomized him? I hope his reaction would be a lot different than it is now. You can't just walk away from this. Just because it happened 30 years ago doesn't mean we can forget about it. Just because the victim wants to move on doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute him. The state has many compelling reasons to incarcerate this man

I'm making a list of the people who have supported this child-molesting dirt bag, and I won't be patronizing any of their films or television shows. Martin Scorcese, you've been put on notice.

These Hollywood and Eurotrash wankers of cinema are nothing but a bunch of debased, debauched, heathens who claim to be "compassionate", but it's always for the aggressors and never for the true victims. Whether it's going down to Venezuela and schmoozing with dictator Hugo Chavez, or calling the judicial system in American "philistine" in nature for wanting to bring Polanski to justice, these degenerate reprobates need to step back from their cocoon of immorality and get in touch with real people and real values. There's no gray area with child rape. You're either against what Polanski did, no ifs, ands, or buts, or you agree with it.

Oh, don't be such a hick, Grav. Don't you realise that defending Polanski is a mark of sophistication? You must be just a mindless American Bible-thumping far right stick-in-the-mud who's never watched a subtitled film in his life. Get back to watching the NASCAR races.

I'm kidding, of course. I agree with every word you've written.

[Tybre]

Oh, don't be such a hick, Grav. Don't you realise that defending Polanski is a mark of sophistication? You must be just a mindless American Bible-thumping far right stick-in-the-mud who's never watched a subtitled film in his life. Get back to watching the NASCAR races.

If that's the case, heck, gimme a helmet and I'll drive the Indy.

[coco1997]

And I am not defending him because of his work but the gross inaccuracies and stigmas surrounding his arrest,

What "stigma"? The stigma of being branded the child molester that he is? What offends you more? Getting a 13 year old girl drunk and under the influence of quaaludes and champagne, and then sodomizing her, or calling Roman Polanski a "pervert" and a "child molester"?

And before anyone reminds me about a 13 year old victim in all of this, I really think the woman in question's own motives and behaviour that day and since should be called into question too (note I said "too" and not "instead of").

The "woman" was a 13 year old girl. He was in his mid-40's. He knew exactly what he was doing. He raped her, he sodomized her, fed her drugs and alcohol and didn't take "No!" for an answer. She's not old enough to consent to any of that activity, much less with a man 3-times her own age.

Pathetic.

And shame on Pierce Brosnan for having anything to do with Roman Polanski. I thought Brosnan had sunk to new lows in the wake of his firing from the series, but clearly he had new depths to sink to. His son Dylan is almost 13. How would Brosnan feel if Polanski got his teenage son drugged, pulled his underwear down, and repeatedly sodomized him? I hope his reaction would be a lot different than it is now. You can't just walk away from this. Just because it happened 30 years ago doesn't mean we can forget about it. Just because the victim wants to move on doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute him. The state has many compelling reasons to incarcerate this man

I'm making a list of the people who have supported this child-molesting dirt bag, and I won't be patronizing any of their films or television shows. Martin Scorcese, you've been put on notice.

These Hollywood and Eurotrash wankers of cinema are nothing but a bunch of debased, debauched, heathens who claim to be "compassionate", but it's always for the aggressors and never for the true victims. Whether it's going down to Venezuela and schmoozing with dictator Hugo Chavez, or calling the judicial system in American "philistine" in nature for wanting to bring Polanski to justice, these degenerate reprobates need to step back from their cocoon of immorality and get in touch with real people and real values. There's no gray area with child rape. You're either against what Polanski did, no ifs, ands, or buts, or you agree with it.

Oh, don't be such a hick, Grav. Don't you realise that defending Polanski is a mark of sophistication? You must be just a mindless American Bible-thumping far right stick-in-the-mud who's never watched a subtitled film in his life. Get back to watching the NASCAR races.

I'm kidding, of course. I agree with every word you've written.

It's posts such as these that reinforce why Loomis is one of my favorite members here.

[Mr. Blofeld]

rape victims DO NOT GET DRESSED UP TO GO AND TRAIPSE UP AND DOWN THE RED CARPET WITH GRINS ON THEIR FACES BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE TAKING THEIR PHOTOS AT THE PREMIERE OF DOCUMENTARY FILMS ABOUT THEIR ALLEGED ATTACKERS).

When I saw the picture of her at the premiere, something went off in my head, sort of like this:

"Huh? Wait a minute, why is she at the premiere of this documentary about her own rape? Aside from that, why is she preening for the ing paparazzi whilst doing so?"

Never mind the fact that everybody condemning Polanski is conveniently ignoring that he had a house in Switzerland which they could have nabbed him from, and yet they didn't for 30 years...

Why?

[Mr. Blofeld]

I didn't say anything about the French; I said the Swiss. Completely different country, Mr. Beck.

[Tybre]

the French have always been good at surrendering the homefront.

Much as the French are not my favorite people, I find the notion that the French are a bunch of sissies downright ridiculous. Even when the French have "surrendered" they have done a considerable amount of fighting. WWII is often cited as an example of French surrender. Apparently no on remembers the resistance, which played a fairly vital role in helping liberate France from Nazi regime. Sure, at the end of the day, soldiers kicking the hell out of the Germans is what put a stop to it all, but the resistance did actually achieve a pretty good deal. On top of that, especially as Americans, it's pretty damn easy to call them sissies for being conquered, but let's look at Nazi Germany's track record. Pretty much any and all countries they went into before Britain was theirs, mostly because the Germans had considerably better machines of war than other countries. And look, you can cite WWI, Iraq, Vietnam, any war you want, it's pretty plain to see the French are not a bunch of cowards who throw down their guns at the first time of trouble. Sure, they haven't got the world's best military, but they are far from a bunch of prisses.

And now that I've defended the French, I'm off to go do something incredibly anti-French to make myself feel better.

[SecretAgentFan]

And I am not defending him because of his work but the gross inaccuracies and stigmas surrounding his arrest,

What "stigma"? The stigma of being branded the child molester that he is? What offends you more? Getting a 13 year old girl drunk and under the influence of quaaludes and champagne, and then sodomizing her, or calling Roman Polanski a "pervert" and a "child molester"?

And before anyone reminds me about a 13 year old victim in all of this, I really think the woman in question's own motives and behaviour that day and since should be called into question too (note I said "too" and not "instead of").

The "woman" was a 13 year old girl. He was in his mid-40's. He knew exactly what he was doing. He raped her, he sodomized her, fed her drugs and alcohol and didn't take "No!" for an answer. She's not old enough to consent to any of that activity, much less with a man 3-times her own age.

Pathetic.

And shame on Pierce Brosnan for having anything to do with Roman Polanski. I thought Brosnan had sunk to new lows in the wake of his firing from the series, but clearly he had new depths to sink to. His son Dylan is almost 13. How would Brosnan feel if Polanski got his teenage son drugged, pulled his underwear down, and repeatedly sodomized him? I hope his reaction would be a lot different than it is now. You can't just walk away from this. Just because it happened 30 years ago doesn't mean we can forget about it. Just because the victim wants to move on doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute him. The state has many compelling reasons to incarcerate this man

I'm making a list of the people who have supported this child-molesting dirt bag, and I won't be patronizing any of their films or television shows. Martin Scorcese, you've been put on notice.

These Hollywood and Eurotrash wankers of cinema are nothing but a bunch of debased, debauched, heathens who claim to be "compassionate", but it's always for the aggressors and never for the true victims. Whether it's going down to Venezuela and schmoozing with dictator Hugo Chavez, or calling the judicial system in American "philistine" in nature for wanting to bring Polanski to justice, these degenerate reprobates need to step back from their cocoon of immorality and get in touch with real people and real values. There's no gray area with child rape. You're either against what Polanski did, no ifs, ands, or buts, or you agree with it.

Oh, don't be such a hick, Grav. Don't you realise that defending Polanski is a mark of sophistication? You must be just a mindless American Bible-thumping far right stick-in-the-mud who's never watched a subtitled film in his life. Get back to watching the NASCAR races.

I'm kidding, of course. I agree with every word you've written.

This was painful to read. Knee-jerk ignorance and Palin-like right-wing idiocy are just what the world does not need anymore.

And Loomis, your use of irony has already gotten old very fast - a one-trick pony within any debate.

But - this is a message board, right? So, I should not have expected a serious discussion or open minds to the points many here have made?

I respect everyone´s opinion. And lots of people here, fortunately, do realize that one should look at the many details of a case instead of just adopting the playground´s bully-attitude. Unfortunately, the usual suspects just don´t want to think.

By the way - I did not know this yet, but if it is true that the victim already had sex with two "friends" before the rape the whole "a child was molested"-stance does not apply here anymore. Did anyone notice that?

[Mr. Blofeld]

True, true... but it's still rape, even if I don't agree with some of the Glenn Beck-esque ranting that's been going on, here.

[Trident]

And I am not defending him because of his work but the gross inaccuracies and stigmas surrounding his arrest,

What "stigma"? The stigma of being branded the child molester that he is? What offends you more? Getting a 13 year old girl drunk and under the influence of quaaludes and champagne, and then sodomizing her, or calling Roman Polanski a "pervert" and a "child molester"?

And before anyone reminds me about a 13 year old victim in all of this, I really think the woman in question's own motives and behaviour that day and since should be called into question too (note I said "too" and not "instead of").

The "woman" was a 13 year old girl. He was in his mid-40's. He knew exactly what he was doing. He raped her, he sodomized her, fed her drugs and alcohol and didn't take "No!" for an answer. She's not old enough to consent to any of that activity, much less with a man 3-times her own age.

Pathetic.

And shame on Pierce Brosnan for having anything to do with Roman Polanski. I thought Brosnan had sunk to new lows in the wake of his firing from the series, but clearly he had new depths to sink to. His son Dylan is almost 13. How would Brosnan feel if Polanski got his teenage son drugged, pulled his underwear down, and repeatedly sodomized him? I hope his reaction would be a lot different than it is now. You can't just walk away from this. Just because it happened 30 years ago doesn't mean we can forget about it. Just because the victim wants to move on doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute him. The state has many compelling reasons to incarcerate this man

I'm making a list of the people who have supported this child-molesting dirt bag, and I won't be patronizing any of their films or television shows. Martin Scorcese, you've been put on notice.

These Hollywood and Eurotrash wankers of cinema are nothing but a bunch of debased, debauched, heathens who claim to be "compassionate", but it's always for the aggressors and never for the true victims. Whether it's going down to Venezuela and schmoozing with dictator Hugo Chavez, or calling the judicial system in American "philistine" in nature for wanting to bring Polanski to justice, these degenerate reprobates need to step back from their cocoon of immorality and get in touch with real people and real values. There's no gray area with child rape. You're either against what Polanski did, no ifs, ands, or buts, or you agree with it.

Oh, don't be such a hick, Grav. Don't you realise that defending Polanski is a mark of sophistication? You must be just a mindless American Bible-thumping far right stick-in-the-mud who's never watched a subtitled film in his life. Get back to watching the NASCAR races.

I'm kidding, of course. I agree with every word you've written.

This was painful to read. Knee-jerk ignorance and Palin-like right-wing idiocy are just what the world does not need anymore.

And Loomis, your use of irony has already gotten old very fast - a one-trick pony within any debate.

But - this is a message board, right? So, I should not have expected a serious discussion or open minds to the points many here have made?

I respect everyone´s opinion. And lots of people here, fortunately, do realize that one should look at the many details of a case instead of just adopting the playground´s bully-attitude. Unfortunately, the usual suspects just don´t want to think.

I'm actually undecided yet as to how much of the above is meant as a Borat-style satire. I would suspect it's a considerable part. Either that, or the next electoral campaign has started a little early.

By the way - I did not know this yet, but if it is true that the victim already had sex with two "friends" before the rape the whole "a child was molested"-stance does not apply here anymore. Did anyone notice that?

The victim's earlier experiences aren't really an issue here. There is some evidence suggesting she was placed by her mother at this particular event to get near a certain kind of celebrity, certainly with the goal to gain access to these circles, perhaps even with the intent of gaining 'leverage' over them. So what? Just means she has been a victim in more than one way. This still doesn't affect what happend later to her.

Her own intentions, her own (ulterior?) motives are neither really an issue, as it's more than disputable whether a 13 year old girl is able to grasp the whole extent and repercussions of what her attendance at this event meant. You can ask any young girl if she wants to be a famous star, and always will get the same willing answers, without any of them apprehending the scale of the consequences. In fact, that is why the law especially protects the sexuality of underage individuals. It's actually recognised that they do have a sexuality, but also that this must be shielded from being exploited by adults. Because in general there will never be a sexual relationship between an adult and a child on an equal level. So even 'consensual' sex would rightfully be a serious crime, no matter what the offender's claimed or actual impression was. Therefore, I also doubt the partner of these supposed former experiences of the victim will ever come to light if it wasn't somebody of her own age.

[SecretAgentFan]

You are perfectly right - it does not matter whether the victim had sexual partners before the rape or not, she remains a victim of rape.

However, if some people still want to reduce the facts to "an innocent child was victimized" I do think that the definition of "innocent child" does not apply to a sexually active teenager.

[Trident]

I think whoever is foaming now in holier-than-thou mode about this case will not be bothered by any kind of facts about the protagonists and their respective backgrounds, regardless of their relevancy. After all most of these people have devoted the best part of the last three decades to daily protest demonstrations in front of various European consulates and embassies. Or at least that's the impression given often enough (I wonder why I haven't ever heard about this movement?).

[SecretAgentFan]

[Loomis]

And Loomis, your use of irony has already gotten old very fast - a one-trick pony within any debate.

Merely trying to pre-empt comments like "the usual suspects just don´t want to think".

By the way - I did not know this yet, but if it is true that the victim already had sex with two "friends" before the rape the whole "a child was molested"-stance does not apply here anymore.

Why does it not apply? Spell it out, please, because a lot of people - and by no means just on CBn - are under the impression that this incident involved a child. Are you saying that a thirteen-year-old who has had sex is no longer a child?