Matt Gurney on Roman Polanski: A rapist, sure, but not a RAPE-rapist
Posted: September 30, 2009, 10:00 AM by Matt Gurney
Full Comment brings you a regular dose of international punditry at its finest. Today, talented journalists -- plus Whoopi Goldberg -- chimed in from around the world on whether or not Roman Polanski is guilty of rape-rape, or merely rape. Apparently, being rich and famous protects you from being arrested for rape, singular. Polanski was pushing it, though, when he committed rape-rape-rape.
Before I get a flood of hate mail accusing me of being flippant with so serious a a subject, let me be clear — I'm as aghast as you are. The absurdity of the argument — yes, he's a rapist, but he's not really a rapist — would be laughable were it not so disgusting. But today, on ABC's The View, Whoopi made that exact argument (Link goes directly to video). Ms. Goldberg, before a global audience of millions of viewers, stated, “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape."
Whoopi? I loved you as Guinan (Star Trek The Next Generation character),
but can you please explain to me the difference between rape, and rape-rape? And would rape-rape-rape be worse than rape-rape? Maybe we'd all be better off if we just stuck with the old-fashioned approach, and kept rape as bad from the get-go?
Fortunately, other pundits around the world seem to have a better grip on reality. Writing in The Guardian, Joan Smith utterly destroys-destroys Whoopi Goldberg. (See what I did there? Destroying-destroying is way worse than merely destroying.) The column is so brilliant I must quote it at length. Smith says:
"...plenty of people are willing to excuse a sex attacker because what he did wasn't 'really' rape. According to this line of thinking, it doesn't count if any of the following circumstances apply: the victim knew her attacker, had been drinking or taking drugs, was wearing nice clothes or agreed to go into a house or flat with him. Thanks to Goldberg, we now need a new vocabulary to deal with such cases; they're not 'rape-rape' so we might decide instead to call them something less pejorative, such as 'rape-lite'."
She continues: "...Polanski sent her to a bedroom where he performed cunnilingus on her before putting his penis in her vagina. Drunk and terrified, she protested that she didn't want to have sex, but Polanski took no notice and asked when her last period was. She couldn't remember and he asked if she was on the contraceptive pill. When she said she wasn't, he turned her over and penetrated her anally. He performed further sex acts before the weeping girl got into his car and was driven home. Would that be rape? Or would it be 'rape-rape'?"
Bravo, Ms. Smith!
Similar in tone is a piece by Kate Harding at Salon.com. She takes on exactly the same points as Ms. Smith, but with far more anger: "Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in 'exile' (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention."
Somehow I get the feeling that Ms. Smith and Ms. Harding won't be appearing on The View anytime soon.
Writing in the Washington Post, Thomas J. Reese, S.J., makes an excellent comparison. In an article titled Father Polanski Would Go to Jail, Reese writes, "Imagine if the Knight of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal. Victim groups would demand the award be withdrawn and that the organization apologize. Religion reporters would be on the case with the encouragement of their editors. Editorial writers and columnist would denounce the knights as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church to sexual abuse. And they would all be correct. And I would join them.
"But why is there not similar outrage directed at the film industry for giving an award to Roman Polanski, who not only confessed to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl but fled the country prior to sentencing? Why have film critics and the rest of the media ignored this case for 31 years? He even received an Academy award in 2003. Are the high priests of the entertainment industry immune to criticism?"
Fr. Reese nails it. Our celebrity worship has finally reached its logical conclusion. For years, celebrities could beat their partners, go on drug-fueled rampages, drive drunk, and escape serious consequences. We considered that acceptable, so long as they stayed rich, famous, and available for public display. We've watched human beings destroy themselves in real time before our very eyes, and took no action other than driving up network ratings and tabloid sales. In this world of celebrity, everyone now gets one rape for free. Just not rape-rapes.
Michael Cross-Barnet, writing for the Baltimore Sun, would seem to agree, offering these powerful words: "Like a Roman Polanski movie, this is a tale in which there are few good guys. The crime itself was monstrous and can in no way be excused as a byproduct of the tragedies in Polanski's personal life (his mother was killed by the Nazis, and his wife, Sharon Tate, was a victim of the Charles Manson cult)...By all means, enjoy Roman Polanski's movies. But don't for a minute imagine he's some persecuted hero."
National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com
Matt Gurney is a member of the National Post editorial board.
Read more:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...sure-but-not-a-rape-rapist.aspx#ixzz0SdwW16Bj