David G. Brown
David is a lifelong dissident and intellectual rebel. He despises political correctness, which replaces real, needy victims with narcissistic leftists out for a free meal. Though still a young man, he has watched society descend into its present morass with great sadness, combined with a determination to help make things better. He tweets when there's something worth tweeting here.
To its credit, Poland has heeded American calls to hold an extradition hearing for one Roman Polanski. You may remember him as that award-winning Hollywood personality who pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Or, if you’re a Hollywood leftist type, a victimized and bullied film director par excellence. The extradition hearing was adjourned in late February until April.
It is true that Roman Polanski is not welcome in the United States (aside from entering a jail cell with Big Bubba). But a veritable menagerie of European nations has been happy to house, welcome and protect Polanski, while the United Kingdom and other European countries have or are looking to ban PUA “guru” Julien Blanc. Australia and Singapore have also barred Blanc entry past their borders (he basically had to quickly pack up and leave the former), and South Korea and Brazil are sternly indicating that they will force him out too if he attempts travel there.
To be honest, I find Blanc’s advice and seminars often puerile and perpetually gimmicky. But forbidding him entry while many European nations keep the doors open for Polanski makes a mockery of the immigration, border protection, and criminal systems. Even the French government, including former Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand (nephew of the former French President) has previously fallen over itself in defending Polanski.
Former French Culture Minister Mitterand is best known outside France for defending Roman Polanski (and his own bizarre time in Thailand with young male prostitutes).
All aboard the Hollywood hypocrisy train
Whenever Hollywood bigwigs express a political opinion, it is almost invariably a liberal one, which often intersects with “issues” of women’s rights, patriarchy, and gender discrimination. Celebrities such as Lena Dunham crave rape victim status without bothering to press charges and, as wealthy and powerful women, take a stand for the “little women” of the world.
This makes those backing Polanski particularly repugnant. They’ll back a woman who cries rape without any evidence, and believe her, but refuse to rally against a man who personally acknowledges that he raped a child, all because he’s a Hollywood “creative force.”
Polanski’s rape of a 13-year-old girl, now a middle-aged woman, was not just statutory rape. Statutory rape implies that the girl was sober and unaffected by any other mind-altering substances, but was simply legally unable to consent. This rape allegedly went much further, though.
The police’s initial charges reflected their understanding that Polanski plied her with alcohol and drugs, and then sodomized her. Feminists and SJW’s have been frothing at the mouth to lynch Ched Evans, despite a horrendously flawed conviction, yet Polanski produces warm feelings for Hollywood celebrities and rather muted reactions from professional leftist activists.
I’ve yet to see a major FEMEN protest against Polanski at Cannes, or a proper Jessica Valenti diatribe about the way Hollywood protects its own, contrary to the rights of women.
Scorsese is a superb director, but is a moron when it comes to defending Polanski the pedophile.
In my female child-killers article, I equated society’s rationales for these murderers with excusing Polanski for raping the girl because he endured the Holocaust. Sadly, though, this was no exaggeration on my part, as Polanski’s wartime experiences, and the murder of his pregnant wife Sharon Tate by the Charlie Manson Family in 1969, are often used as background softeners to mitigate his admitted rape of the 13-year-old girl in 1977.
Polanski’s victim has gone on record multiple times to request that US authorities’ pursuit of him end. She cites that he served an “average” sentence (he was in jail for six weeks pre-plea deal and then in detention or under house arrest in Europe in 2009-10 pending a Swiss extradition hearing) and that the exposure of the case has caused him considerable embarrassment and pain.
The victim is entitled to her opinion but, last time I checked, criminal matters are between the state and the defendant, who in this case openly admits criminal guilt. And Polanski made a large financial settlement with the victim, obviously requiring her to abstain from certain kinds of public commentary and actions. Moreover, feminists don’t suggest that a man who actually hits his wife without provocation should be spared sanction just because the spouse doesn’t wish to press charges.
There’s no Apocalypto coming for Polanski’s career
The juxtaposition of Polanski and another celebrity, a conservative Catholic, is truly mind-exploding. No one can deny that Mel Gibson was a train wreck for much of the 2000s. But his most significant “crimes” were of the DUI and verbal varieties. The latter of these weren’t even the subject of legal investigations (though alleged domestic violence surrounding one of the verbal incidents was). He used anti-Semitic and anti-black slurs across these different outbursts. Not ideal and darn disrespectful, but it didn’t involve sex with a minor.
Where was the New York Times open letter to support Mel Gibson, instead of the half-blacklisting he actually received? Now self-immolated Sony Pictures head Amy Pascal, who ironically used racial putdowns in a treasure trove of email correspondence, was a lead pitchfork-holder behind the scenes, undermining Gibson wherever she could.
But Polanski found himself buttressed by vociferous agitation from Hollywood’s biggest names in a real New York Times open letter, including Harvey Weinstein of Miramax, and directors Woody Allen, Darren Aronofsky, David Lynch, and Martin Scorsese.
Childish or not, Gibson’s antics didn’t involve raping a 13-year-old.
Politico revealed that these public Polanski backers were often donors to Obama and the Democratic National Convention. So they tacitly (or explicitly?) support the watering down or obliteration of due process rights for men accused of sexual crimes, often without evidence, but simultaneously identify with one of their colleagues who did rape.
Right now, my mind is spinning. Maybe yours is, too. Inasmuch as I have read extensively about the Polanski case and have expected the worst, even revisiting old facts creates a mental mess each time.
In this world where SJW’s imply that Mark Zuckerberg is a misogynist for wearing plain T-shirts and flirtatious comments to women are treated as tantamount to sexual assault, it’s psychopathic for entire countries to continue ignoring the rape of a child by one of Hollywood’s most famous sons.
Read More: Don’t Take Yourself So Seriously
David G. Brown
David is a lifelong dissident and intellectual rebel. He despises political correctness, which replaces real, needy victims with narcissistic leftists out for a free meal. Though still a young man, he has watched society descend into its present morass with great sadness, combined with a determination to help make things better. He tweets when there's something worth tweeting here.
