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

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

You are one confused dude. Forgiveness is irrespective of penance or punishment for the crime.

pen·ance (pnns)
n.
1. An act of self-mortification or devotion performed voluntarily to show sorrow for a sin or other wrongdoing.
2. A sacrament in some Christian churches that includes contrition, confession to a priest, acceptance of punishment, and absolution. Also called reconciliation.

TheBigOldDog on September 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM

I think it’s no coincidence that these media elites are the same ones that have been selling Hopenchange…they are moral maggots.

AUINSC on September 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM

It would be REVENGE, not JUSTICE. Two concepts that seem foreign to posters here.

Justice and revenge as defined by whom?

Bishop on September 30, 2009 at 10:52 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.

The death penalty is punishment. If it was allowed to be carried out by the victim’s family, that could be called revenge.

ICBM on September 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM

The death penalty is punishment. If it was allowed to be carried out by the victim’s family, that could be called revenge.

ICBM on September 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM

FIFY

TheBigOldDog on September 30, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Wonder how many European 13 year olds Roman has had since 1977?

PatriotRider on September 30, 2009 at 10:54 AM

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

PappaMac on September 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

The One could actually do Himself some good by saying “I have two daughters and I want them, along with every other girl, protected from predatory pedophiles. The US will continue to seek justice in this case.”

And then He could have a Sister Soujah moment and denounce the vulgar crudeness of some sexist rap “music”.

rbj on September 30, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Poland just passed a law for chemical castration anyone who rapes a child under 15 years old. Now Poland has a problem with Polanski being treated under the same system of law that any other person CONVICTED of breaking the law could expect as punishment? Polanski isn’t ABOVE the LAW.

The last time I looked he was thumbing his nose at the American Justice System he wasn’t apologizing or asking for forgiveness. Hard to forgive someone who isn’t sorry he did it.

Dr Evil on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Two concepts that seem foreign to posters here.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM

One concept that seems foreign to you is that some people might actually have opinions that don’t coincide with your, obviously correct and enlightened views. Some poor ignorant souls may even (gasp) disagree with you. How pitiful.

Oldnuke on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

How would killing Polanski (as many people here think should happen even though he was only facing 45 days in jail initially) be justice?

Justice means a person who was wronged was made whole. Killing this guy is not going to take away the rape. He’s been exiled, he’s paid a fine, his victim has filed papers to DROP THE CHARGES.

Not enough. . . KILL HIM! is the moral cry. I weep for the soul of people. God should never have given mankind free will. He knew this was what people would do with it and he demonstrated it as well.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Reverse hypocritical “moralizing” = standard leftist tactic; it’s you who are falsely claiming a “superior moraility.’ Hypocrite!
Look, no one is claiming to be more “moral than thou”; it’s simple rapr of a 13 year old girljust is despicable. He was / is a pedophile – he needs to face justice. Not a statement from any supposed “superior morality” just a statement of fact based on common decency.

rebuzz on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

pedophiles need to be executed….

JJKRN on September 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Yes. Most of them acknowledge their own miserable, sick, and unfixable state – except, of course, those who are crowned “artistic geniuses,” by artistic genius wannabees.

I don’t understand why society tolerates anyone who preys upon the most vulnerable of all.

itsacookbook on September 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM

grr…she surely isnt a woman human.

becki51758 on September 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Since I’m not a woman either, last I checked, I felt the need to FIFY.

The only one more disgusting and despicable than this Applebaum vermin is Polanski himself. May they both rot in hell.

TXUS on September 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Some poor ignorant souls may even (gasp) disagree with you.

I’m not asking for agreement. I’m posting here as a mirror to the people who are posting in the hopes of showing how morally superior they are. It seems as though some people here think that the more outraged they are at this issue, the more moral they are. I’m pointing out that being ‘outraged’ and wanting to put a person to death does not make you moral.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM

“…the charge of raping a child 13 years old is not something trivial, whoever the suspect is.”

He’s not a suspect, he’s the confessed perp. He pled guilty.

@ ThackerAgency: Fleeing from justice is not the same as being “exiled”. One is what a coward does to avoid punishment, the other is what should happen to those who support him.

jamie gumm on September 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Justice means a person who was wronged was made whole.
ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

No it doesn’t.

Killing this guy is not going to take away the rape.

Why catch rapists at all then? You can’t ever take back a rape… just let them wander free!

Lehosh on September 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM

This reallllly turns my stomach. Just another reminder that with the liberal left it’s about “issues” (being on the correct side of them) not “character” (that is, having any).

zenscreamer on September 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM

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

So we hire atheists as our hangmen. Problem solved.

Bishop on September 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM

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

Woody Allen, one of Polanski’s supporters.

This writer is an insult to all victims of sexual abuse. She shows a level of ignorance unbecoming to women.

scalleywag on September 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM

People are not defending Polanski.
ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

the victim has dropped the charges.
ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

but to suggest that a sexy 13 year old (there are some WELL developed 13 year olds) asking for sex would be the worst crime possible completely misunderstands human nature.

Guys like sex. The whole ‘to catch a predator’ thing is based on this premise. Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.

Thirteen year old girls in this day and age are perfectly capable of making decisions about what they want and don’t want. . . look at their shopping habits.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

I beg to differ, at least one sick person is trying to defend him…by comparing rape to shopping habits….OMG, what have we come to.

right2bright on September 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Something tells me that David Letterman won’t be commenting on this topic.

yogi41 on September 30, 2009 at 11:00 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

Thirteen year old girls have also got to make a living .

Johan Klaus on September 30, 2009 at 11:00 AM

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

You imply several things that are not correct.

1. As far as I could tell, people here at Hotair are not defending Polanski. However, they are responding to writers such as the detestable Applebaum, who ARE defending him.

2. Polanski was not “exiled.” Rather, he fled the country. He is a fugitive, not an exile.

3. The victim has been quoted as saying she “wants this dropped” or words to that effect, true. However, I have read no report that she has forgiven Polanski, which is an entirely different issue. Further, the victim’s motivation behind wanting to let the matter rest may well be a desire to avoid reliving what must have been a horrifying time, and worse still actually being blamed for it by the criminal.

4. Some individuals have expressed a desire for revenge. In my opinion, however, the majority here express a desire for justice. It is up to the state authorities to determine the appropriate sentence for Polanski — both for his original crime, and his flight from justice.

jwolf on September 30, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Not Everyone in Hollywood is defending Roman Polanski in fact the defenders are now getting called out. Hollywood has a history of exploiting children actors ect…

http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/09/rise-and-fall-of-romans-empire.html

Dr Evil on September 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM

I really used to like Anne Applebaum’s work and thought her to be somewhat (and uniquely, compared to other pundits) balanced.

But this is just disturbing.

40 year old men shouldn’t have sex with 13 year olds, ever. Regardless of the circumstances, regardless of who he may be, and regardless of how much time has passed and how much “punishment” he has already received.

Anne Applebaum just doubled down and lost at least one fan with this little piece.

johnmackeygreene on September 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Killing this guy is not going to take away the rape.

Nor will imprisoning him. So I guess we’re stuck with a useless criminal justice system that is entirely unable to undo crime.

Bishop on September 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM

The liberal “elite” worship at the altar of Money, Power and Sex. They excuse anything in pursuit of those. I truly am disgusted by the left, liberals (read democrats). Something’s got to change.

zeebeach on September 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM

I’m not asking for agreement. I’m posting here as a mirror to the people who are posting in the hopes of showing how morally superior they are.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM

The only one I see spluttering about morality is you. Maybe you ought to take a glance into that mirror. Just because you feel that the death penalty is immoral doesn’t mean that everyone else is required to. Hell it doesn’t even mean you’re correct. In fact I find the concept that the death penalty is immoral to be immoral and unutterably foolish. Doesn’t mean I’m right either just means I, like you, have an opinion.

Oldnuke on September 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Was Polanski also charged with providing drugs and alcohol to a minor? Was he charged with kidnapping? (The three reasons she gave for not fighting were that she was scared of him, nobody was there to help her, and she had no way to get home. He refused to take her home when she repeatedly asked.) Was he charged with creating child porn?

Nobody can take seriously the claims that a girl who continuously says no, tries getting the guy off her, and asks to be taken home is a willing party. She got away from him once when he got a phone call and then he jumped her again.

All the defenses for Polanski basically amount to this: justice is for suckers. If you’re one of the “beautiful people” you’re more equal than everybody else.

I’ve often wondered how liberals can be in bed with Islamists. It occurs to me now that the depraved mind that got the Prophet Mohammad to rape a 13-year-old dwells in the minds of his followers who set up rape rooms, who sodomize young boys to make them lose the will to live/resist, and totally eliminate a woman’s ability to say “no” to the men in her life on any issue she faces.

Great minds think alike, and so do depraved ones. Liberals and Islamists are birds of a feather. The powerful can do whatever they want to the vulnerable. This is the disease that threatens to undo our Constitution, and the pus is stinking up the place. I wish Hollywood could know that the rest of us view them as stinking, festering pockets of pus. Congress and the White HOuse too.

justincase on September 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Keep my kids away from this lady! The her mind is a cesspool of reason. Imagine what our country would look like if people like her were running our government. Which begs the question, has BO made a statement or taken action on this issue yet?

ClanDerson on September 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM

He has paid a fine (probably substantial).

[ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM]

You’ve often spoken in ways that indicated you were familiar with the field of law, so I’ll assume you misspoke here. It was not a fine, it was, (removing intent from the action) compensation for injury done, and as such not much different, in the abstract, than an everyday purchase.

As for,

“He has been exiled (American kids are safe – ie our judicial system protected Americans).”

That’s your painting of it. He hasn’t been exiled. He fled. The US will allow him to come back. Also, American kids are only safe from him if they are in the US. In addition, just “moving on” defines a precedent which allows others to presume following the same course will have the same results. American kids are safe from him but not from others, which is another fundamental precept of dissuading like crimes, not to mention the most fundamental — equality under the law — which is the lynchpin for the social compact that produces a stable society.

Dusty on September 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM

If getting into a jacuzzi = permission to rape, I wonder what Applebaum feels about stripping at a frat house.

MikeZero on September 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM

jwolf on September 30, 2009 at 11:00 AM

And you missed the whole point of Thacker…it was her fault because of her shopping habits.
But now that you have read how he felt yesterday, you can remove that “people are not defending him”…BTW AnninCA was also defending him, thinking that he does not deserve to spend a day in jail. There was one other also, either bleedsblue or bleedsblue343 or both.
So, people are on Polanski side here on HotAir…as unbelievable as it seems. Imagine the sick mind that defends a child rapist…that mind will accept most any action.

right2bright on September 30, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Any thing short of throwing the book at Polanski is disrespect for women and protection of women and children. By throwing the book that meeans jail for his conviction and jail for running from the law.

seven on September 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

I don’t think he should be killed. I think he confessed to committing a crime, a crime the victim felt strongly enough about to press charges, mind you, he was found guilty of the crime, and before he could be sentenced for it he ran away. All he needs to do is come back here and stand before a court of law and receive his sentence and do the time. End of story. The victim gets her justice and people will hopefully stop dragging her through the mud. You’ll still have the deviants crying about “Poor long suffering Polanski”, but the story will be over and the victim can put it behind her after HER suffering with it for 30 years.

scalleywag on September 30, 2009 at 11:06 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

I wanted to say something to you in my last post, but I decided not to and just let it go, but this comment is just stupid.

Jail time at the least would be justice and not revenge. No justice has been served. Who cares if the victim forgave. Try telling that to God when you are judged. If he faces God and has not repented and asked for forgiveness from Him, then justice will be served to him eternally.

I’m not saying whether or not he should be executed, but again justice has not been served. Ooh he can’t come to the U.S. … big deal, he’s still traveling all over the world and making millions of dollars. He has not been punished and justice has not been served.

MobileVideoEngineer on September 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM

I beg to differ, at least one sick person is trying to defend him…by comparing rape to shopping habits….OMG, what have we come to.
right2bright on September 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Spot on. I have kids younger than 13 and they too make shopping decisions when we at the stores to buy a toy or a video game, yet I wouldn’t trust them to understand the far more complicated act of “shopping” for a vehicle or a house.

By TA’s metric, I should be allowing my kids to make sexual decisions for themselves because they understand the basics of how to decide between a Nintendo DS game or a Transformer figurine.

Bishop on September 30, 2009 at 11:07 AM

zeebeach on September 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM

You are correct. Look how they lionized Gerry Studds, a Masshole congressman who raped a congressional page, lionized the murderer Ted Kennedy, the accused rapist and serial harasser Clinton.

dogsoldier on September 30, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Show of hands …

How many here would want their 13 year old daughter (or Anne Applebaum) in a jacuzzi with a guy who has a supply of R2-Do-U, EZ Lay or Super K ??

J_Crater on September 30, 2009 at 11:08 AM

I’m not asking for agreement. I’m posting here as a mirror to the people who are posting in the hopes of showing how morally superior they are. It seems as though some people here think that the more outraged they are at this issue, the more moral they are. I’m pointing out that being ‘outraged’ and wanting to put a person to death does not make you moral.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Thack, everytime you try to remind someone of their smug moral superiority complex, your smug moral superiority complex shows.

I certainly don’t want to put Mr. Polanski to death. But he did the crime, was convicted, is unapologetic (which his statements about everyone wanting to do 13-year olds indicates), and fled to avoid sentencing — payment for his crime.

The bill has come due.

unclesmrgol on September 30, 2009 at 11:08 AM

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

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM

You definitely show your ‘morality’ by supporting a child rapist.

And that’s just the point, moron. If this had been a priest, you and many others would be howling for blood. Now it’s “Meh, little b*tch was asking for it.”

The guy has not paid for his crime. He plead guilty, was convicted and then fled.

catmman on September 30, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Twisted bitch.

LibTired on September 30, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Show of hands …

How many here would want their 13 year old daughter (or Anne Applebaum) in a jacuzzi with a guy who has a supply of R2-Do-U, EZ Lay or Super K ??

J_Crater on September 30, 2009 at 11:08 AM

I’d amend that show of hands to “In a jacuzzi with any male over the age of two.”

Oldnuke on September 30, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Me thinks, as Niko has already pointed out, that Mr. Cohn-Bendit should be keeping his mouth shut on this case. People with glass houses and all.

madne0 on September 30, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Did he actually say everyone wants to do 13-year-olds?

Jeesh, I thought part of his plea bargain was that he would have psychological analysis. The guy is clearly a pedophile. Wonder how many kids he’s done in the last 30 years.

justincase on September 30, 2009 at 11:11 AM

I suggested yesterday that ThackerAgency take some time, and seek out a counselor…He is way to defensive of Polanski.
Is there, honestly, something else going on in Thacker’s life? I have never met anyone who would give a pass to a person who would drug then rape, repeatedly rape and sodomize a 13 year old girl…very disturbing, very…
Thacker, seek help, honestly, please seek help. Find out why you are obsessed with not punishing this man…why you think a 13 year old “sexy” girl can force a man to rape her.
Please, just take one session with a counselor…

right2bright on September 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM

So, this woman wants to burn whatever credibility she had as a journalist for the sake of a child rapist and fugitive from the law. Why, exactly? Because he’s Polish? Let’s hear from a few Poles who still have a moral compass. It being a Catholic country, I certainly hope this doesn’t represent the majority. Then again, why didn’t they nab him before?

evergreen on September 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Crimes against the most vulnerable in our society (children, elderly) SHOULD be the crimes with the harshest sentences and the most visceral reactions.

We shouldn’t even be discussing Polanski – he should have been drug back to the US by his balls YEARS ago to serve whatever ridiculously lenient sentence that idiot judge was going to impose.

And that’s that.

In a civil and moral society there is absolutely NOTHING more to discuss.

BTW – for all those who are defending Polanski by saying he never did anything like that again, I have two words for you:

Nastassja Kinski

Religious_Zealot on September 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM

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.

What exactly is Applebaum’s point? I can only surmise that she’s saying the child and her mother gave some sort of implicit consent or contributed to the rape by the mere act of getting into a hot tub.

First of all, the law deems a minor to be incompetent and incapable of giving consent. Her mother cannot give consent on her behalf and would be just as guilty as Polanski if she did.

Secondly, the notion that the girl’s behavior contributed to the rape flies in the face of modern jurisprudence and common decency. For Applebaum to place adult expectations of discretion upon a child who is being manipulated by a 45 year old authority figure is stupid as well as disgusting. If her mother contributed to that manipulation, that only makes the child more of a victim, not less.

RadClown on September 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Nastassja Kinski

Religious_Zealot on September 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Within months, he had that 15 year old…the one who at 18 said that Polanski was a better director then lover…how sweet.

right2bright on September 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

So how much should be the fine for raping an eleven year old? A nine year old? A six year old?

Johan Klaus on September 30, 2009 at 11:16 AM

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

I say charge the mother too, IF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT.
Pimping your child out for a movie part and the money you will get is disturbing.

barnone on September 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Anne Applehead is one of the mirade of reasons why society as we know it these days is totally screwed up.

She obviously is so immersed in the liberal mindset that she has absolutely no concept whatsoever of what goes through the mind of a 13 year old girl when she has been violently violated and when the perpetrator ends up going scot-free for over 30 years.

Frankly, Anne Applehead needs to be handed a nice piping hot cup of SHUT THE HELL UP!, because she has proven she has nothing constructive to add to this whole Polanski affair other than her own warped point of view.

pilamaye on September 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Polanski hasn’t come to terms with his crime.

He ran away from it.

The victim was never made whole and if Polanski faces jail time or the needle, it will never erase the rape. Thusly, the making whole argument, in my opinion, is meaningless. It has no substance. Using such logic, you could easily say that no one should be made to face the consequences of their crime because you can never truly take back the crime, make it whole again.

Punishment for rape in the United States does not mean the death sentence, but it could at one point. Just as in other countries punishment for theft means amputation, we could easily make the punishment for raping a child be a capital crime.

The call for the death penalty is more a reflection of the heinous act than anything else. It doesn’t mean our society is depraved or bloodthirsty, but tremendously deplores a person who drugs a 13 year old and rapes her. It is also a reflection of the fact that Roman Polanski ran away from his crime even though he admitted guilt. He was never forced to face the consequences of his actions, which makes the public outrage even more dramatic. Lastly, these kinds of sentiments reflects what some really would want to to do people like Roman Polanski, but can’t and this is their way to not feel as ineffectual.

TexasDude on September 30, 2009 at 11:18 AM

The question has been raised on Chickaboomer Where is N.O.W.?

Why isn’t N.O.W. weighing in on a Convicted Child Rapist trying to evade his penalty- punishment for raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl?

Dr Evil on September 30, 2009 at 11:19 AM

What might be clouding some people’s minds is the gradualness of adolescence. I have two teenagers right now and I am continually struck by how extended the process is, and how much variability there is in their capabilities.

There is no question in the mind of anyone who has raised a (normal, reasonably sheltered) 13-year old girl that there is a big difference between what she thinks she can handle and what she can actually handle. That poor woman’s mother should never have left her daughter alone for one second with that monster, but she did, and the tale turned tragic for them.

We have statutory rape laws for a reason — and clearly this case, which may have slid from one category of rape to another in rather dramatic fashion is a terrible lesson in exactly what can happen when people take the sentiment behind them lightly.

zenscreamer on September 30, 2009 at 11:19 AM

RadClown, “manipulated by a 45 year old authority figure” is exactly what happened to the 13-year-old, and I suggest that it’s also what’s happening to the adult Applebaum and all the others who would excuse him because he’s famous. If they can’t even give a dispassionate, objective analysis of what really happened – which he has even admitted – then how do they expect a 13-year-old, drugged and drunk, all-alone, aspiring model with no way home (by the time she knew he was going to rape her) to resist him.

Applebaum can’t even resist him, just because he’s famous. She is emotionally a 13-year-old.

justincase on September 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Polanski diplayed classic pedophile traits by cultivating a relationship with the mother so as to make her comfortable enough to leave her daughter alone with him. He then proceeded to do what he set out to do. This was premeditated.
If someone thinks he was just caught up in the moment they deserve to be shunned by society.

thomasaur on September 30, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Its hard to be a pimp at the WaPo

Bevan on September 30, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Disgraceful. Why are people defending this rapist?

modnar on September 30, 2009 at 11:24 AM

I just can’t get over the heinousness of his crime. THIRTEEN years old.

It makes me sad for that child.

keebs on September 30, 2009 at 11:25 AM

I guess the victim was right to have supported a slap on the wrist plea bargain for her rapist to avoid the publicity of a trial. She apparently knew what I would never have guessed–that the press, including “luminaries” like Applebaum, would trash her to protect the rapists.

CalFed on September 30, 2009 at 11:25 AM

So here’s my ethical quandary of the day/week:

Which is worse?

A person who drugs, rapes and sodomizes a 13 year old girl?

Or the people who defend, support and lionize the pedophile?

(I think the first, but neither deserve to be part of civilized society.)

Religious_Zealot on September 30, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Pathetic, just pathetic.

rjoco1 on September 30, 2009 at 11:28 AM

call a spade a spade.

Applebaum is a vicious, bitter, dried up old whore.

WWS on September 30, 2009 at 11:29 AM

If the victim herself can forgive, who are you to want more revenge? Seriously, you people here think you are entitled to something.

You heard of a little thing called “the rule of law”?

Crawford on September 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Well it is nice to know some liberals care about the welfare and safety of children.

This from the NY times article presented in “headlines”.

In Europe, the prevailing mood — at least among those with access to the news media — seemed to be that Mr. Polanski has already “atoned for the sins of his young years,” as Jacek Bromski, the chief of the Polish Filmmakers Association, put it.


We disagree strongly, and we were glad to see other prominent Europeans beginning to point out that this case has nothing to do with Mr. Polanski’s work or his age.
It is about an adult preying on a child. Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty to that crime and must account for it.

Yea, a broken clock is right at least once a day.

Baxter Greene on September 30, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Nice to know apparently that rape in a jacuzzi isn’t considered rape rape, and that the victim has no right to claim anything wrong happened.

I wonder if it happened to someone in her direct family if she felt bad.

The level of astonishing hypocrisy from some of the core elite of liberal feminism is reaching critical overload.

Defector01 on September 30, 2009 at 11:32 AM

So if Ms. Applebaum agrees to go out after work for drinks with 2 of her male colleagues does that give them the right to forcibly rape and sodomize her? She did, after all, put herself in a position to expect such an assualt. What an idiot. As is always the case with the Hollywood and elitist scum, if it were her daughter who got raped and sodomized by a member of a right-wing militia or someone who claims to be religious (the scandal!!!), she and her ilk would be screaming to have that person castrated and hung in the public square. Which is exactly what should happen to Polanski.

uncalheels on September 30, 2009 at 11:34 AM

It slays me that Whoopi “Rape-Rape” Goldberg keeps popping up in ads next to these Polanski posts pushing something called “My Touch.”

Whoopi’s touch would be rape-rape.

saint kansas on September 30, 2009 at 11:34 AM

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

The case is called The State of California v. Polanski. That means the people of the state, not the victim. Polanski thumbed his nose at them and their laws when he broke the law again by fleeing the jurisdiction.

The conduct of the judge in the original case is certainly a mitigating factor and should be considered. Nevertheless, that doesn’t change the fact that this is no longer about the victim. It’s about the rule of law and the credibility of the criminal justice system.

RadClown on September 30, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Justice means a person who was wronged was made whole…..
ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

The problem with your view of whom justice serves in this case is evident and also incorrect. Justice in this case is justice for society at large. The crime to which Polanski plead guilty to was a crime against society and a particular individual. There needs to be a suitable punishment established and exercised to demonstrate to others that would duplicate the crime, that there are unpleasant consequences to actions and choices.

belad on September 30, 2009 at 11:35 AM

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

No.

By acting as if there’s a lynch mob going on, you’re showing how immoral you are. Polanksi fled from a legitimate trial; he deserves the prison time he attempted to avoid.

Rule. Of. Law.

Crawford on September 30, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Polanski for Rape czar.

the_nile on September 30, 2009 at 11:35 AM

A person who drugs, rapes and sodomizes a 13 year old girl?

Or the people who defend, support and lionize the pedophile?

The first for the act, the second for enabling a repeat of the crime.

Crawford on September 30, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Could someone explain to me why this case is still prosecutable. Isn’t there a Statute of Limitations?

technopeasant on September 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM

I read somewhere that Polanski also coached her afterwards to not tell her mother what happened and that it was their little secret.

Les People — I like that!

Blake on September 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM

technopeasant on September 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM

No statute of limitations on flight, to the best of my knowledge. The original case led to a guilty plea, so that part of the trial was completed.

jwolf on September 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM

PatriotRider on September 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Careful there!!! If it turns out she agrees with the vast majority of normal human beings that would be the French twice and GLoria once all in two days.

Yer head might explode.

Who am I kidding, the odds of Steinem not supporting this slime are infintesimal.

Jim708 on September 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Could someone explain to me why this case is still prosecutable. Isn’t there a Statute of Limitations?

technopeasant on September 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM

The prosecution is complete, he entered a plea of guilty, he skipped out before his sentencing. There is no statute of limitations on unlawful flight to avoid prosecution.

thomasaur on September 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Has there been any comments by NOW concerning this issue?

Zaire67 on September 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I don’t get the confusion here and many places -

Polanski plead guilty to a lesser charge. The victim will not have to testify again.

He never served a sentence as he decided to flee.

If he returns there only will be a sentencing hearing to determine the length of incarceration.

The State can decide to charge him with fleeing. He can chose to appeal.

Applebaum is a disgrace to her sex.

iam7545 on September 30, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I read somewhere that Polanski also coached her afterwards to not tell her mother what happened and that it was their little secret.

Les People — I like that!

Blake on September 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM

More classic behavior of a pedophile.

thomasaur on September 30, 2009 at 11:44 AM

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

You say you’re not defending him, but you give him all the defense he’s ever asked for: “Drop it”.

Please explain why murder deserves punishment. There’s no victim to be restored or to offer forgiveness. Or do you just take these things on a case-by-case business, and we can’t expect you to know what to do until you pick a client? We’re busy building a system of law here.

Chris_Balsz on September 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM

So if Ms. Applebaum agrees to go out after work for drinks with 2 of her male colleagues does that give them the right to forcibly rape and sodomize her?

Only if she calls her mom first!

Could someone explain to me why this case is still prosecutable. Isn’t there a Statute of Limitations?

Please, please, please, PLEASE read up on the case!!

The case is NOT “still prosecutable” because Polanski already plead guilty to the crime and was convicted.

He fled AFTER conviction and BEFORE sentencing.

Religious_Zealot on September 30, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Just imagine:

Anne Applebaum (45) meets with a 75-yr old director at a famous actor’s house, passes half-way out because said director drugs her, puts her in a jacuzzi, naked, performs oral, vaginal and anal sex on her while she repeatedly says ‘no’ – and later says he thought she was much older, pleads guilty, and flees to Africa.

And then Applebaum gets to read a column by a male colleague writing that it was all her fault because she wanted to become famous.

… Well, duh, it’s hard to write satire these days.

Niko on September 30, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Polanski for Rape czar.

the_nile on September 30, 2009 at 11:35 AM

The official title would be “Director of the Office of Surprise Sex”.

Niko on September 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM

So what is Applebaum objecting to: the original verdict, that his flight should be subject to a Statute of Limitations, the detention of Polanski by Swiss authorities, or that California still wants to extradite him and send him to prison when the victim is willing to forget and forgive?

technopeasant on September 30, 2009 at 11:51 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.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM

You’re not moral, Thacker. You’re just weird and even weirder by your defense of the child rapist. And the commandment is that thou shall not murder. A murder is an illegal killing and execution is not illegal.

Blake on September 30, 2009 at 11:51 AM

I cannot believe this is even open for discussion.

Children are not for sex.

PERIOD.

Elizabetty on September 30, 2009 at 11:52 AM

She shows a level of ignorance unbecoming to women a human being.

scalleywag on September 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Hope you don’t mind. Made it more encompassing.

Yoop on September 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM

What a despicable excuse for a human being … both of them.

Sure, drugging and raping a 12yo isn’t “rape-rape” unless it is your 12 year old daughter or niece or granddaughter that someone drugs and sodomizes.

crosspatch on September 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM

The hypocrisy of liberals :

This is how the liberals treated Mark Foley,who was caught sending suggestive text messages to pages(and was forced to resign):

(via instapundit)

Mark Foley’s Moral Relativism
Greg Saunders

Posted: October 3, 2006 07:52

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-saunders/mark-foleys-moral-relativ_b_30897.html

I’m sorry to hear that Rep. Foley has gone through such hardship. For that he deserves as much pity as anyone in his situation (like the young men he’s been harassing). But let’s not forget that Rep. Foley has done some horrible things and should be punished for them. Likewise, the House leaders who through their inaction have acted as enablers for his sexual deviancy deserve to be punished as well. If you don’t agree, then maybe you lack the moral clarity to realize that fifty-two year old men shouldn’t be trying to fuck teenagers.



But if you drug and rape a 13 year old girl,well that’s different:


HuffPo Goes All In to Defend Polanski,

by Christian Toto
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cftoto/2009/09/29/huffpo-goes-all-in-to-defend-polanski-readers-revolt/print/

The Huffington Post has made it crystal clear where it stands on the news that director Roman Polanski may have to answer for his 31-year-old crime of child rape: “Move on, everyone. Nothing to see here. Keep on directing, Roman. Love ya!”

The popular liberal site has posted numerous essays since news that Polanski was arrested in Switzerland broke over the weekend, each arguing vehemently against the Oscar winner’s persecution.

* Kim Morgan: “Roman Polanski understands women” – starts with her exasperation over the Polanski witch hunt.

* Bernard-Henri Levy: Let’s start a petition in support of Polanski.

* John Farr: Leniency for Polanski.

Apparently a lot of their readers don’t appreciate their defending a child rapist which is nice to see.

Unfortunately the liberals elites and many of their supporters do feel it is okay to defend child rapist, just don’t you dare text message anything dirty.

Baxter Greene on September 30, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Applebaum…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.

I thought people who demand equal rights for women dispelled notions like this in the 70s.

Liam on September 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM

But, you guys don’t understand. We’re just not as smart as Hollyweird and the rest of the Elite. After all, we still believe in those obsolete concepts of right and wrong, good and evil. Pay attention to that list of those who signed that petition. Boycott them however your can. Polanski is a pedophile who struck more than once. Ask Natassia Kinski.

kingsjester on September 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM

I am sickened and repulsed by Polanski and his pals. And the whitewash going on in the Obsolete Media is revolting — calling it anything but what it was, rape of a child. Come on, you libtards, just imagine Polanski is a Republican, then you’ll get it.

starboardhelm on September 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4