Suddenly I See

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Am I missing something?

Have people lost their minds?

Why are so many celebrities jumping to Roman Polanski's defense? I feel like there is no way they could have read the court transcripts of what he did to that little girl. There is no way they could have read that and still be able defend him. He raped a thirteen year old girl and did horrible things to her after drugging her. And I begg to differ with Whoopi Goldberg but he indeed "raped raped" her. Because just the word once isn't bad enough.

Do these celebrities have daughters or sisters or nieces?

I am not so much worried about Polanski being extradited back here, although he should, but it concerns me that people can't take a moral stand. Why does he get a pass because he is an artist? If he was a homeless man or a construction worker no one would care. He would be labeled a pedophile and that would be the end of it.

These people who defend him should really read what he did and if they are women they should be ashamed of themselves.

My list of actors/directors I am boycotting is growing.

Woody Allen
Harvey Weinstein
Whoopi Goldberg
Tilda Swinton
Mia Farrow
Marin Scorsese
Debra Winger
Wes Anderson

And I am sure by tomorrow there will be more to add.

And no one should ever wonder again why women don't want to report being sexually assaulted.


hanner said...

Um, am I the only one noticing the hilarity of WOODY FREAKING ALLEN jumping to his defense? WOODY ALLEN. You got with your wife's adopted CHILD. Of COURSE it's okay.

hanner said...

hmm but apparently Mia Farrow doesn't seem to care. people are messed up.

Katie said...

true. i guess i shouldn't expect woody allen to be a moral compance.

people are extremley messed up.

vickie said...

Well put Katie, could not have said it better myself.

vickie said...

Add to the list -

Penelope Cruz
Monica Bellucci

Beth said...

You aren't missing anything, you are right on the money. I have been reading about this myself and I really like the way this reporter puts it:

"Yes, Polanski has known great tragedy, having survived the Holocaust and having lost his wife, Sharon Tate and their unborn son, to the insanity of the Charles Manson cult.

But that has no bearing on the crime in question.

His victim, who settled a civil case against Polanski for an unspecified amount, said she does not want the man who forced himself on her to serve additional time.

That's big-hearted of her but also irrelevant, and so is the fact that the victim had admitted to having sex with a boyfriend before meeting Polanski.

Polanski stood in a Santa Monica courtroom on Aug. 8, 1977, admitted to having his way with a girl three decades his junior and told a judge that indeed, he knew she was only 13.

There may well have been judicial misconduct.

But no misconduct was greater than allowing Polanski to cop a plea to the least of his charges. His crime was graphic, manipulative and heinous, and he got a pass. It's unbelievable, really, that his soft-headed apologists are rooting for him to get another one."

Katie said...

That reporter does put it very well. It really does have no relevance that his victim doesn't want him prosecuted, that doesn't mean justice has been served. Thanks for posting that.

Alexandra said...

Or as a blogger on put it, "Who knew being disgusted with Roman Polanski would turn out to be the ever-elusive middle ground between right-wing dudes and liberal feminists?"