Why Robert Harris' NY Times Pro-Polanski Op-Ed Is an Offensive, Self-Serving Disgrace

Like many in Hollywood and throughout the rest of the entertainment world, novelist Robert Harris has raced to the defense of child-rapist and international fugitive Roman Polanski, his pal and creative collaborator. In his NY Times op-ed piece Wednesday, "Why Arrest Roman Polanski Now?," Harris desperately attempts, as have so many others in the past several days, to create a mind-numbing smokescreen around the central issue of this case: that an innocent, defenseless, drugged and alcohol-plied 13-year-old was sexually violated in every orifice of her body. A despicable act which is very clearly prohibited by very specific law.

Harris's piece is both utterly infuriating in its cavalier and self-serving presentation, and shameful in how blatantly he shows zero regard for America's rule of law. There is so much wrong with his arguments that I will tackle them one-by-one:

Harris begins with: "...His past did not bother me, any more (presumably) than it did the three French presidents with whom he has had private dinners, or the hundreds of actors and technicians who have worked with him since 1977, or the fans who come up to him in the streets of Paris for his autograph."

French presidents? Is he kidding? Middle-aged Frenchmen accept and forgive Polanski's sexually deviant behavior and that's a defense? Perhaps Harris would welcome support from Italy's scandal-plagued, teenage-girl-chasing Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi too? Are we really to let Polanski off Scot-free because movie people like him? Or because fans seek his autograph? Perhaps Harris has never witnessed the throngs of idiots who still drool all over O.J. Simpson as if he's America's former football hero instead of the brutal monster who butchered two people. And this may come as a shock to Harris: America's judicial system couldn't give a rat's ass whether certain criminal behavior bothers you or not.

Harris then asks, "Why now?" To which I reply, why the fuck not? The argument that he's been allowed to roam free for 30 years, therefore he should be allowed to stay free is moronic. Just because some lame-ass law-enforcement authorities had their collective thumbs up their asses for three decades does not give Polanski a get out of jail free card. Should we not arrest Nazi war criminals because they've been living in Argentina for 65 years and might be "liked" by their neighbors? Who cares when justice ultimately gets served, as long as it gets served. Let's keep things in perspective here: the Los Angeles DA's office has not committed any crimes. Polanski has.

Also on the "why now" front, Harris contradicts himself when he claims authorities have ignored Polanski since 1978, but then cites five occasions -- 1978, 1986, 1988, 2005, and 2007 -- where vigorous attempts were made to arrest him. While Polanski's crime was despicable, I would suspect that from a priority and resource standpoint, no one expected it to be a "red-hot manhunt" as Harris states it should've been if the case was so important. Still doesn't excuse the crime or create a basis for not continuing to pursue the criminal.

Harris then points to a 2008 documentary by Marina Zenovich, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," as the likely reason the Polanski case, and the pursuit, became hot again. Again I ask, who cares what the reason is, or when that reason surfaced? In fact, documentaries are supposed to provoke thought and raise awareness on the issues they cover. That's exactly their reason for being. The irony is, according to Harris unwittingly, that it perhaps took a filmmaker to bring Polanski to justice when for 30 years inept lawmakers could not.

Another misguided element in Harris's defense of Polanski is that his victim, the now-45-year-old Samantha Greimer, wants the case dropped and forgotten. As psychologists will tell us, there is a very twisted dynamic that often occurs between victim and victimizer. Greimer, at 13, was in no position to reconcile this horrific act. And it's likely had a profoundly negative affect on her throughout her adult life, which may be exactly why she needs to sweep this painful memory under the rug instead of having the self-confidence to demand justice for the man who stole her innocence. I ask Harris, should we also let kidnapper/rapist Phillip Garrido go free because his victim, Jaycee Lee Dugard, after 18 years of sexual imprisonment, might bizarrely have some affection for the man who fathered her children and who her children believe is their daddy? In America, we don't let victims decide when our laws are enforced.

One of Harris's more outrageous, infuriating statements is: "I make no apology for feeling desperately sorry for him. The almost pornographic relish with which his critics are retelling the lurid details of the assault (strange behavior, one might think, for those who profess concern for the victim) make it hard to consider the case rationally. Of course what happened cannot be excused, either legally or ethically."

Nice logic here. So, the guy who commits disgusting, unlawful sexual acts on a child is not lurid and pornographic, but those who report on it are? And then he adds insult to injury by saying "what happened cannot be excused" after he devotes almost a half-page column to doing just that.

Let me try to explain to Harris why journalists and bloggers recount in vivid, "lurid" detail how Polanski's middle-aged predatory penis found its way into a drugged and alcohol-plied Greiner's mouth, vagina and anus: because the sexual violation of a child by an adult is such a sick, twisted, perverted, unconscionable, inexcusable abuse. We write about the "pornographic details" to remind everyone, especially insensitive, clueless twits like you, of just how horribly violated this poor child was by Polanski. Perhaps if you think it's so awful to read about such details you might want to rethink your defense of the creep who committed them.

Harris ends his convoluted diatribe by claiming Polanski is a "doting father" who's children "want him home." I'm sure O.J.'s kids want him home, too. Again I should remind Harris that in America we don't let children decide the judicial fates of their law-breaking "doting" dads.

In his closing line, Harris smugly quotes the Romans: "So cui bono," or, "who benefits?" The criminal justice system benefits, as does every single child who can feel some comfort and security that we still have laws that protect them from sexually-perverted adult predators who seek to horrifically abuse them.

The simple truth is, Roman Polanski is a pedophile, which is defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as someone with a sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. There is nothing in this definition that mitigates this behavior. Nothing regarding how often the adult has sex with a child; whether or not the mother was negligent; how long ago the crime occurred; or whether the sexual abuser has any Oscars for filmmaking. Polanski's a pedophile and a fugitive, and it's time, after 30 years, that he finally face justice.

It is outrageously offensive to see the outpouring of support for Polanski from the world's elite artist-class. Are there two sets of laws according to these people? One for artists and another for everyone else? And are we supposed to be influenced by what these apologists have to say in trivializing Polanski's despicable acts, especially Woody Allen, who married the girl who was basically his own stepdaughter after raising her since childhood? Shame on them all.

Comments

[zahara2603]

Andy, great article and glad you didn't hold back. Shame these people back to reality.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/art-does-not-excuse-rape-polanski-must-face-justice

[seer60]

Quote: "Are there two sets of laws according to these people?"

Hundreds of U.S. clergy have been involved in the "Priest-Pedophilia" scandals and not uncommonly guilty of far greater crimes than what has been judged against Polanski. Yet, I recall that it is only infrequently that they are ever sentenced to any prison term.

Typically, if even ANY satsfaction for the victm occurs it is in the form of the priests' Dioceses shelling out financial compensation to the victims (as Polanski had previously likewise paid out to the victim to the tune of a half a million dollars).

Indeed!

[spiritpony1]

I wonder how old his children are now (in France) and if either is female----­-o'course, in his case, who knows, maybe male or female does not matter------in anycase, one wonders how he would respond if HIS children--­-----hell, maybe he thinks it's normal and right; he's pretty messed up

[spiritpony1]

My god---I want to THANK YOU FOR THIS ARTICLE; AND, BY A MAN ALSO. (I apologize for that part of the comment, but I had about decided only some women were not willing to exonerate him). The "attitude" on this -----strictly a CLASS THING OUT OF THE PSEUDO ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY AND PLENTY OF LIBERAL WANNABES THEREOF,----has been one of the most revolting things I have witnessed of late, vis a vis our phucked up pop culture. I was one of the FEW throwing out posts re: WHY WAS POLANSKI TO BE EXCUSED, BUT NOT GARRIDO AND/OR THE KIDNAPPER OF ELIZABETH SMART. (Again, minors who "stayed w/" their kidnappers) THIS IS LARGELY A "CLASS MATTER", pure and simple; you can bet the same "libs" would love to see any of the Repulsives fry, if such crap popped out on them. AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE ARTICLE-----

[petegrif]

this is the best, clearest piece on the issue I've read.

The morons who support him need to ask themselves a simple question. If they sat down to dinner tomorrow with a 40 year old male acquaintance and over wine and cigars he said - "I had a fun evening last night. I had this 13 year old girl over and I drugged, raped and sodomized her. " how would they react?

Maybe it's just me but Im desperately hoping that even these idiots would be horried.

[deniz]

If you have such faith in America's justice system, then why are you pronouncing O.J. as guilty? He was found innocent by a jury of his peers, you know.

Just sayin'...

[JShankel]

Of murder. He's guilty of trying to get his sh*t back. With a gun.

[chaserblue]

I would expect nothing less of Woody Allen, him being a pedophile from way, way back---but I cannot believe that people actually think Polanski should receive anything EXCEPT the full extent of the law to come down on his head. He ran off to live his life, knowing the entire time that he was a fugitive after brutalizing a child. His bill has come due and every single solitary person that defends his heinous actions is no better than the worst he ever was.

[BocaMom]

I don't care if Hollywood spends millions of dollars supporting Democrats, they need to keep their stupid mouths shut. How they can defend the rape of 7th grader is disgusting.

[spiritpony1]

I agree (and, yes, I normally vote Dem--) H.wood has many "issues", doesn't it---

[sheeshbrother]

Wonderful post.
Thank you.

[TheBlackCat]

agreed. When I read this NY Times piece, it made me feel physically ill.

Thank you Andy, Thank you.

[Gonzaloo]

What’s equally disturbing is not just the “Hollywood” insiders that came out in defense of Polanski.
(Weinsteins, WoodyAllen, Whoopie...)
But the rest of "Hollywood industry" that complain about how misunderstood they are but are not willing to state their position either way. If they think what he did is wrong then let's here it!
(God knows they can't complain that they don't have easy access to the news media either, especially since they'll release a news story about any little personal triffle to get publicity)

Most of them seem to be just trying to get out of town.

[Portia22]

For all that she had to endure, not just the abuse but the aftermath , there can be no peace for the victim unless this case is laid to rest fairly. The last time there was a trial, Polanski was allowed a plea bargain(to shield her) and fled, lives a hugely successful life, has celebrity status, and powerful friends. Can she take that risk?

For most of us women, it is almost unbearable to talk about or hear details of how they were abused, especially rape like this. We would just like everything to go away, there is nothing so humiliating as strangers, especially men, hearing these details. Though it isnt realistic we would just like justice to be done, and everything closed without having to testify and be grilled in court . It requires some empathy to understand these feelings.


And after all that has happened, especially the psychology between the victim and victimizer, and the unsavory media attention some of which put the blame on her, nothing else can bring peace to the victims and their families, as knowing that justice has been served. Nothing else will make them feel whole and empowered again.

[Portia22]

What would be accomplished? It is ludicrous that people even think this way. Justice, for someone who was helpless, for the child she was then, for innocence, for our values, for all that we are - the love and nurture we wish to provide our children with, and for being able to see the same precious innocence of our children in others'. That no one is above the common law.

Roman Polanski is a doting father? And yet he did this to another child?

And it is unthinkable that the details of how he abused a child sound lurid and pornographic to his supporters. They are utterly repulsive, warped, disgusting. What world do they live in, I ask? It isnt enought o perfume oneself and walk around in tuxedos and evening dresses, when you cant distinguish the difference, you are less than a human being.

[novodia9]

I have nothing to say.
'cept that i agree with everything you said.

[RTE]

I never told, in my fourth decade on the planet I thought I was over it, but seeing prominent people run to the defence of an admitted and unrepentant child rapist has been making me literally physically ill and it has been difficult to suppress tears and shame. I'm keeping your piece bookmarked so it can help me make it through the day. Thank you, thank you so much for writing this.

[mitsu63]

Hang in there. I'm with you. There has got to be some way to leave these things in the past and walk away into a more unfettered future. My abuser is dead, so I don't know how I'm supposed to reach any sort of closure with him. But I still believe I can free myself.

[PatA]

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But … freaking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to freak young girls. Juries want to freak young girls. Everyone wants to freak young girls!” - Roman Polanksi 1979

[petegrif]

Please tell me he didn't really say that.

[Catherine1234]

Oh my God he really did

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/

[rockyersocksoff]

I wish the overlords here gave posters one tenth the freedom to use strong language and exhibit strong feelings that they give Bloggers.

But I'm glad you were able to write what you did, Mr Ostroy.

"Hollywood" is really screwing the pooch in supporting RP.