Two wholly correct articles, one from a usually wrong source, on acclaimed child rapist Roman Polanski.
First David Gibson(pic above) at Politics Daily (See: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-what-if-he-were-father-roman/) has a great piece about the double standard between the public attitude towards pedophile director Roman Polanski and towards pedophile priests.
Here are a few salient quotes:
"There is the obvious parallel to the cases in the Catholic Church, which have rightly scandalized the public and the media. Prosecutors and plaintiffs' attorneys have been dogged in pursuing these cases -- whether out of concern for their careers or for justice -- and the outrage was so widespread that the State of California created a one-year window in 2003 during which the statute of limitations on abuse crimes by Catholic priests (and others) was lifted. That meant the victims of men who were often long dead could finally get their day in court, or find some sense of justice and closure -- and for cases that were no more egregious than Polanski's abuse of Geimer. Polanski is alive, at least."
"Comparisons are by their nature invidious. But what if Roman Polanksi were wearing a Roman collar? Would "Monsignor Polanksi" receive the same considerations?"
Especially spot on is Gibson's citing of the egregious slack the entertainment media has/is cutting Polanski.
The Applebaum he refers to below is Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post, pic above.
"Applebaum also protests that the crime was committed so long ago, and that there is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original case, and that Polanski "panicked" and fled out of an "understandable fear of irrational punishment" due to his past traumas. Besides, the guy has suffered enough, no? "He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.:"
"If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all," Applebaum concludes."
The gross depravity of Polanski is clearly demonsrated in the now released grand jury testimony from 1977. I have hyperlinkled a site that republishes it below. (CAUTION - IT IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IN CONTENT.)
See: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
Finally, the normally wrong source that has gotten it right on this story Is Fr. Thomas Reeese, resident Jesuit modernist at the Washington Post. While he is normally purveying the heresy du jour, on this case he is right.
His money quote:
"Imagine if the Knight of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal. Victim groups would demand the award be withdrawn and that the organization apologize. Religion reporters would be on the case with the encouragement of their editors. Editorial writers and columnist would denounce the knights as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church to sexual abuse. And they would all be correct. And I would join them. But why is there not similar outrage directed at the film industry for giving an award to Roman Polanski, who not only confessed to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl but fled the country prior to sentencing? Why have film critics and the rest of the media ignored this case for 31 years? He even received an Academy award in 2003. Are the high priests of the entertainment industry immune to criticism?"
I hope that Polanski is brought to justice, that he is extradited to the United States, and that he is made to serve prison time for the foul act he perpetrated on a very young girl in 1977. The rigour with which some elements of the left are springing up to defend him shows their complete lack of any objective moral standard.
_____________
PS - David Gibson's personal website, http://www.dgibson.com/, which recounts the story of his conversion to Roman Catholicism, is worth a visit.
Recent Comments