Comments on: Kaalgat pseudo-liberalism and the Polanski affair

By: Shaun

Shaun — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:39:12 +0000

Similar definitions — a conservative is a liberal who’s just been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who is about to be voted out of power.

By: Milkhike Tsitskes

Milkhike Tsitskes — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:19:24 +0000

For thousands of years we Jews were giving our sons Bar Mitzvahs at the tender age of thirteen and then marrying them off to girls the same age. For thousands of years thirteen year old Jewish girls were being married off to men much older than Polanski, by their own fathers! (And then getting sodomised)… The author is using his rather selective morality to comment on what he believes to be the usefulness of religion… Here we have an orthodox Jew defending a Christian clergyman who’s defending Christian pedophiles. Laughable really…

By: julie

julie — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:10:53 +0000

Jamie, I know my “irrational militant feelings” about Polanski’s The Pianist might be coloring my opinion here as Grant asserts (!) but the point about psychology is really on the same level of morality I think. As has been said, you cannot apply “arbitrary” laws according to morality, OR psychology. If a rapist takes cocaine s/he is in another mental state, isn’t s/he? Look at the histories of any given rapist in prison, and you will see a pattern of parental abuse, neglect, murder, etc. The only difference is they didn’t direct “Knife in the Water.” Sounds simplistic, but I don’t think that can be denied.

By: Jamie M

Jamie M — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:03:05 +0000

Grant, are your feelings hurt? Do you REALLY have to whine about a poster saying “not so much” in response to your post? Because honestly, the rest of us don’t care. That is getting just a little petty, don’t you think?
“I would draw your attention to the fact that those opinions were those of pschologists at the time and are not mine at all. Yours, on the other hand are drawn from your irrational, militant feelings on this issue and based on nothing close to science or fact.”
Um, the subject at hand I believe was priests and Polanski, and whether different ideas of morality play into whether each should be charged the same for teh same crime. Could you please point out the scientific reports and such that you mention that address this?

By: Michael Murphy

Michael Murphy — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:41:26 +0000

OK, I’ve been lurking on the Polanski comments on this site, but I feel the need to pipe up. First: Wow, Grant, getting testy there. I think the point was a good one, and quite fair in response to yours. I don’t think it advisable that we hold different standards for different rapists (if Polanski is a rapist in a sense other than statutory, but for the sake of he argument at hand I will assume that.) That is, we cannot arbitrarily apply consequences according to individual’s arbitrary morals. We cannot say “well, this person has spoken out against rape, so if they rape they should be held accountable” while to the other we say “this person, on th eother hand, made no such admonition about rape, so the laws about rape do not apply.” This really isn’t about priests’ moral grandstanding anyway. I think the issue has to do with people in authority doing these things not being able to escape the law because of time passing. We would never say, for instance “That 13 year-old boy didn’t speak up then, doesn’t that imply something about consent? And that boy had sex previously, so, YOU KNOW… and so much time has passed, let’s just sweep this under the rug and have done with it, shall we?” No, the different standards are shameful.

By: julie

julie — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:48:16 +0000

I’d like to point out to everyone that that “outburst” of mine that Gran was referring to is this :
Grant:“Polanski claimed no such high ground. In fact he was judged to be a psychologically damaged individual at the time of the incident. His wife and unborn child had been slaughtered by serial killers a few years earlier. I think that this and many other details regarding the nature of the incident, far more than his fame, are the reasons for the lenient outlook.

Julie: “Except, not so much really. Have you seen the Pianist? Some rather angering scenes of victimization and the powerful using the non-powerful for their own whims. Sound familiar?
Polanski ha made it his duty to show society its evils through film. Yet he is too self-ignorant to see it in himself.”

You ask me, Grant “You may also want to delve deeper and ask yourself why this discussion threatens you so much and why you can’t approach it with rationality and distance; why you can’t entertain the POSSIBILITY that what happened does not fall into the convenient boxes of good and evil and may lie in a convoluted tangle somewhere inbetween. ”
And I would ask the same of you.

“I did not respond before because there was nothing new to respond to.”
–I asked you to explain why you think bringing up a rape victim’s sexual history is OK for the defense counsel to do.

By: julie

julie — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:42:46 +0000

Jean: “It was consensual. It was rape, because she was under-age and because he peppered her with drugs and alcohol.”
So it was “consensual rape?” I see.

“So now Polanski is being equated to Nazi death-camp guards.”
Yep. When we are talking about crimes that happened years ago and the worth of bringing them to justice, it is relevant. You are incorrectly interpreting this as calling Polanski a fascist. That is not the point here. But for all the accusations of fascism toward people who do not agree with the Polanski supporters, I don’t feel much of a need to explain.
“She has publicly stated that she does not want the trial to happen. It’s the trial that will probably cause her to ‘lose sleep.’”
Please don’t be so arrogant as to say that YOU know why she wants this to end. You have no idea of what she wants or what she’s been going through.
“As for satisfying simple-minded Americans, that’s all it is. They have no sense of justice, only punishment.”
As for satisfying simple-minded Polanski fans…. well, you could say they have no sense of justice, only sycophancy. You see, your invective comments go both ways.

By: julie

julie — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:34:18 +0000

Grant, do not take this so personally. “Not so much” is not a personal jibe. I think you are getting a little ahead of this debate and turning it into some vendetta. I see how you would confuse “Outburst” with “a different opinion from yours” when this issue is an emotional one for you. I will keep responding as I want to.

By: Grant Walliser

Grant Walliser — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:51:28 +0000

Julie – Perhaps Polanski is showing society its truths through film, as he perceived and liveed them, and you are classifying them as evils when viewed through your judgmental lens.

You also seem to think that I have just developed my own theories about Polanksi’s psychological state which you refute with throw away phrases such as ‘not so much’. I would draw your attention to the fact that those opinions were those of pschologists at the time and are not mine at all. Yours, on the other hand are drawn from your irrational, militant feelings on this issue and based on nothing close to science or fact.

I therefore suggest, humbly and for the second time this week, that you review your outbursts and comb them for rational arguments or facts. I predict that neither will be discovered. I did not respond before because there was nothing new to respond to.

You may also want to delve deeper and ask yourself why this discussion threatens you so much and why you can’t approach it with rationality and distance; why you can’t entertain the POSSIBILITY that what happened does not fall into the convenient boxes of good and evil and may lie in a convoluted tangle somewhere inbetween.

By: Jean

Jean — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:19:52 +0000

She has publicly stated that she does not want the trial to happen. It’s the trial that will probably cause her to ‘lose sleep.’

As for you, this trial is not about what will make you sleep better.

So now Polanski is being equated to Nazi death-camp guards. Are these the ones that slaughtered his parents do you think? Nice.
On the question of whether he will do it again, you think he will I think he probably won’t. It’s been thirty years, and no other accusations have surfaced.

As for satisfying simple-minded Americans, that’s all it is. They have no sense of justice, only punishment.

“consensual sex with a thirteen year has not always been illegal in society,”
–it wasn’t consensual. But sure, if you want to argue about archaic stuff, beating your wife was once not illegal as well. As to your assertion that it will not be illegal in the future. Please put forth some reasoning for this claim.

It was consensual. It was rape, because she was under-age and because he peppered her with drugs and alcohol. Anyway, sex with people of that age is not archaic, nor equated to wife-beating. Read Tolstoy, look at the age of consent in Europe, Europe today. You are the archaic, reactionary pedant on this particular question. The guilt is relative to time and location.