Tuesday, September 29, 2009

The Fall of Roman: I Rest My Case

The piece I wrote just a few hours ago on the arrest and potential extradition of Roman Polanski is now up at the Huffington Post. As is common, posted at the bottom of it are several links to related stories, one of which is a public appeal from French writer and philosopher (the latter being an amusing redundancy) Bernard-Henri Lévy.

Titled "Artist Rally Behind Roman Polanski," the open petition is so far signed by over a dozen mostly European actors, filmmakers, authors and designers.

I think it's important that I reprint Lévy's demand (because that's really what it is) in its entirety so that you can appreciate how thoroughly full of crap the whole endeavor is.

"My journal, 'La Règle du jeu,' is working in support of Roman Polanski and mobilizing writers and artists through the following petition:

'Apprehended like a common terrorist Saturday evening, September 26, as he came to receive a prize for his entire body of work, Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison.

He risks extradition to the United States for an episode that happened years ago and whose principal plaintiff repeatedly and emphatically declares she has put it behind her and abandoned any wish for legal proceedings.

Seventy-six years old, a survivor of Nazism and of Stalinist persecutions in Poland, Roman Polanski risks spending the rest of his life in jail for deeds which would be beyond the statute-of-limitations in Europe.

We ask the Swiss courts to free him immediately and not to turn this ingenious filmmaker into a martyr of a politico-legal imbroglio that is unworthy of two democracies like Switzerland and the United States. Good sense, as well as honor, require it.

Bernard-Henri Lévy, Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Pascal Bruckner, Neil Jordan, Isabelle Adjani, Arielle Dombasle, Isabelle Huppert, William Shawcross, Yamina Benguigui, Mike Nichols, Danièle Thompson, Diane von Furstenberg, Claude Lanzmann, Paul Auster'"

Where to begin.

First, the gargantuan arrogance on display in this thing -- Lévy's piously condescending tone -- is staggering even for a self-described French philosopher. The idea that he sees himself, his fellow artists and the region of the world in which they all live as somehow more socially and culturally advanced than the rest of us is obvious. He doesn't care that a girl was raped. He doesn't care that the act was committed in the United States. He cavalierly offers as a defense the notion that in Europe, where the civilized people are, the statute of limitations would've run out on this silly little offense years ago.

Except that there's no statute of limitations at play here because Polanski's not facing charges. He was convicted. He fled. He's still wanted because he copped to the crime three decades ago but never faced sentencing.

I'd really like not to draw a distinction between Europe -- particularly the easily assailable French -- and the United States in this matter, because the reality is that it should come down to only one thing: right and wrong. Where someone happens to live or what his or her cultural mindset might be should have no bearing on it whatsoever. That said, there's simply no way to ignore the likely predisposition of a French philosopher and artist to unleash some particularly virulent strain of moral relativism in a case like this -- to utilize his superior intellect to hem and haw over what exactly constituted a pursuable offense and whether Polanski had contributed enough to society through his films to bring his Karmic tab even.

Once again, I don't care if the man lived inside a human skin suit made to look like Orson Welles and was the one who, in reality, directed Citizen Kane. I don't care if Polanski's entire career since 1977 could in fact be directly attributed to his desire to atone for having raped a 13 year old girl. He never took responsibility for what he did on terms that weren't completely his own, and he has to now. Period.

Wrong is wrong.

I don't care how brilliant the man is. He's not above the law.

And defending him simply because he's an artist isn't just sickening -- it's sociopathic.


Suzy said...

and if someone brings sharon tate into this i'll vomit.

Matt Osborne said...

Thank you, Chez. I don't get this sympathy campaign at all: he copped to raping a 13-y.o. girl. Making The Tenant does not absolve him of that. If it did, then every pedophile in America would become a French filmmaker.

Donal said...

They're defending their position in society, not him.

Jeremy said...

What further galls me are all the cries of his tortured past and surviving the persecution of the Nazis and the Stalinists.

You know who else did that? Every other Pole and Jew and Romany and (European minority group of your choice) of his generation! And that didn't give any of them the right to drug and rape a little girl, or any girl (as my amazing girlfriend noted on Facebook), "whether she looked 16, or was 16, or 18, or 22, or 30."

Vegan Vanguard said...

There's an even longer list of celebrities and artists showing support and demanding his release here (the source page won't load for me): http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/39618660.html

It's appalling and disgusting that anyone would support him in such a way. It's even more baffling that people try to argue that it wasn't "rape-rape" or that he's paid enough already.

I feel ill.

Chez said...

The number of directors I love is really disturbing: Scorcese, Aronofsky, Mendes -- amazing, although not surprising.

Back in '99 when Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan, I remember hearing academy voters say things like how much they loved that the movie was a love letter to actors. I remember thinking to myself, "So those are you priorities when it comes to whom you're honoring: The actors win out over the guys who saved the world. Perfect."

The fact is that as much as I love movies, the people who work in them live in a fantasy-land where they're the honest-to-God center of the universe. I'm not sure they know any other way.

VOTAR said...

Polanski's a pussy. All he had to do was stay a little while longer in that court-mandated psych ward, and this ugly little incident could have been put behind him.

Psych wards aren't so bad. Often, there is a pool table, and a television. And pudding for dessert.

Chez said...

I knew it!

You took my fucking pudding!

Austin said...

It's all entitlement: the belief that one deserves to be taken care of or excused or simply to operate under different rules than anyone else. Sometimes it's based on supposed genius; sometimes it's on race, aristocracy, or social status. But it's all the same bullshit: I'm better than you in my own opinion, so the rules should be changed in my favor.

Peach said...

I live in Paris and I am perfectly happy to have that child rapist out of my city. So are all the people I've talked to about it.

We dont so much condone child rapists. Nor does any amount of percieved 'culture' made sodomizing a 13 year old girl acceptable. Before this man attempts to speak for a country or people he might want to consider that a large number of it's inhabatiants were once 13 year old girls.

That guy is a douche.
And for the record, I've never even heard of that asshole, Levy-what-his-name.

Jason said...

Wow, so like, Chez - where is your R. Kelly rant?

Because, srs, Roman Polanski is like getting your feathers ruffled over the Korean War.

Oh hey look a guy raped someone (and this someone actually wants the whole world to stfu already) almost 30 years ago and the travesty of a justice system didn't catch him. So let's be popular and demonize him even though this has about as much current events mojo as fuckin' Chris Kattan on SNL doing monkey characters.

Yeah. We get it. He committed a horrible crime shortly after the birth of Jesus, which is bad. Perhaps your ire could better be spent on the real criminals of the 21st Century. Nobody gives a shit about Roman Polanski.

Ref said...

Got to agree. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Either he knew he was fucking a 13 year old, which is unforgivable, or he was criminally negligent in having sex with someone he didn't know well enough to know her age, which certainly should be subject to punishment. One set of rules for everyone else and another set for me because I'm special.

SteveR said...

How many times, and in how many situations, have we just wanted the judicial system to call "bullshit"?


Chez said...

And yet here you are, Jason, commenting on something nobody gives a shit about.

Go away.

Benoit from Ottawa said...

Peach, if you've never heard of B. H. Levy*, it shows some limitations; he's been known for 30 some years*. Also, calling an asshole somebody about which you've just confessed complete ignorance, well...

Chez and others: I don't want to oversimplify, but I see a lot of emotions here as well as oversimplification. Judges are not paid to throw the book; the law is not the law, it's fucking complex and changes from State to State.

I think Bush et al. were wrong: Americans CAN do subtle.

It'd be nice to read some thoughts about this too, and not only visceral reactions. Even about Polanski, whom I don't relish.


(Note: the last word in that http is supposed to be Lévy.)

Jason said...

Really Chez? "Go Away", too nominal an expression to be given any weight at all, might as well be met with "You are one of those nigger lovers, aren't you?"

Here is the fallacy - there are at least a hundred cases that have actual CONTEMPORARY meaning that you could be writing about; yet, you jump on the Roman Polanski bandwagon, one which the victim herself would wish you stop harping on. The actual, real victim wants you to shut the fuck up.

There are plenty of other stories worth this type of examination. I call your "go away", and raise you a "how about writing about something that isn't so fucking safe" Oh look you hate fake pop music, oh look you think Roman Polanski is a criminal, oh look I got divorced and my life sucks.

What's next? A literary essay on the merits of journalism versus blogging? Before you dismiss me so quickly, perhaps you should check the freshness date on your subject matter.

I'm a fan of your writing, but dude. After your very calculated moral offering to the community at large, pick something worth writing about, we might begin to suspect you are back on CNN's payroll.

Chez said...

Wow. Are you high or something, Jason?

The Polanski story is worth writing about -- particularly the reaction he's getting from many in the arts community overseas. The victim's thoughts have absolutely zero to do with why Polanski needs to come back and answer for what he did -- or why those defending him because of his talents (or even their issues with the merits of the case) need to shut the hell up.

You don't feel that way? Don't like the story and want me to write about something else? Sorry, pal. Last time I checked I wasn't your fucking jukebox.

Benoit from Ottawa said...

A bit more info.

"She (the victim, Samantha Geimer) appeared in a 2008 HBO documentary about the case that highlighted the role of the publicity-hungry judge, who appeared to be on the verge of reneging on the plea bargain and sentencing Polanski to serious jail time."*

The plea-bargain was for psychiatric internment (whatever it's called), and he'd been under such observation for 45 days at that time.

It seems to me those circumstances make his fleeing more understandable (without making him wonderful).

*Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/09/28/2009-09-28_director_roman_polanski_will_fight_attempts_to_extradite_him_to_california_lawye.html#ixzz0SXQ26zOC

Lastly, Chez, I think the "America we like and America that's..." (I forget how it goes exactly) relates to this impression America gives of doing things when fucking well FEELS like it. (Like nothing for thirty years, and then BANG, get him when he's a lifetime achievement guest of honour! Y'know?)

I wonder how much truth there is in the speculation in the following article about why the arrest was reactivated at this point. See http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/09/29/2009-09-29_roman_polanskis_lawyer_caught_das_attention_when_he_claimed_us_wasnt_trying_to_n.html

I've blabbed long enough.

Chez said...

There are absolutely questions that are worth asking about the timing of this arrest, but it doesn't change the merits of the arrest itself. It's completely irrelevant. As is what the victim in the case wants. As are the demands and desires throughout the years of Polanski to settle this thing.

And do yourself a favor and read this review of the Polanski doc from Salon. I've seen the movie. Wyman's take feels spot-on.

Anonymous said...

Careful Chez. Jason might cancel his expensive subscription to Deus Ex Malcontent. Which would suck for everyone seeing as how this is the only blog on the internet, and without his money how could you possibly keep it going. And then what would we need our computers for?

Jason said...

Victim of Rape: I wish everyone would shut up.

Everyone Else: We won't shut up because you suffered a HORRIBLE, MIND WRENCHING, UNFORGETTABLE, EVIL crime!

Victim of Rape: I wish everyone would shut up already. I've been living this nightmare for 30 years and nobody will let it go and let me be.

Everyone Else: It's our job to remind everyone rape is really really bad! By using you as an example 30 years after the fact!

Victim of Rape: wtf

Everyone Else: HAHA! BLOGGING!

Pretty much how I feel about this.

Chez said...

Yup. And that's why nobody gives a crap how you feel. : )

Jason said...

So, just for the record:

Guy who thinks contemporary rape cases should be examined for the greatest cultural impact: nobody gives a crap how this guy feels.

Guy who thinks a 30 year old case should be dragged through the mud, against the wishes of the actual victim, completely outside of any relevant context other than his ability to jump on a story already on the popular news: everyone cares how this guy feels

Wow Chez, starting to take cues from Harvey Levin?

Alex said...

Wow Jason, that quite the moronic conclusion you've reached....

Chez said...

Anybody else wanna pick this up? I'm already tired of it.

Jason said...

All I'm saying is there are far more relevant rape cases to be using to get site hits than this tired old story that even the victim herself wants dropped.

It is as if I'm the only person that cares what the actual victim is saying. But don't stop your blogosphere from doing the right thing! There is a story to be exploited!

An old story.

A really, really old story.

Like, what's next? A story about Kennedy and the girl he killed as some contemporary article about drunk driving?

Jason said...

Add to this all the irony of ignoring what the victim wants.

Ignore the fact that dragging her through this 30 years after the fact may be psychologically worse than the actual rape.

All in the name of a few page hits, though. Right Chez?

celery said...

jason, i said this in an earlier thread, but the wishes of the victim are to be heard during sentencing in the form of victim impacts statements. they are NOT meant to influence whether a case goes to trial or what the verdict of that trial will be.

there was a time when a woman had to press charges for rape, or a victim had to press charges for assault. but it was determined that the act of violence itself is worthy of criminal charges, regardless of the will of the victim to participate in the process. there are many reasons for this, including the fact that victims in cases of rape or domestic violence are often scared to press charges - scared either of the assailant or public perception and social ostracism. moreover, two goals of punishment are deterrence and social safety/protection. neither of those are related to how one particular victim would like his or her assailant to be treated. if the only goal of punishment were retribution, then the victim's feelings toward her assailant would have more weight. fortunately, our justice system isn't based purely on vengeance.

Julie The Vintage Goddess said...

If there were problems with the judge and the deal the child rapist can appeal once he gets his ass back to America.

He drugged and raped a 13 year old.
He admitted he did it.
You do not get to get away with that no matter who you are or how rich you are.

Jason said...

I need to make this clear: not one single thing I've tried to say here is an attempt to justify the guy's crime. Rapists should be put in jail.

Okay, now with that out of the way, all I am trying to say is that this woman's right to privacy is being raped. She has specifically requested that people leave her the fuck alone; yet with plenty of other forced-sex stories out there, this one is a headline.


If I had a choice to be raped once or to have my private life raped by the media for 30 years, I would chose to be raped once.

If the lady in question was still on the warpath to get Polanski in jail, I'd support her 100%. But when it comes right down to it, THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE FACT, I think it is more prudent to respect her privacy.

Janean said...

Jason........I am confused. Perhaps it is because I'm slow, but I'm having trouble understanding why someone would leave so many comments on this post if they think it's old news and Chez should ignore it. If it's not important why do you give a damn?

I also have trouble understanding (because I'm just dumb like that) why you'd waste time (life is short you know) reading a blog and arguing with the blogger if you think the material has gone stale.

Someone has already pointed out that there are other blogs on the internet; is someone forcing you to read this one??

Alex said...

Yep, more prudent to respect a person's privacy than to punish a convicted rapist. Your logicmoral priorities and understanding of the law are fantastic.

Robo said...

Hey jason...I think you'd have better luck arguing with this here.

Get over it man. Seriously. Haven't you ever read this blog before?

trish said...

Jason, were you raped? Is that one of the "far more relevant, CONTEMPORARY cases" you keep harping on?

I'm so sorry, but there are support groups for that kind of thing. You should really take your problem there.

Eric said...

Jason: the victim's wishes are completely, totally, 100% irrelevant.

The focus on so-called "victims' rights" in American jurisdictions is one of the most-warping influences on the legal system as a whole. The original point of the criminal justice system, as opposed to civil justice, is to deal with offenses that breach the peace or are otherwise against the state.

Specifically in the Polanski case, the public has an interest in dealing with people who have sex with people who are (a) younger than the age the public has decided is appropriate for consent, (b) unconscious or semi-conscious and therefore unable to give consent even assuming for argument's sake they are old enough to give consent and/or (c) have declined to have sex or attempt to resist unwanted sexual contact. The (as far as I know) uncontested facts of the Polanski case are that he forced sex on an underage girl who he drugged and who attempted to decline or resist his advances. The drugs and alcohol or the forcing himself would be bad enough and criminal enough even if the girl had been legal; as she wasn't, it's basically moot--it would have been rape even if she'd been sober and said "Yes, absolutely, take me Roman Polanski." It would have been rape, indeed, had she been the one initiating contact.

Further, the public has an interest in rounding up fugitives--hence the existence of extradition compacts. Polanski pleaded out to, as I understand it, a lesser offense, and then fled the country when it began to appear the judge would reject the plea offer (his prerogative) or act outside the bounds of the plea (not his prerogative, but reversible on appeal). That Polanski has evaded sentencing on a crime he pleaded guilty to has everything to do with his status as an artiste and nothing to do with the merits of the case--one of my clients (I'm an assistant public defender by trade) would have been done with his sentence by now.

I'm not particularly sympathetic to these pleas for clemency for a man who made his bed and refused to lie in it (a grotesque figure of speech, I admit, considering that the bed in question contained an adolescent he drugged and sodomized, but there you are). If there were concerns with the judge, Polanski had perfectly legal options ranging from a motion to recuse the sentencing judge for a conflict of interest to appealing to filing a motion for appropriate relief. He didn't avail himself of such help.

That a convicted felon is being treated like a convicted felon ought to be unremarkable and uncontroversial, frankly.

VOTAR said...

I'll give it a shot. This is pretty simple.

The rape charge was not leveled against Mr. Polanski by the victim. She was/is not empowered to do so. This is not a civil suit.

This was/is a criminal charge, brought against the accused by agents of law enforcement on behalf of the people of the state. Her current willingness to forgive and forget the matter doesn't erase the crime that occurred. That's a personal choice. The law requires that justice be meted without prejudice for or against any of the parties involved. It's called law enforcement, not "selective law enforcement."

Example: If a cop responds to a report of domestic violence, and sees evidence of violence, he is required by the law to take the perpetrator into custody, even if the alleged victim has a change of heart. Like it or not, their state of mind is irrelevant.

More specifically, it does not appear that the alleged victim is much of a participant in all of this; the case was over 30 years ago and her testimony is already a matter of record. She need not be involved at all, at this point. Aside from the media appearances that she herself has voluntarily agreed to, I see little evidence that she is now, or ever has been "raped in the media" for the past 30 years. Before today I had never heard of her; put a gun to my head right now and I couldn't tell you her name.

What makes this case interesting, and worth discussing, are the particulars of the sentencing, the plea bargain the accused entered into and then apparently felt had been betrayed by the very agents of the law who were supposed to be impartial. It is worth discussing, as an academic matter, whether these details of the case in fact did happen, and how, and why.

VOTAR said...

Or, umm, what Eric said.

Jason said...

So Alex and by proxy Chez, let me ask you some questions so I can be clear on your position:

When people around you talk about Ted Kennedy, do you immediately tell them that his entire lifetime of political work is moot because he took advantage of a woman in a situation where substance abuse was a culprit, ending in the woman's death?

Are you actively posting on message boards across the blogworld promoting the idea that Ted Kennedy should be prosecuted forever and ever, infinity even into death because he was never properly convicted of this widely accepted crime?

If not, you are simply responding in an extremely typical way to a news story that contains both the words "rape" and "celebrity" in it.

(bonus! have you ever enjoyed a KISS song? well, some of their groupies were underage! and on drugs!!! RUT ROH! it's rape music!)

...Comments like "Nobody gives a shit about Roman Polanski" is a tongue in cheek way of saying that you people would give two shits about a thirty year old rape case unless the guy that did the raping wasn't famous.

My very grounded rational stance will and always be - Rape is wrong and rapists should be jailed. However, cases like this are where law and reality show our imperfections, and in this case giving the victim some fucking peace after 30 years of bullshit is the lesser of two evils. Contrary to some of your mind's inability to grasp the idea, it does not mean I believe he should go unpunished.

I knew someone very close to me that was raped about 20 years ago. Do you think I am still calling her up asking if the guy was ever caught? The entire experience was traumatic enough, tearing her life up. I wonder how she might feel if I put her rape story on the evening news until the day she died and then some. Always interrupting her healing process, after being directly asked to stop?

Does this mean I want the guy who did it to suffer any less? No. Wrap your head around it. I'd love to stab him in the face.

...the most confusing part of this whole response for me has been that Chez has done quite a few articles about keeping vagina-clowncar women out of the news for being attention whores. Okay, great crusade, I'm 100% behind that, yeah. But then you say it is okay to continually report on a rape that the victim herself has asked for media privacy ad nauseum because it is causing her harm thirty years after the crime.

Aren't those two positions in a little conflict, especially as a writer? That's some pretty extreme anti-privacy bias in your lady-tragedy reporting ethics.

namron said...

Dear Jason:
I think you are way cool. I've written some really bitchin' songs about oppression and stuff. I am a good God-fearing guy. I found God later in life, and my story will really amaze everybody when i get it out. I could use your help, though. That little bitch Jaycee is really trashin' me, though. Think you could be my PR guy or mouthpiece. Write me back

Yours truly,

Phillip Garrido

Aa. Quinones said...


Someone had posted about the law not being the law and that is generally true. However, if the statute says that of you plea and flee for certain crimes, the warrant never expires.

( I am sure I saw you pound the table over the whole 'we are a nation of laws' thing ).

Besides, a crime is an act aainst society with a singular victim. In most jurisdictions today, a fammily assault victm can fully recant and the state will pursue prosecution anyway. That is why the case is titled "State v. Jason" and not "Rape Victim v. Jason".

Capt. Clown said...

Jason said, '...pick something worth writing about, we might begin to suspect you are back on CNN's payroll.'

Who's "We", fuckhead? Quit reading this blog, fuck off, and die.

Girl With Curious Hair said...

I wonder if any of Polanski's defenders would be as forgiving if he weren't an 'ingenious filmmaker'. What if he were a priest who had given up all worldly goods and was serving the poor but raped and sodomized a child? What if he were a Muslim man who married a girl 30 years his junior and had sex with her? Would there be petitions for their freedoms?

Somehow, the people who contribute the least in terms of humanity are the ones who are above the laws of our civilized societies.

oskar said...

There are a few interesting parallels with the Noah Cross character in "Chinatown". He got away with it too, in an ending that was insisted on by Polanski, contrary to the studio's wishes.
This film came out only a couple of years before the rape in question.

As for the signatories in support of the creepy little dwarf: maybe some of them feel they have to in order to not be shunned by their "community".
The Arts World is just as given to petty cliquishness & its own rigid hierarchies of status as any other field (if not moreso).

Kevin Davis said...

My summary of the above.

I am not Star Jones said...

Thank you for this -- it's insightful and fair.

Although I have no issue with the artists, intellectuals and directors who are supporting Roman Polanski during this time, the question I would like to ask the supporters is if they would be so willing to support him if such a crime happened to one of their own child or grandchild. Something tells me their privilege would not allow such freedom.

That's why Luc Besson's reaction strikes me as measured and not kneejerk:

“This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit,” Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. “Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen.” He added, , “I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.”

Anonymous said...

<--- Pinkpatentheals (at work we can't log on)

I very much agree he should do time for his actions because he DID drug and rape a child.

I am more pissed off and confused as hell at the authorities in the US who have watched him jump from country to country and waited until an awards show to smile at the cameras as they were arresting him, it just seemed like more of a publicity stunt than an arrest, I mean he had homes there where they could've knocked on the door and done it, but they still waited for a fucking awards show?

And they've done this before with celebrities, the whole Paris Hilton thing, letting her go and then WHOOPS bringing her back in. Please.

They're more camera hungry than the celebrities are.

Chez said...

Alright, Jason. I'll say this one more time and be done with it because what you're doing is incredibly obvious. You've rode into town and decided to challenge the gunslinging sheriff to a duel just for the hell of it and at this point it's just kind of annoying.

The Polanski story to me is less about the "30 year old rape" as you repeat over and over -- it's about the reaction of the artistic intelligentsia that fascinates me. Yeah, I think Polanski needs to come back and face the music. And you're a moron if you can't see what separates his case from Kennedy's: He was convicted and ran. Kennedy admittedly probably would've faced a starker justice had he not been a Kennedy (and for the record, I've never once made excuses for what he did; I thought his actions were deplorable and, no, he never did anything in his career to make me forget that), but once again for the cheap seats, or in your case the thick heads: Kennedy wasn't convicted.

But as I said, this story for me is less about Polanski's crime than it is about the truly shocking response of some in the arts community -- some people I happen to truly like and respect -- literally saying that because this guy is Roman Polanski and has made some great movies, he should get off without a hitch.

Now then, as for me writing about this. I write about what I feel like writing about. Since you're not paying a subscription rate and, as others have now made clear, it's a big fucking internet, feel free to go somewhere else. Lord knows you're not adding much here.

Speaking of that, if you don't have any other argument to make -- any new argument that is -- this ridiculous back and forth with your silly ass is over. Have a nice day. : )

Dona said...

My friend, Martha Frankel interviewed Roman years ago and just hated his attitude and his pompousness....just thought I would mention this.

Have a nice day all.

Deborah said...

I haven't had a chance to read all of the comments, but...noticed a bit of a back-and-forth with a poster named Jason. Jason, regarding the girl and her desire for this to "go away": She got paid off, did you know that? Also: This never was about her vs. him. It was THE STATE vs. him. And that, my friend, is where he failed. No matter what SHE says, and even if she had wanted the charges dropped @ that time, the authorities are obligated to proceed once they know that a crime has been committed. AND HE ADMITTED TO IT. Ask yourself this: Would YOU have gotten away with something like this? Toss a couple of bucks (which you could easily afford) to the vic, and go live in France? Not so much, I don't think.

Again, I didn't read all of the comments, so my apologies if I am being redundant.

Jason said...

Good to see you'll make excuses for Kennedy and not Polanski! Way to stay consistent!

No he wasn't convicted, but please. It is pretty much widely accepted he was responsible for someone's death; but hey! This is not the same as Polanski at all because he didn't get caught! The only similarities are the substance abuse and reckless endangerment of a vagina owner!

Lesson: it's only moral outrage when the person has actually been caught and convicted! All the guys who got away with murder, still heroes! Hooray for your horrible double standards.

Chez said...

Dude, you're seriously an idiot.

Chez said...

Yup. Bye, Jason. Come up with something new to say (and preferably something that doesn't involve a shitload of unnecessary exclamation points) and you'll be allowed back at the big kids' table.

Anonymous said...

Chez, you might already know that Bernard-Henry Lévy is the single most pompous and deluded piece of self-righteous asshole in France. Any cause he supports is basically moronic. He made a movie once, "even worse than Gigli" said critics.

He's alse a favorite in being pied by Belgian Noel Godin, who almost succeeded in pieing Ann Coulter once.

Oh, and fun facts : the current first lady of France, Carla Bruni, was the "other woman" in his daughter's divorce. Being his daughter, she had no problem finding an editor willing to publish a book about the affair, though who would have cared at that time, years before Carla Bruni ever met the President.

Thought I'd share that since Peach, living in France, had never heard of him before.

Peach said...

Bah. As if I need to have my education commented on from a French Canadian.
Please, T'es relou

The guy who always wears the pretentious scarf. Yeah. I realized who Levy was. But here in actual France that's all we think of him. That guy who calls himself (because nobody else will) a philospher and wears that douchey scarf.

Oh and in summation...
Dont fuck little girls if you want to be turned into a little girl by some large man named Sandy. That's the bottom line.

Excusing such things or trying to minimize it is bullshit. Rape isn't just a crime against a person. It's a crime aganst humanity. That's why if the victim wants to prosecute or not it doesnt fucking matter.
So actually I dont care if the victim wants it over. I want the baby rapist in jail and out of my country.

Peach said...

Oh and to anony 8:30,

Apparently I have to reaffirm my French cred to you. So here we go...I stopped keeping up with French scandal a long ass time ago. I also never took interest in self-proclaimed intellegista.

See I grew up in a 3rd world dictator run state (p.s. right next to the one the US invaded), moved to Paris, to the US, and back to Paris. So no, I'm not 'French' by birth. Only by citizenship. Boo me. This might be why I've been a bit busy and haven't kept up with who Carla Bruni is fucking/was fucking.

All apologies. Please, do bestow more of your worldly wisdom on me. Because I need more lectures from middle class white kids. Really. I do.

Hey next you'll tell me you think you're super worldly because you did a month or two in South East Asia and 'roughed it'. Yeah. Okay then. Have a pleasant day.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to have annoyed you Peach, I was not doubting your "French cred" at all !

I quite understand that many worthy people have others things to do than to check gossip, specially French gossip.

I also know that usually commenters like to be mentioned in other commenters' messages. Not you, fine with me, but why the rant about me being a French Canadian, a middle class white kid, someone who thinks of herself as super worldly, or someone who holds this xenophobic notion of "French by birth" ?

Please cool off. You were not attacked by me. And besides, I wish you all the best - it's with people moving around, getting to know each other, that peace and harmony get around.