Applebaum blames the victim for the rape

posted at 10:12 am on September 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, I just considered Anne Applebaum to have a conflict of interest over Roman Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland.  After her response to criticism for failing to disclose her husband’s efforts to get charges dropped against the director, it seems clear that Applebaum has lost whatever sense she formerly had — and that her readers are overwhelmingly repulsed by it.  In responding to Patterico, Applebaum scoffs at the notion that the 13-year-old girl had been victimized — because she called her mother before the attack.  I’m not kidding:

Of course, there were some very legitimate disagreements, including two excellent ones from my colleagues Gene Robinson and Richard Cohen, and I take some of their points. But to them, and to all who imagine that the original incident at the heart of this story was a straightforward and simple criminal case, I recommend reading the transcript of the victim’s testimony (here in two parts) — including her descriptions of the telephone conversation she had with her mother from Polanski’s house, asking permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi — and not just the salacious bits.

As one commenter on the site noted, if Applebaum finds the description of rape and sodomy “salacious”, she needs help.  In any event, the transcript does not show the girl asking for or receiving her mother’s permission to have her picture taken in a jacuzzi, let alone in the nude.  Patterico updates his readers on exactly what the transcript does show:

Q. What happened out there after he indicated he wished to take pictures of you in the jacuzzi?

A. We went inside and called my mother.

Q. When you say “we called,” did you call or did Mr. Polanski call?

A. He told me to and I talked and then he talked and then I talked again.

Q. What did you tell your mother?

A. She goes, “Are you all right?

I went, “Uh-huh.”

And she says, “Do you want me to come pick you up?”

And I went, “No.”

And he said that we’d be home kind of late because it had already gotten dark out.

Q. When you said “he said,” did he tell you or did you hear him tell your mother on the phone?

A. He told my mother.

Q, Did he tell your mother any other things?

A. Not that I was listening to.

Q. After talking to your mother on the telephone, what happened?

A. We went out and I got in the jacuzzi.

Nowhere in this transcript is this “permission” to get photographed in a jacuzzi mention.  But let’s say for a moment that it did, and that the mother said that it was OK to get in the jacuzzi to snap some photos.  Does Applebaum believe that it amounted to permission to sexually abuse a 13-year-old girl, and that such an agreement somehow trumps the girl’s repeated demands that Polanski stop attacking her?  And this doesn’t even begin to address the fact that Polanski drugged the victim first to make her more compliant.

Applebaum crosses the line into some despicable territory here.  She argues that once someone gets into a jacuzzi, regardless of their protestations and their refusals, that a girl is fair game for a rapist no matter what her age.  No no longer means no if the shameless hussy leads on the poor, victimized male.

Meanwhile, even the French have begun to rethink Polanski:

After two days of widespread expressions of support for jailed filmmaker Roman Polanski, from European political leaders as well as leading cultural figures there and in the United States, the mood was shifting among French politicians Tuesday about whether the government should have rushed to rally around the Oscar-winning director.

Marc Laffineur, the vice-president of the French assembly and a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling center-right party, the UMP, took issue with the French culture and foreign minister’s remarks supporting Mr. Polanski, saying “the charge of raping a child 13 years old is not something trivial, whoever the suspect is.”

Within the Green party, Daniel Cohn-Bendit — a French deputy in the European parliament whose popularity is rising — also criticized Sarkozy administration officials for leaping too quickly to Mr. Polanski’s side despite the serious nature of his crime. On the extreme right, the father and daughter politicians Jean-Marie and Marine Le Pen also attacked the ministers, saying they were supporting “a criminal pedophile in the name of the rights of the political-artistic class.” …

The mood was even more hostile in blogs and e-mails to newspapers and news magazines. Of the 30,000 participants in an online poll by the French daily Le Figaro, more than 70 percent said Mr. Polanski, 76, should face justice. And in the magazine Le Point, more than 400 letter writers were almost universal in their disdain for Mr. Polanski.

That contempt was not only directed at Mr. Polanski, but at the French class of celebrities — nicknamed Les People — who are part of Mr. Polanski’s rarefied Parisian world. Letter writers to Le Point scorned Les People as the “crypto-intelligentsia of our country” who deliver “eloquent phrases that defy common sense.”

In other words, the vast majority of French people feel the same way about Polanski as the vast majority of Americans.  In both countries, sympathy for a child rapist seems isolated to the entertainment elite and the media sycophants who love them.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

So, Anne concurs with Whoopi, that this wasn’t rape-rape?

myrenovations on September 30, 2009 at 10:15 AM

I’ll again apologize in advance, because there is just no better way to express how I feel about this.

Anne Applebaum is a f*cking moron, as is anyone who takes Roman Polanski’s side in this.

diditagain on September 30, 2009 at 10:17 AM

REVENGE! Hang HIM! By saying that I show how moral I am.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Applebaum must be muslim.

Johan Klaus on September 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM

I don’t understand what makes a women think like this. This could be career ending. How can anyone trust your judgement on anything else ever again?

sammypants on September 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM

I’ll again apologize in advance, because there is just no better way to express how I feel about this.

Anne Applebaum is a f*cking moron, as is anyone who takes Roman Polanski’s side in this.

diditagain on September 30, 2009 at 10:17 AM

I’m offended you’re so soft on them.

Chris_Balsz on September 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM

After two days of widespread expressions of support for jailed filmmaker Roman Polanski, from European political leaders as well as leading cultural figures there and in the United States, the mood was shifting among French politicians Tuesday about whether the government should have rushed to rally around the Oscar-winning director.

What is really sad is that the mood is shifting in response to political fallout.

Vashta.Nerada on September 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM

It is not the nature of the evidence, it is the seriousness charges… oh wait, wrong suspect…

elgeneralisimo on September 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Fck off ya fckin moron

blatantblue on September 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

I think it’s entirely fair to ask what the heck her mother was thinking, but all the same–it in no way excuses what he did to a 13 year old girl.

Period.

Bob's Kid on September 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Keep digging that hole, Applebaum, make sure the sides are nice and even before you get buried in it. Why not just admit you were wrong in your initial assessment and move on?

She, like Whoopi and the rest of the leftist and entertainment scumbags, are ahole-aholes.

Bishop on September 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

How anyone can defend this piece of dirt is beyond me. I don’t care if her mother gave Polanski permission to rape her daughter and if the victim also agreed to be raped. It is STILL rape (yes Whoopi, I mean “rape rape”) when the child is 13 years old.

katablog.com on September 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

pedophiles need to be executed….there has never, ever been 1 pedophile treated with today’s current methods that was a success, meaning that they wouldn’t commit another rape of a child, other than lifelong prison terms, and we seem to release them eventually…execution is the answer…and these apoligist’s for the pedophiles need to be scorned in public…at a minimum

JJKRN on September 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

We could easily change Applebaum’s mind by having Polanski declare himself a Republican.

darwin on September 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Hey, remember when that Foley instant messaged a Congressional page and had to resign for it? And how Hollywood and the left rallied around him and said, “It’s just some nasty instant messages, it’s not like Foley’s boyfriend was running a brothel out of his house or anything. It’s not like it’s bringing an underage page to a foreign country for consensual sex.”

Laura on September 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

No wonder the victim doesn’t want to prolong this. Would you want to have these deviant “journalists” trashing you in the media…would you want to read how the perpetrator has “suffered enough”, would you want people like Whoopie trivializing the crime on national tv? These people are despicable. The guy has had his freedom way too long. He’s a coward who needs to be a man and face a judge and accept a sentence, however long it may be. And then he can appeal it all the way to kingdom come, but he lived in this country and needs to obey our rules or accept the consequences.

scalleywag on September 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Ridiculous

I don’t even understand how people can say these things

These folks belong in ancient Greece
screwing slave children

blatantblue on September 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Guess Applebaum never had a daughter. What Polanski did was outrageous, premeditated and evil. Do the crime, do the time.

Christian Conservative on September 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Perverts think like perverts. Remember Obama’s father Frank Marshall Davis molested a 13 year old “Ann” and wrote of it.

seven on September 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Applebaum wouldn’t be singing the same tune if she had been raped in her life. It’s a complete slap in the face of anyone who has been the victim of a sexual assault.

This is beyond pathetic.

uknowmorethanme on September 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM

I read the testimony yesterday and concluded that if only these idiot elites – Whoopie, Applebaum, Debra Winger – would take a minute to read what happened, they would immediately backpedal. There is no way you could read the full testimony and conclude anything other than Polanski’s actions were rape – repeated rape and sodomy of a drugged 13 year old by a predatory adult.

Now Applebaum actually cites the testimony to make her warped case.

There are two Americas alright, Normal Americans and Applebaum Americans.

CarolynM on September 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM

She could have backed off from the first column by pleading ignorance, but now she’s all it. Evilmonger.

exception on September 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM

They are promoting a view that is reprehensible to just about every American and frenchman even the lefties at HofPo are outraged by this. they have just in one week undermined all of the last 40 years of advocating for victims’ rights done in this nation. They are blaming the victim to defend the perpetrator of a brutal and despicable act. they do this using a venue that gives them access to millions of people in a attempt to inject their morality into the community. If we do not speak up then we weaken the community, even if 1 person is swayed we are diminished.

Gwillie on September 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM

In other words, the vast majority of French people feel the same way about Polanski as the vast majority of Americans. In both countries, sympathy for a child rapist seems isolated to the entertainment elite and the media sycophants who love them.

Amen. One working class Frenchman I happen to know (a cop) would have put his fist through this guy’s jaw if Ropie had ever gone anywhere near his daughter.

And forgive me, I think I’m settling on “Ropie the Rapist” as my preferred appellation.

RD on September 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM

IF a Mother did consent to have her 13 year old photographed in the NUDE that is child Pornography, and she should be prosecuted so should Polanski. The list of charges should be increased, and he should be put on a list of registered sex offenders. This woman who is trying to defend a grown a$$ man who was CONVICTED of raping and sodomizing a child, should be shunned – she is not human no where do I recognize any humanity in the defenders of Roman Polanski. Why does this woman have a job with any legitimate News organization?

These people who are defending the rape and sodomizing of a 13 old child are devoid of what makes a person HUMAN. Don’t let them fool you just because they are walking upright. Animals behave better than these NASTY excuses for Mouth Breathers.

Dr Evil on September 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM

execution is the answer

of course. . . because as moral as I am, a good killing is in order here. We should just kill everyone who we think breaks the law. Revenge means justice.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM

I don’t think “salacious” means what she thinks it means. According to “Miriams” dictionary:

1 : arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination

Either she doesn’t know, or she’s just depraved. I’m going with depraved.

forest on September 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM

One of the delicious consequences of this 31-year-old offense to deceny is the (re)emergence of the use of the name of the director when referring to an event with an unfortunate outcome. You know, as in, “Wow, that was a hard mid-term. The prof really Polanskied me!”

(Could anyone evah make a more gratuitous comment than this? I think not.)

VoyskaPVO on September 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM

What is astonishing is how frank Applebaum is, not hiding behind tactful euphemisms but stating her ugly case in plain, unmistakable language. Amazing. She really thinks this way.

jwolf on September 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM

This is the same attitude that enable ACORN to give advice on enslaving young girls for prostitution. Is it any wonder ACORN has survived? They have the moral compass as most of the perverts in Hollywood and not just a few in Washington.

E9RET on September 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

CarolynM on September 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM

+1

RD on September 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

I think it’s entirely fair to ask what the heck her mother was thinking, but all the same–it in no way excuses what he did to a 13 year old girl.

Period.

Bob’s Kid on September 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Agreed and as far as I’m concerned she should have been charged with something too. But even if he had the mothers permission he didn’t have the victims.

sammypants on September 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

I think it’s entirely fair to ask what the heck her mother was thinking, but all the same–it in no way excuses what he did to a 13 year old girl.

Period.

Bob’s Kid on September 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are plenty of mothers in L.A. who wouldn’t mind if a 44 year-old movie director screwed their teenage daughter if it would make her a movie star.

BigD on September 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

If a 15 y.o. showed up at my house in lingerie… begging me to have sex with her… got on the phone and had her parents tell me it’s OK… it is STILL criminal, immoral, and vile if I (as a man in his early 40s) took her up on it.

Period. End of discussion.

mankai on September 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

let me be even more blunt…if you admit to harming a child…you should promptly be take out back and killed…

JJKRN on September 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

In both countries, sympathy for a child rapist seems isolated to the entertainment elite and the media sycophants who love them.

Sympathizing with a child rapist should be a felony.

fogw on September 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

I just can not understand these apologist. She was 13! Do they not understand that? At least we all can see who and what these defenders are

EliTheBean on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

As a mother and a woman I am speechless. I thought the days of “she had it coming because of what she wore, etc” were over with the rise of the feminist movement. That is why we have tried to end sexual harassment in the workplace. That is why we teach our children not to let anyone touch them. I wouldn’t doubt that Ms Applebaum thought that the priests who engaged young boys in sexual misconduct were monsters.

I am not sure how Anne Applebaum can really look at herself in a mirror.

Ricki on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

If making a couple of pretty good movies means that a person should be excused for child rape, I wonder for how much a person who has made a lot of great movies can be excused. Could Alfred Hitchcock have gotten away with raping someone? Could Kubrick have been a serial killer? Could Woody Allen have married his own stepdaughter? Ok, forget that last example…you get my point.

DarkKnight3565 on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

I don’t know whats worse. Hearing these types come up with new disgusting arguments daily, or coping with the fact that aronofsky, gilliam, AND bellucci signed that blasted petition. There goes my two favorite directors and my dream woman…this is such a nasty, nasty story.

ernesto on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Hey, Annie, why don’t you send your 13 year old daughter over to Switzerland to see Roman Polanski? I hear he’s casting for his next movie. Thank heaven for little girls.

Percy_Peabody on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

What did he do that is so wrong? It’s not like he is a republican or a Palin supporter. Or g_d forbid critisize Obama. All else is excusable.

Kuffar on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

If the WaPo management was even a tiny bit better than human excrement, which they are not, they would kick Applebaum’s sorry ass out to the curb.

There is so much “culture of corruption” going on that any political party OTHER THAN the American GOP would know how to stage a nation wide campaign in 2010 and wipe the dems off the map.

Labamigo on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

I seem to recall during all the mandatory sexual harassment and rape seminars I have gone to that even if a woman says stop during the middle of consensual sex, that if the male doesn’t do as she asks, he commits rape. I also seem to recall something about how a child isn’t mature enough to make any lasting decision so even if she would have said yes then it is still rape. Did I miss something here? Can anyone make a flow chart on just how this thinking works. Here I am thinking calculus is hard.

txaggie on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Applebaum must be a male muslim.

Johan Klaus on September 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM

PatriotRider on September 30, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Man alive is that head shot unappealing. Oof.

radioboyatl on September 30, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Anne Applebaum now has as much credibility as Whoopi: 0.

She can be safely ignored on anything she writes.

It matters not even if the 13 y.o. demanded sex from Polanski. Being an adult male means knowing the law, even if not having common sense. Adult male + 13 y.o. girl = no sex.

rbj on September 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Hmm. Second look at the French?

joe_doufu on September 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Look, a 13 year old cannot consent. They are CHILDREN. That’s why we don’t allow them to drive, drink, marry, enter into contracts, etc.

If the Mother gave any kind of permission, she needs to be charged with child abuse as well. Case closed.

This witch is an evil b!tch and I hope she rots in Hell.

TheBigOldDog on September 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM

i’m going to assume your daughters are safe and protected..as are mine…CONVICTED pedophiles need to be executed..quickly..

JJKRN on September 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM

This is an excellent insight into the pathology of the liberal mind. Liberals/progressives are incapable of laying blame or responsibility on anyone, except conservatives, for anything. If Polanski would have shot the kid in the head after he raped her, idiots like Applebaum would still be blaming the victim. The only cure for idiots like her is removal of half of her brain, or at least what’s left of it.

orlandocajun on September 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM

There ya go, the little slut was just askin’ for it. It was like putting meat before a dog. Poor Roman just couldn’t resist. I think we should find this tramp and drag her down to some town square and stone her for all the anguish that she’s meted out to dear Mr. Polanski over the years. Think of all the pain a deprivation that he’s suffered. Exiled from his home, living in poverty, separated from the work he loves, an outcast from his pathetic sycophant loser friends, afraid to show his face in public. The horror. If you think I need to put a sarc tag on this you need to have your head examined.

Oldnuke on September 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM

I am not a Catholic. Some priests abused their authority and abused boys. Now Perv Anne says celebrities can abuse authority and take advantage of a child below the age of consent.

seven on September 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Up is down, down is up.

bridgetown on September 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Hell must have frozen over…

I’ve agreed with the French twice in two days

1. Sarkozy; “Obama is naive and egotistical”
2. French People; “Send Polanksi back to the US”

PatriotRider on September 30, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Apparently there is no low that is too low for this b*tch.

ZeeMI on September 30, 2009 at 10:32 AM

PS – even if the girl said “yes” he’s guilty. Focusing on the compliance of a drugged 13-year old or her mother is completely ridiculous. Even if she was stone-cold-sober, she cannot consent to being abused by a predator.

TheBigOldDog on September 30, 2009 at 10:32 AM

What happened to “feminism”? Oh that’s right, feminism doesn’t come into play if a liberal or someone rich and famous is in the picture.

MobileVideoEngineer on September 30, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Anne Applebaum’s career “Jumps the Shark”.

roux on September 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Gloria Steinem, Gloria Steinem?? Bueller, Bueller??

PatriotRider on September 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Can anyone make a flow chart on just how this thinking works. Here I am thinking calculus is hard.

txaggie on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Calculus is actually pretty easty. :)

But to your main point, I agree. The ideologues in the left would have us live in a quasi-feudal state in which different people have different rights, depending on their perceived amount of victim points or artistic contributions (and possibly other factors I can’t think of at the moment). It is paradoxical and bizarre that a supposedly democratic group of people would seriously think that way, but on the evidence, that is my conclusion.

jwolf on September 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

I think we need to ask the Almighty Obama. Oh, this could be good!!

PappaMac on September 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Applebaum is tool. She utilized the typical liberal dissonance: instead of defending her arguments, she attacked her critics.

And Applebaum exhibited the usual feminist hypocrisy: excuse perversion – even predators – in the name of ‘sexual freedom & choice’, lest one be called intolerant.

Pathetic.

.

locomotivebreath1901 on September 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Does Applebaum believe that it amounted to permission to sexually abuse a 13-year-old girl, and that such an agreement somehow trumps the girl’s repeated demands that Polanski stop attacking her? And this doesn’t even begin to address the fact that Polanski drugged the victim first to make her more compliant.

Agreed. If her argument is that the mother gave permission, of course that is tantamount to pimping. Did Polanski still rape the little girl in various ways? Um, yes. Did the little girl have any recourse to defend herself against her own mother, the perpetrator, or even her own naivete? No.

Imprison the rapist AND the mother, if this is true.

Diane on September 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM

I would be clamoring for his head even if this were not “rape-rape.” A grown-man going after a 13-year-old girl? Civilized societies establish an age of consent for a reason, and children (and adolescents) need to be able to count on adults to behave appropriately. No decent person would do otherwise. I don’t care if she were nude and chasing after him, he was a grown man (in his 40s, no less), and it would be vile to do anything other than throw a raincoat on her and have a talk with her mother. But, this is even worse–he’s a grown man who raped a child and sees nothing wrong with what he did. The fact that Applebaum lacks clarity to this degree is disappointing, to say the least.

DrMagnolias on September 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM

If you think I need to put a sarc tag on this you need to have your head examined.

Oldnuke on September 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM

LOL! Your post does raise a question though. That used to be the defense before woman gained their rightful equality. So where are the woman’s groups protesting the use of this defense in this case?

TheBigOldDog on September 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM

The support of that sick, pedophile makes me ill. I haven’t seen a Polanski movie since I heard of the rape many years ago.Hollywood’s support of that **** is unbelieveable. I agree with everyone here on this. How can anyone support him and claim it’s not rape?

conservativegrandma on September 30, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Gloria Steinem, Gloria Steinem?? Bueller, Bueller??

PatriotRider on September 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

You beat me to it.

TheBigOldDog on September 30, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Why are so many people coming to Roman Polanski’s defense? I’m just an ignorant Hoosier, so could someone more worldly please explain this to me. Do the Liberal Elite really think what he’s done is ok or that he’s been punished enough? Or is it perhaps because he is in a realm higher than us mere mortals and should be held to a different (lower) standard? Do all these people streaming to his defense realize how much this hurts their creditability? At least I’ll never have to listen to Hollywood preaching morality to me again.

Tommy_G on September 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM

grr…she surely isnt a woman.

becki51758 on September 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM

I thought we moved passed the “she had it coming to her” defense in the ’80s. Is Hollywood using it in this instance because the rape at issue occurred in the ’70s? I am so confused.

Bru on September 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Beyond Gloria Steinem, am I to understand that women’s groups are under some kind of gag order?

BuckeyeSam on September 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM

In Polanski’s defense, he thought he was raping a 15 year old.

There: all better!

Lehosh on September 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM

“a criminal pedophile in the name of the rights of the political-artistic class.”

Liberals will excuse crimes no matter how horrific if the perpetrator shares their beliefs and liberal ideology.

You have the Klansman Sen. Byrd………liberals love him.

You have Ted Kennedy leaving a woman to die while he calls his lawyers and sleeps off a buzz….liberals love him.

You have Van Jones,admitted communist,9/11 truther,and cop killer supporter……liberals love him.

You have Bill Clinton who has humiliated his wife with endless affairs and sexual misconduct…..liberals love him

.

You have John Edwards who lied about an affair that resulted in the birth of a child while his wife was fighting cancer…..liberals love him.

You have Sen. Gerry Studs who actually had sex with a 17 yr. old page,refused to apologize for his actions,and received a standing ovation from his democratic supporters for his actions.

You have (D)Mahoney who replaced Foley in Florida on a family values ticket paying his mistress off with taxpayer money and trying to pimp her out for political influence…..liberals love him.

You have Barney Frank whose lover ran a male prostitution ring out of his house and Frank’s defense of Fannie/Freddie for years was a major cause of the sub-prime economic collapse…….liberals love him

On and on and on liberals show their hypocrisy in supporting rapist,klansman,bigots,misogynist,perpetrators of manslaughter…..

……now you can add the pedophile child rapist Polanski to the liberal collection of apologist and defenders.

There apparently is not anyone perverted or sick enough that liberals won’t support.

Pathetic.

Baxter Greene on September 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM

I don’t care if Roman got on the phone with the mom and told her that he wanted to have sex with her daughter and she said “ok”.

The girl still said “no” repeatedly, and she was still 13.

Therefore, it’s still raping a 13 year old girl.

Polanski’s defenders can not get around that simple fact, no matter how much they can twist everything else.

Chris of Rights on September 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM

She argues that once someone gets into a jacuzzi, regardless of their protestations and their refusals, that a girl is fair game for a rapist no matter what her age.

Reminds me of the rape case (one of the Kennedys) where the woman was said to have given consent by virtue of having removed her pantyhose.

Newsflash: pantyhose are uncomfortable!

Y-not on September 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM

pedophiles need to be executed….there has never, ever been 1 pedophile treated with today’s current methods that was a success, meaning that they wouldn’t commit another rape of a child, other than lifelong prison terms

JJKRN on September 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Making them a gelding would change their attitude.

Johan Klaus on September 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM

I’m sure if this were Bill O’Reilly, Ms Applebaum would take the same position.

/

perroviejo on September 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM

It is clear that Applebaum lives in a sick twisted world. One in which she can rationalize the rape of a child and at the same time be offended by the questioning of her integrity by a commenter mentioning her husband’s defense of Polanski. WaPo needs to distance themselves from this insanity.

d1carter on September 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM

CONVICTED pedophiles need to be executed..quickly..

JJKRN on September 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM

I don’t have any kids. But I am moral enough to be against the death penalty. When it says ‘thou shall not kill’, I think God means even through the government. The death penalty is not justice, it is revenge. The judicial system should not be concerned with revenge.

And seven brings up the Catholic priests. . . that’s perfect. How many of the Catholic priests were convicted and sentenced to death?

Oh, they are Catholic priests so they are under different rules. Boycott Hollywood, not Rome.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM

My interpretation of Anne Applebaum’s column is that she dreams of being Polanski’d. Although, she would need to remove her broomstick first.

Left Coast Right Mind on September 30, 2009 at 10:44 AM

We should just kill everyone who we think breaks the law. Revenge means justice.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM

I do not just think that he broke the law.

Johan Klaus on September 30, 2009 at 10:44 AM

That used to be the defense before woman gained their rightful equality. So where are the woman’s groups protesting the use of this defense in this case?

TheBigOldDog on September 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Still a defense in countries with Sharia (sp?)law. I was wondering the same thing about women’s groups. My guess is that they’re pretending to be ostriches with their heads stuck up where the sun don’t shine.

Oldnuke on September 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Applebaum just openly espouses that ‘the elite intelligentsia’ are to be held to ‘different’ rules of conduct. You know, “nuance”.

Where’s the NOW? “SHE ASKED FOR IT!” Are they going to let that one go?

GarandFan on September 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

I don’t have any kids. But I am moral enough to be against the death penalty. When it says ‘thou shall not kill’, I think God means even through the government.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM

If that were true, God would not have said, “Suffer not the witch to live.”

There is a different levels of “kill” that your facile exegesis attempts to paper over.

Lehosh on September 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Polanski’s defenders can not get around that simple fact, no matter how much they can twist everything else.

Chris of Rights on September 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM

I suppose you people think that condemning makes you moral. Maybe it is a contest to see who is more outraged so that they get to a higher place in heaven. Look St. Peter, I was so angry at Polanski I deserve to be in heaven.

People are not defending Polanski. He has been exiled (American kids are safe – ie our judicial system protected Americans). He has paid a fine (probably substantial). The victim wants this to be dropped.

If the victim herself can forgive, who are you to want more revenge? Seriously, you people here think you are entitled to something. A pound of flesh is good for the soul.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Within the Green party, Daniel Cohn-Bendit — a French deputy in the European parliament whose popularity is rising — also criticized Sarkozy administration officials for leaping too quickly to Mr. Polanski’s side despite the serious nature of his crime.

Interesting that Mr Cohn-Bendit speaks out. From history:

Cohn-Bendit worked in the Karl-Marx-Buchhandlung bookshop and ran a kindergarten (of children between five and eight years’ old). Later in 2001 he was accused of pedophilia. This accusation was grounded on the following citation from his 1975 book Le Grand Bazar, [1]: “On several occasions certain kids would open my fly and start to stroke me. I reacted differently according to circumstances, but their desire posed a problem for me. I asked them: ‘Why don’t you play together? Why have you chosen me, and not the other kids?’ But if they insisted, I caressed them still.

Mr Cohn-Bendit is a member of the Green Party, of course. A major piece of legislation that the Greens tried to push in the 80s was … to lower the age of consent to 14. Mr Cohn-Bendit was a driving force behind legislation.

Niko on September 30, 2009 at 10:48 AM

‘thou shall not kill’, I think God means even through the government. The death penalty is not justice, it is revenge. The judicial system should not be concerned with revenge.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM

That would be, “thou shall not Murder,” not, “Kill.” There’s a difference.

TheBigOldDog on September 30, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Come on, people, cut this guy some slack, ferchrissakes.

It’s not like he went out and bought some fancy new clothes on someone else’s MasterCard. Or worse, showed up in public wearing a jacket with a snowmobile manufacturer’s logo on it.

Bruce in NH on September 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Can see it now. Rapes are now occuring in and around hot tubs. Stupid.

larvcom on September 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM

There is a different levels of “kill” that your facile exegesis attempts to paper over.

Lehosh on September 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

So we should have executed all the Catholic priests then. I don’t recall any being executed. . . nor do I recall as much outrage. I’m not papering over anything.

I am astonished at the blood thirsty nature of ‘moral’ people here. It’s as though you believe if we kill him, the rape will be erased. It won’t be. . . we will just have killed someone in addition to someone being raped. It would be REVENGE, not JUSTICE. Two concepts that seem foreign to posters here.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM

I am not sure how Anne Applebaum can really look at herself in a mirror.

Ricki on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

I can’t understand how she is employed and allowed to publish -this enabling of a convicted criminal, and calling for THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES to be ignored or subjugated because she hero worships a pedophile.

Dr Evil on September 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM

When it says ‘thou shall not kill’, I think God means even through the government.

1) It doesn’t say “thou shall not kill”, it says “thou shall not MURDER.”

2) Just a couple of paragraphs after giving the 10 Commandments, God gives clear instructions on how and when to use capital punishment (Exodus 21:12 – 29). In all the years I’ve heard theological arguments against capital punishment, I have NEVER heard those people address those verses.

3) I have no problem with pedophiles being executed. God is very protective over children, we should be, too.

Religious_Zealot on September 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Warning—chauvinist pig remark:

So, according to Ms. Applebaum, if I climb into a jacuzzi with Paris Hilton, (and my mom says its O.K.), I can expect to be raped?

Rovin on September 30, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Period. End of discussion.

mankai on September 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Except, some don’t think that way…yesterday ThackerAgency stated that a man cannot be expected to control his urges under those conditions.
Yeah, it is unbelievable, but some people actually think that men are not responsible for their actions.
Applebaum is apparently one of those also, that a man, when the mood strikes, or is “enticed” (and they seem to be the ones to define entice), can’t control himself so rape is a legitimate outlet of emotion.

right2bright on September 30, 2009 at 10:50 AM

a pedophile is a pedophile, catholic, moon dog muslim, protestant, anddddd…castration does not work..they rape again….elimination is needed…AND…if you or your family have never been affected by a pedophile…you have no frickin idea how devastating it is…and i pray you never know…it is THE hidden secret in America and the world…

JJKRN on September 30, 2009 at 10:51 AM

People are not defending Polanski.

Yes they are.

And wanting Polanski to serve his sentence is not revenge, it’s justice.

Religious_Zealot on September 30, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4