Quick quiz for you...
What's the difference between this list:
And this one:
You've probably guessed already, but I'll spell it out anyway...
The first group believe that a fugitive paedophile rapist by the name of Polanski should be spared the 'inconvenience' of facing justice because
1. He happened to make a few (arguably) 'good' films.
2. He has managed to evade justice for over 30 years.
3. He has 'suffered enough'.
The second group don't. They think a paedophile who drugged, raped and sodomised a 13yr old girl should be returned to face the sentence he fled the country to avoid.
French Minister of Culture, Frederic Mitterrand, announced that he “strongly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them.”
Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto.
I suppose then, by Polanski standards, (and, presumably, those of his supporters), all the fugitive Nazi war criminals who evaded capture for so many years deserve the same leniency as he begs now.
Polanski's wife was murdered by Manson and co. If Manson had fled and lived a blameless life, or even a productive artistic and award-filled life, since then, would he be forgiven now?
The fact before us is: Polanski drugged, raped and sodomised a 13yr old girl. Ok?
One more time, now:
Fuck the films.
Bugger the awards.
Screw the apologists.
Sod the date it happened.
Bring the spineless (aren't they all?) child-molester to justice.
Because he drugged, raped and sodomised a 13 year-old girl.