Thought Zone - Exercise your mind....

dont blog angry

although i still did agree with your original position, i will be interested to see the other side presented for arguments sake

Comment by Bryn

October 1st 2009 23:45

Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power

I missed the post entirely ... what was it about per say?

Comment by Norm

October 2nd 2009 00:48

Release Dennis Ferguson.

Comment by RubySoho

October 2nd 2009 03:50

Hi Morgan,

yeah I still haven't changed my original position but i am trying to stay away from angry rants.

Hi Bryn,

it was about Roman Polanski and the petition by filmmakers and actors calling for his release. i won't go into detail, only say that i got a little carried away with my criticism of the situation.

Hi Norm,

if only Ferguson had some sort of artistic talent eh?

Comment by Bryn

October 2nd 2009 03:53

I gather you're against the petition then? what was the natalie portman reference? was she in support of the petition?

Comment by RubySoho

October 2nd 2009 04:10

yeah, i am against the petition, mainly because it claims the US is after him in "a case of morals" and because it does not even mention the reason for his arrest. you know if the petition had pleaded that he be treated fairly in jail and receive a fair trial or even called for an investigation into why he has been arrested now after been ignored by the US justice system for 30 years, I could understand that. But it doesn't. It seems to postulate that this is all political, as if his arrest has something to do with his filmmaking or with film festivals in general. it doesn't. this isn't something that 'happened' to Polanski, he raped a child, how can they just overlook that and make him out to be the victim?

and yeah, natalie portman did sign it. she was one of several people who i greatly admire who did so and it was just so disappointing for me to see that.

Comment by Bryn

October 2nd 2009 05:21

Do you know much about the crime? I've been a fan of Polanski's for many years, have read his autobiography and seen also the recent doco Polanski: Wanted and Desired. The judge was corrupt.
I'm not advocating what Polanski did by any means, but he certainly wasn't the monstrous pedophile that he was made out to be. The case simply wasn't black and white.
The girl was underage of course, but she was also a sexually active, precocious girl (she lied to Polanski about her age telling him she was 17 which he believed because she looked and acted mature) with a manipulative and morally bereft mother who wanted to perhaps make some money and fame from the incident. Anti-inhibitor drugs and alcohol were involved and Polanski is definitely guilty of coercion and statutory rape, but as far as I understand it the girl never said no to Polanski.
No one will ever really know what happened except Polanski and the girl, and she doesn't want him to go to trial and has said so many times over the past ten years or so.

Comment by Morgan Bell

October 2nd 2009 16:49

hi Bryn,

but as far as I understand it the girl never said no to Polanski.

Smoking Gun transcript

i was reading the court statements the girl gave, if the website is accurate (it claims to be 100% accurate), and you take the victims word for it, which i am personally inclined to do, she said "no" about 10 times and repeatedly asked to be taken home, she also testified that she was scared of him and uncomfortable being alone with him

hes entitled to a fair trial like any other person, he should be judged and sentenced based on the facts, not given a "get out of jail free" card because he is an artist

regardless of whether it was an isolated incident, and regardless of the "character" of the victim, it is still a crime

also, ive read reviews of the Wanted & Desired doco that say it purposely attempts to undermine the victim and dismiss the actual crime, but i havent seen the doco myself so i dont know how biased it really is

Comment by Bryn

October 2nd 2009 23:32

Morgan, perhaps I'm getting my wires crossed then with another case ... Certainly a crime was committed, and I agree no one should be given leniency because they're artists (although celebrities get it all the time). But if you're at all intrigued you should watch the documentary, it's fascinating and sheds a lot more light on the case, and exposes a corrupt judge (now dead). Did you hear about Whoopi Goldberg getting herself into hot water after stating that it wasn't a "rape-rape" ...

Comment by RubySoho

October 3rd 2009 00:28

Hi Bryn,

Firstly I'm a fan of Polanski's work also- Death and The Maiden is one of my favourite films but that doesn't change the way I feel about his arrest. I will agree with many of his supporters when they say the timing is strange, why arrest him now after he has travelled so freely in Switzerland in the past. No doubt there is some political reason at play. But its the fact that the petition does not even mention his crime that really ticks me off. They call it a "case of morals", they point to the corruption of the judge, the 'prudish' media, the puritanical american public, etc. But they never stop to just take breath and acknowledge that he raped someone and it was his own actions that set this whole circus in motion.

Also I don't see how whether or not the girl was sexually active is relevant. Are only virgins and nuns capable of being raped? As for the matter of the girls age, if she was there to be photographed for a magazine, surely it was Polanski's responsibility as the adult and the representative of the employer to check her details. I get the feeling he really wasn't too concerned with the girl's real age. And the mother may have led her daughter to Polanski but it was Polanski who raped her. I just don't understand this finger pointing at everyone except the one person who actually committed the crime.

Also, I have read some of the girls' testimony and she very clearly says that she said no. Besides which her age and the fact she was drugged pretty much negates any suggestion that she was capable of giving consent. The fact that she now forgives him and wants the case dropped is pretty much irrelevant. It's for the 13 year old girl and others like her that the law operates. If we just drop it, then surely we must also just drop all those cases of child sexual abuse in the Church going back decades also. No-one is suggesting we do that.

And finally, as to whether or not Polanski can be considered a pedophile, I'll just let him respond in his own words:

"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But...fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"

telegraph

Yeah. Everyone.

Comment by Morgan Bell

October 3rd 2009 00:54

hi Bryn,

yeah i would like to see the doco if i get a chance

the Whoopi Goldberg thing, i think she was tripping over her tongue trying to recall the name of the charge he actually plead guilty to

hi Ruby,

i was watching a YouTube of the Diane Sawyer interview from 1987 and when questioned about 15yo Nastassja Kinski and very young girls he says something like:

"i dont understand why should i be punished for the penchant i had to young women"

he seemed genuinely puzzled as to why what he did was wrong, saying americans are prudish and he wasnt hurting anyone

the interview actually reminded me of Father O'Grady in Deliver Us From Evil, he just doesnt get it, they think sex with minors "doesnt hurt anyone"

Comment by RubySoho

October 3rd 2009 01:22

Oh Morgan, finally someone who agrees with me that Whoopi was misunderstood. I feel really bad for her, I watched the whole thing and what I got out of it was that she felt that she and her co hosts on the View, if they were going to address the issue, should do it 'properly' and refer to what Polanski was actually convicted of. I think her problem was that she didn't do the research.

And to be honest if i was writing an article for publication and not an anonymous blog and was appearing on TV in a formal capacity as she was, I wouldn't refer to it as 'rape' either for legal reasons.

Yeah, Polanski is a serial offender. The Kinski thing makes me feel queasy but at least she was of legal age (though 15 would still be illegal here and in the States).
13 is another story. And the drugging thing. Like seriously the guy was one of the biggest directors on the planet and he has to resort to drugging a 13 year old to get his rocks off?

Comment by Bryn

October 3rd 2009 02:22

I beg to differ, comparing Roman Polanski to Father O'Grady is tenuous. O'Grady is a monster, Polanski screwed up. In regards to Kinski, she was going on sixteen and it was a consensual relationship. Curiously Jimmy Page was never brought to justice for his penchant for underage girls, which was flaunted in front of dozens of responsible adults. African tribes have girls much younger bearing children in accepted cohabitation with older men and it's considered natural to Westerners. Is this a double standard because Westerners excuse the African way from being aberrant because it has been practiced for thousands of years and they don't know any better ...??? Whereas Westerners have a moral responsibility due to social conditioning and psychological study?

Comment by Morgan Bell

October 3rd 2009 03:00

its the same crime, i dont make a distinction, O'Grady had 13yo victims, Polanski has a 13yo victim, neither of them fully grasp why it is wrong, it is their attitude and their crime which they have in common

it is wrong in every single case, i dont know the particulars of Jimmy Page's exploits, but if he raped a 13yo i would also think that was wrong

and yes even child sex under the guise of religion-approved "marriage" is still wrong, regardless of the country

Comment by RubySoho

October 3rd 2009 04:09