Despite attempts by some conservatives to use reaction by some in Hollywood to the arrest of Roman Polanski as a political wedge issue, it is clear there is a developing consensus across the American political spectrum that the arrest was proper and that justice must be served.
The recent arrest in Switzerland of film director Roman Polanski in connection with his flight from justice in a 1970's era child-rape case has gotten a lot of news attention. Much of this has focused on the diplomatic efforts by France and Poland to secure his release (Polanski has dual citizenship in both countries) and statements of support for Polanski by a number of artists and colleagues of Polanski in Europe and America.
A number of commenters on the right side of the blogosphere initially tried to paint this as a partisan issue, seeking to portray the defenders of Polanski as speaking for "the left." But it is clear this was never so. As the facts of the case sink in, the vast majority of people across the political spectrum are showing they disagree with the comments of folks like Harvey Weinstein and Whoopi Goldberg and the petition signed by directors like Pedro de Almodovar. To many, it seems the support for Polanski by some in the artistic community is driven not by a consistent attitude towards justice, but rather by a fear of rocking the boat. And good-old fashioned power dynamics.
I am reminded of Michael Douglas' character in the movie Traffic. He portrays a hard-edged U.S. Drug Czar determined to lay down the smack on drug dealers and users. Yet, when his daughter turns out to be an addict, he uses his influence and position to seek preferential treatment for her from the system. There are rules for "them" and there are rules for "us."
I was deeply saddened to see the comments of Whoopi Goldberg and some others who I respect and admire. The worst part of it was knowing how different their remarks would likely have been if the accused had not been Roman Polanski the famous but tragic exiled movie maker, but instead a Roy Poulson who works in an Ohio warehouse.
I don't want to get too autobiographical. But a part of the backlash to the Polanski defenders has come from people who had themselves been victimized as children. I understand where they are coming from. It is estimated that only two percent of rapists are ever punished. The numbers are probably even lower when the victim is a child. An enormous weight of circumstance bears down on the less powerful in situations like this. Excuses are made for the man (its usually a man) who is the culprit and it is not unknown that for even the mothers of the children victims to become complicit in the wall of silence.
It was a long time ago, they'll say. Get over it. He's a wonderful (father, husband, provider, pillar of the community). And after all, no one really got hurt.
Enough.
To me, the facts of the Polanski case are not complicated. He pled guilty to drugging and raping a child. Consent is not relevant here, but the facts showed that the child said no, but he didn't stop. Then he fled to avoid sentencing.
There is no political divide here. The French culture minister, some Hollywood glitterati and various other Polanski apologists are speaking for themselves, not for me and not for the vast majority of people across the spectrum. As more people speak out, its clear the Polanski defenders are not even speaking for a majority of the Hollywood community. And they should be ashamed to be invoking lofty phrases, when they cannot bring themselves to describe what was actually in the witness testimony in the case - testimony of acts that Polanski has pled to.
End of story. Or it should be, if we are to have equal justice.