In defense of the indefensible

Admitted child rapist Roman Polanski

Admitted child rapist Roman Polanski

For some things there really is no defense.  Things like the drugging, rape, and sodomy of an underage girl by a middle-aged pervert followed by years on the lam.  And yet, incredibly, there are those who would lend their voice and position to defend the indefensible by stretching the definition of rape to kinda sorta rape-rape.

Well if that don’t beat all.  One would think that the drugging, rape, and sodomy of a child would be enough to meet the necessary standard of indecent behavior but for some, there clearly is no line unworthy of trespass.  I am grateful however for main street liberals (with whom I often disagree) for not falling in line behind this abominable apologetic.  From The Confluence:

If we step back from arguing about Polanski himself and look at what is happening right now, you see a bunch of prominent people defending a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.  Most or all of those people are associated with the liberal/progressive politics and the Democratic party.  Some of them endorsed Barack Obama and donated to his campaign.

Argue all you want about defending Polanski’s constitutional rights, but if you defend Polanski you are defending a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.  How do you think that will play with the magical “swing” voters in middle America?

If Obama’s Department of Justice and Secretary of State Clinton wimp out on this and don’t do everything they can to bring Polanski to justice, they will be handing the issue to the conservatives all gift-wrapped with a nice bow on it.  The conservatives will say:

“Liberal Democrats defended a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child!”

The worst part is that they will be telling the truth.

Like ACORN’s enablement of child trafficking, this is NOT a partisan issue

ACORN is an organization with a toxic corporate culture that attracts or fosters morally reprehensible behavior.  At worst, it is as corrupt and contemptible as ongoing allegations of widespread voter registration fraud, tax code violations, and contribution fraud would suggest.

Lashing out at everyone from the filmmakers to George Bush, Karl Rove, and the right in general will not make this scandal disappear.  And neither will shameful incidents of media malpractice, feminist silence, and false equivalencies from the liberal blogosphere.  Any degree of support for child sex slavery is indefensible. Period.

Perhaps I should have titled this piece, “Child Sex Trafficking Shouldn’t Be A Partisan Issue.”  It shouldn’t be, and yet, for some, it’s acceptable to look the other way when it threatens to undermine a liberal organization.

And the beauty and artistry of a man’s work cannot cover for the egregious crime he committed.  It saddens me that even such horrors as child trafficking and rape become politicized.

UPDATE: 100 filmmakers sign petition defending Polanski

This is NOT acceptable... I don't care who you are

This is NOT acceptable... I don't care who you are

This entry was posted in media, Popular Culture and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to In defense of the indefensible

  1. You had me worried for a second with your post title!

    I like the distinction you make between “main street liberals” and the Whoopi Goldbergs, Anne Applebaums, and Woody Allens of the world. And I agree, it’s heartening to see that when it comes to a case of child rape, most people come down solidly on the right side of the issue. I wish more of those main street libs would dare to view ACORN’s support of child sex slavery through a less partisan lens.

    And thanks for the link.

  2. I’m far from a ‘main street liberal’, being much closer to Bernie Sanders when it comes to political philosophy. I’m one of the few genuine socialists in America, as opposed to a moderate Democrat with a few vaguely liberal ideas. I have to agree with the statement that defending Polanski’s constitutional rights is one thing and defending his ‘alleged’ actions is something else. Whoopi crossed a line.

    For the record, I do not say ‘alleged’ because I believe him to be innocent of the charges. I merely use the word out of respect for the legal rights that make all charges ‘alleged’ until proven in court, not out of personal doubt that he is guilty.

    On the other hand, I think linkage between the ridiculous Funt-ian prank being called the ACORN ‘scandal’ and the Polanski case is a callow political stunt. The farcical right wing political chicanery of the ACORN ‘stings’ is simply not in the same league as genuine ‘alleged’ rape. Sorry.

    • Thanks for stopping by. I used to be pretty far socialist in some of my ideas and still have an affinity for the idealism of socialism. It’s the dreamer in me I suppose! But on this issue, it is good that we can agree wholeheartedly. I like you do not want to see anyone’s constitutional rights abridged, and think our government at all levels has gotten a bit too authoritarian and legalistic in its judicial practice.

      As for the comparison to ACORN, it is callow perhaps, but meant to point out that some things are not to be thought of on a partisan basis, and far too many in the body politic have adopted a posture whereby issues of ethics or legality are seen only or primarily through a ideological lens rather than being considered on their own merit.

      • That’s the problem. The various issues with ACORN, including the ‘sting’, are entirely partisan attacks on the part of the right. Roman Polanski is a fugitive from justice. Nor can anyone honestly claim he was entrapped in any way.

        So one is nothing but a partisan issue, and the other is something that should not be a partisan issue at all. Still not a good comparison.

        That said, you’re welcome. I saw the trackback on Jenn’s blog so I followed it up, since we’d exchanged words on ACORN already.

    • As I understand it, Polanski was convicted and fled before sentencing. I think it’s safe to drop the word “alleged.”

      I agree that there is no moral comparison between genuine rape and willingness to aid a human trafficking operation that didn’t actually exist. However, the mere fact that the ACORN sting was the brainchild of agenda-driven partisans shouldn’t (as many liberals assert) invalidate what was exposed about ACORN’s organizational failures.

  3. mainenowandthen says:

    TBC, you are so correct; this is not a partisan issue.

    It is truly unfortunate that the religion of relativism has made such inroads into our culture, corrupting our moral standards until so-called “prominent” people are willing to support a depraved individual such as Polanski and the egregious crime that he committed.

    Just as disturbing is the hubris endemic to a major part of the “artistic community” that seems to inspire them to flaunt the accepted moral boundaries of the laws of our society, all in the name of “talent”.

    No sense in looking to any government official to do “the right thing”, not with this administration.

  4. BaldManMoody says:

    “we’re different in this country” – Whoopi Goldberg

    So different that your dumb ass should be thrown off the air. God, I bet they wish they had Star Jones back.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s