[pic: Polansky's victim was only a GIRL, while perhaps not being as geeky as this one]It's not so shocking that Roman Polansky has finally been caught for the crime he committed on (literally) a 13-year-old girl, when he was 44! I suppose he would say that he was doing research for his film 'Lolitta'. (I could barely watch two minutes of the two stars together. My mind was on how bent the guy was.) No surprise here; I'm a father.
What's even more shocking, is that France, its government and many of its citizens, wants him released immediately.
Apparently, the French have one set of rules for normal people and another set for their bohemian artists. So, pack up your bags, frustrated artists. Set up shop in France and people might be literally handing over their own children to you.
I suppose they learned this kind of acceptance from the Catholic Church. In other words, the French commoners had to accept a certain amount of frottage and Sodom & Gomorrah on their enfants if they wanted to go to heaven.
This is a test case of the different set of rules for the rich and the stricter ones for the poor and middle classes.
I must admit a certain complicity in the fact that I listen to 'rock' music which was instigated by the need for background music for the worshipping of 16-year-old girls/young women. By the way, when does a woman stop being referred to as a 'girl', in this world of sexualised children and infantilising adults?
Also, if you were Roman Polansky, and your every achievement was prefaced by the statement 'accused pedophile', would you continue running around the world, thumbing your nose at the police like some jewel thief? Does he truly want everyone to look at his cheeky smile and say 'that's the way rich pedophiles look'?
Would you give away your own daughter, her mental stability and her faith in people; her whole life, blown away?
I'd rather hang out in those Afghan caves with them Tally-ban hillbillies. Tally-me massalla, pal.
A blisteringly ironic letter from a French commentator Acouphene (originally from Le Monde, translated in the Guardian G2- Sept. 29, 2009):
whether they're above the age of consent or not,
whether they're willing or not;
if you can't flee abroad and prosper there
while our country's justice system looks after you ,
circulate freely
wherever you want to go
to be awarded medals and charms at international festivals, and
then mobilise opinion in your favour when things start to get tricky."
How about this in an article on alternet, about Whoopi Goldberg's ideas from a US tv show: [my comments- Costick67]
"Whoopi Goldberg manages to outdo that brilliant reasoning by coming up with a really good legal defense for rapists: 'What I'm saying is that he did not rape her, cause she was aware, and the family, apparently was aware ... ' [so if your family is using you, you're up Sh*t Creek. Under any circumstances, messing with a 'child', legally defined, is statutory rape. It can be nothing else. As we say back home, '(messing with a) 15 (year-old girl) will get you 20 (years in jail)']
After more back and forth, Goldberg finally comes to her point: 'He was not charged ... I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else ... but I don't believe it was rape-rape.'
[So, technically RP was charged with something other than precisely 'statutory rape', but the act he committed is recognised by anyone paying attention as pure 'S.R.' Of course, RP made a mockery of that charge by running off, instead of sticking around to appeal.]
As Lindsay on Jezebel notes, while it's very, very good that Goldberg insists on using precise language and dealing with facts over hype, it's very, very bad that Goldberg implies that a 44 year old having sex with a drugged 13 year old is not rape." [How could we forget the champagne, lest any of you think that RP's fame and charm should have been enough.]
---the end
-Cos67 ~( %^D>
pic from fotosearch.com
