Polanski's Arrest: Shame on the Swiss

I've had it with the Swiss.

I used to admire them -- their clean, orderly, decorous way of life. Their stubborn independence and self-reliance. I forgave them for the years they never joined the United Nations, and even now, not joining the European Union.

When I learned, years ago, that they had blithely allowed German military trains to transit their country during the Second World War, while claiming Swiss "neutrality," I was shocked, but tried to excuse them on grounds that they were protecting their country from invasion and armed warfare.

I was glad when they finally gave women the vote not so long ago. And I was glad when their banks initially balked at American demands to release the names of their American clients. Swiss banking secrecy, after all, has not been a ploy to launder dirty money; it has been a time-honored tradition to respect the privacy of their customers.

(May I add that Europeans have always been, and still are to a large degree, much more discreet about their money than Americans are.)

But now, not only are the Swiss bankers caving in to America's bullying, so are the Swiss police and Swiss jurisprudence.

Arresting Roman Polanski the other day in Zurich, where he was to receive an honorary award at a film festival, was disgraceful and unjustifiable. Polanski, now 76, has been living in France for over thirty years, and has been traveling and working in Europe unhindered, but the Swiss acted on an old extradition treaty with the U.S. and seized him! The Swiss Justice Ministry will decide whether to extradite him to the United States.

The judge in the 1977 statutory rape case is dead. Polanski had agreed at the time to a plea bargain, but then the judge reneged on it. Polanski has tried to appeal.

But there is more to this story. The 13-year old model "seduced" by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.
I met Polanski shortly after he fled America and was filming Tess in Normandy. I was working in the CBS News bureau in Paris, and I accompanied Mike Wallace for a Sixty Minutes interview with Polanski on the set. Mike thought he would be meeting the devil incarnate, but was utterly charmed by Roman's sobriety and intelligence.

Now, three decades later, the long arm of Uncle Sam is grabbing this man and hauling him back to California, thanks to the complicity of the Swiss. There are surely more important issues in the world, and more villainous rogues at large that we should be attending to. Why does America always get sidetracked by sex and scandal?

I suggest, in the finest American tradition, we protest this absurd and deplorable act by smashing our cuckoo clocks, pawning our Swiss watches, and banning Swiss cheese and chocolate.

And let them yodel all they like.

 

 

Comments

[volanj]

"The 13-year old model seduced by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies" - Joan, how did you come up with this one?

The girl's mother complied when Polanski's suggested that she should not accompany her daughter to the photo shoot because her presence would inhibit the girl. That's what mother testified before the Grand Jury, according to the probation report. She trusted Polanski, and who would think that a man who suffered so much in his life, would cause harm and suffering to a child?

[Catherine1234]

If in fact the girls mother was also her pimp (and we think this because Polanski's supporters have told us this?) does that make the act itself any less disgusting, or any less traumatic to the child? Would you think that would be an acceptable excuse if your husband had sex with a child? “Well her mother said it was OK”? Are you kidding with this?

Read this for a great rebuttal of the many defenses of Polanski

http://johnshore.com/2009/10/05/hollywood-go-polanski-yourself/

[PavePusher]

Ms. Shore, I have a proposal for you.

I will do to you what that animal did to a 13 year-old girl, and if you can say, with a straight face, that you were not raped, I'll call for him to go free.

Better yet, do you have a young daughter or grand-daughter I can take out to dinner?

HE. RAPED. A. 13. YEAR. OLD. GIRL.

And you seem to be O.K. with that.

I think taht says everything about your character that we need to know.

Goodbye.

[bedfordny]

Polanski raped a child. You can call it 'seduced' all you want, but the criminality of the act speaks for itself. He got a child drunk, plied her with a sedative and violated while she continued to say 'no' during every act he perpetrated on her. Whether she had stars in her eyes or was pushed into the meeting due to a stage mother is irrelevant: "No means no. Even if she was a consenting adult. And even if she said "yes" to every act (which she didn't), it is still always NO and always a crime of rape because she was a CHILD. Children can't give consent to sexual acts with an adult because it is against the law. Children need protection from the exploitation of adults, not the other way around.

Yes, there are many important issues to deal with in the world. Good thing that one person does not have to keep track of all of them. The legal system has been admittedly slow moving in this, but that doesn't mean that justice should be ignored or denied in this case. Polanski committed a crime which he was supposed to serve time for. It's not the fault of the system that he belongs in jail. It's the fault of Polanski himself. Charming or not, a crime such as his deserves to favor justice for the victim, not sympathy for the perpetrator.

[gp2906]

Roman Polansky was at the time of the event in question, an event that he CONFESSED to, a legal adult. And a seemingly intelligent one, at that. Whatever the girl's mother did has no bearing on whether or not he raped her. He was the one who forcefully abused and penetrated her, not the girl's mother.

Oh, and a quick word about the American legal process. Sure, some judges reneg on plea bargains. But there are legal appeals processes to remediate that. And that legal appeals process DOES NOT include fleeing the country and avoiding punishment for a crime that you CONFESSED to. That alone should be enough to have him extradited to the United States, so that he can receive a fair trial that oh so many of you cowardly defenders think he never got. If he really is as changed and innocent as you say, put him before a jury of his peers and see what they think about raping a 13-year-old.

Sexual assault is sexual assault. There are no mitigating factors. I am glad that the Swiss decided to take action and follow both their legal obligation to the United States and their moral obligation to the human race and treat this cowardly sex offender for what he is. A cowardly sex offender.

[chrisfilby]

Do you understand that a 13 year old, much less a 14 year old child has no ability to legally or morally consent to anything much less consent to having sex with someone old enough to be her grandfather. I believe that you need to do some serious reflection about your words and how they look to the average little school girl barely reaching puberty. I'm sure there are lots of parent that are agreeing with you about now as well.

The LA Times and The New York Times, hardly right wing rags both published factual accounts of the case and Mr.Polanski clearly gave the girl alcohol and illicit drugs before having sex with her, sex she did not want, and sex she had no way to consent by any legal standard then or now. Mr. Polanski did not deny his crime, and the Judge was correct to deny a ridiculous plea bargain contrived by the prosecutor likely due to Mr. Polanski's prominence in the community. Mr. Polanski should have been subjected to a jury trial and sent to a California prison for his crime. Instead he decided to flee the country and become a fugitive.

I am not without empathy for Mr. Polanski's losses and for all the pain he has suffered. Regardless, that does not give him the right to take the innocence of a 13 year old girl. Fame and Fortune are not a license to rape or a get out of jail free.

[Freenation]

so you had with swiss because they nailed this pervert who abused the US judicial system by feeling before his sentencing, even if the mother was pushing child towards Polanski, was he a minor too?

[Jazzcomedian]

Sure when Polanski was 42, he drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old girl, but he's made three great movies. I could see bringing Polanski to justice if he was a mailman, or janitor, or if his movies were bad, but his movies are good, so he should get a pass so he can keep skiing, and drinking champagne. . Why be successful if you can't get away with things like raping a 13 year old?

If you rape a girl and go to jail, it's your fault that you weren't successful enough, and you have to take responsibility. That's what keeps me on the straight and narrow. Everytime I think about committing a robbery, murder, or raping someone, I do a reality check, and realize I'm not successful enough to get away with it. Being unsuccessful is a powerful deterrent to crime.

That's only fair. That's how life should work.

[TheBlackCat]

absolutely. My husband is in the army and, frankly, not the least bit charming. He is not what you would call skilled in the art of conversation, and rarely comes across as either charming or hyper intelligent.

That totally means he deserves to go to jail more than Roman Polanski does. I mean, all my husband did was fight in a war. But he's a poor conversationalist.

What an astute observation this author has made. Truly whether or not you face justice should depend on how well you can entertain at a dinner party.

[devans00]

Isn't this how the world is supposed to work? More money or more status = more blessed?

Afterall, that's what the Wall Street Journal and American political leaders tell us every day.

[Catherine1234]

Oh it is OK to rape and drug a 13 year old if her mother thrusts her on you. Sure now I get it. He had her mother’s consent!

Shame on you Ms Co-founder of Women Overseas for "Equality"

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/polanskis-arrest-shame-on_b_301134.html

[petegrif]

This is absolutely pathetic.
Let's examine the purely legal situation for a moment. The fact that the writer says that 'the swiss acted on an old extradition treaty thereby slyly insinuating that the extradition treaty is some anachronism from an age when bizarre laws were agreed upon for what are now historically irrelevant reasons the fact is that the treaty in question is a binding bilateral treaty under international law. The Swiss DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.
Let's now ask whether this is indeed a foolish anachronism that all right thinking people would wish to be repealed. Polanski drugged, assaulted, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child. This is not only appalling to anyone who has looked at a 13 year old lately, but strangely enough (despite the writer's attempt to blame the victim's mother and the ludicrous remark that she was nearly 14) this is ILLEGAL.
So do we really want a world in which those who commit serious crimes (assault, rape...) can skip a country and live happily overseas without a care in the world. Perhaps the writer does, but I have a sneaking suspicion that she doesn't really. Just when a great artist is involved.
This article is an embarrassment. An intellectual pygmy could do better.

[TheBlackCat]

Absolutely horrified with this article.

The author doesn't even deny what happened, but just tells us that because the child's mother was negligent and Polanski is charming, that means he should get a pass?

That this author is part of a WOMEN'S GROUP is even more horrifying.

That HuffPo would publish this article makes me seriously reconsider any further participation on this web site....

[nccanuck]

Condemnation over Polanski and yet Kevin Jennings decides on his own that he doesn't need to report a possibly an inappropriate ADULT-CHILD relationship and he is given kudo's here.

There is a problem with the hypocrisy rampant on this board. Personal, both need to be taken to task for thee deeds.

[CyndiC]

At first I was defending Roman Polanski and knowing the victim forgives him and wants to move on. Then I read the transcripts. She said 'no' several times and wanted to go home. After what his family went through and his wife went through and he wouldn't let her go home. She was raped even if age wasn't a factor. It's disappointing to read your article know that you don't think he should be prosecuted.

[conservativeisaac]

Joan Shore, you have just become irrelevant. Imagine if it was your daughter or even you at age 13, Joan. It's embarrassing and repulsive that you represent a woman's group.

[kboogie]

Amen sister (or brother)!

[CJinChi-town]

Seriously, this from someone who calls herself a feminist? For more intelligent commentary from the Left on the issue see the Katha Pollit in the Trib: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1002rapeoct02,0,1600577.story

[Charles Shackelford]

Everyone supposes they know all the facts about this case and continually refer to the "rape" of this teenager. See the HBO documentary on the subject, quite unbiased, which revealed the outrageous judicial misconduct and miscarriage of justice in this affair which was politicized and mishandled. When this happens, all the supposed "facts" are brought into question as is the case in this sordid affair. I reserve the absolute judgment of my fellow bloggers who seem to know so much about this event which occurred decades before. The attacks against Mr. Polanski have basically turned into an indictment of the supposed immorality of the "Hollywood Elite" and those of privilege who can afford to skirt the law, which may be true to some extent, but those so fervent in their outrage over this event turn a blind eye to the obscenity, indecency and immorality of the "conservative" agenda in all its manifestations politically and socially here at home and abroad. Hollywood liberals have always been a favorite target for the fascists and this is no different in this case. Justice would be better served going after George W. Bush and his entourage of morons who shamefully destroyed our nation's integrity and economy. Where is your outrage over this?

[freddy243]

Seriously, think about what you wrote. An HBO documentary. Well, that's a horse of a different color! Why didn't you say so? Why, we'd better notify the authorities that they made a mistake! After all, one of Polanski's buddies made a documentary that paints him as an innocent victim! You remind me of the Deep Thought about the trampoline salesman.

Read the grand jury testimony, if you can stomach it. It is quite credible, and Polanski has never denied that he did everything the victim said he did. The only reason there was a plea deal was because she didn't want to testify (again). I'm sure her mother influenced that decision, since it's likely she committed a crime as well.

[john-oh]

And what's more... if you argue that the original judge was biased, why would that mean he shouldn't conclude his trial where "facts" can be evaluated? Do you believe that our legal system is incapable of trying a man for rape fairly just because he's a celebrity? Of course there are other injustices and crimes that have affected far more people... but trying a rapist doesn't somehow preclude trying the Bush administration, and a belief that our legal system is so fundamentally unfair is indeed a significant concern about our nation's integrity! On the other hand, if you simply feel that the press is making too much of it, that people are spending too much energy on it, that it's a distraction *in the news* from more important matters, that's reasonable... but it's inconsequential to the assertion that an accused rapist should get a free pass from a trial.

[Lam56]

You and everyone else might want to check out the column Marcia Clark wrote that is on The Daily Beast in which she clear demonstrates the myth of the judicial misconduct charge.

[lifelong]

Regardless of what the HBO documentary stated, the facts are that the guy PLED GUILTY TO RAPING A CHILD. When you reach a plea bargain, the judge still determines your sentence. He had a lawyer, he had all the facts, and he pled guilty. Why are you jumping through all of these hoops trying to defend him? Fascists targeting him? George W. Bush? "Conservative" agenda? WTF????

[Mark Reilly]

I don't suppose to know any details about the case, except that nothing in this article nor in your comment constitute a defense. Sorry, but a "look, Bush was really worse than I, so I shouldn't be punished" defense shouldn't work with a bunch of 5 year-olds, and certainly doesn't work in court. With that logic someone could rob the U.S. Treasury of $1 billion dollars and say "So what? Bush cost the country 1000 times that!" As much as I dislike Bush and his cronies, I also like the idea of "relevance."