I've been extremely confused this morning. It has seemed to me that the community regards pedophilia as the worst of all crimes. So bad in fact that the common view appears to be that a pedophile is about the only type of criminal who ought to really be locked-up and the key thrown away.

Not only that, but anyone who has had any sort of institutional connection with the pedophile at the time when they committed their crime(s)should be held partly guilty as well.

So not only do we have vigilantes driving pedophiles out of their suburbs when they are released from jail, but we even drove a Governor-General from office because when he was Archbishop he was deemed not to have shown enough empathy with victims of pedophiles in his church.

This morning news comes that Roman Polanski has at long last been arrested for a pedophile offence that he admits committing (although the ABC this morning referred to it as an allegation). To date I have heard no-one suggesting that this is a good thing.

Rather we have had quotes from organisers of a film festival saying they are shocked and a friend of his saying that this is madness. Combined with a rundown of some of his cinematic successes.

Hopefully this reportage will change during the day and the history of a man who preyed on younger women will be laid bare and his arrest welcomed. Or will it? Is my original assessment of the horror in which pedophilia is held wrong? Is it OK in certain circumstances or for certain types of people? Or is there a social statute of limits so that if it happened long enough ago it can be excused?

GrahamY asks:

"Is my original assessment of the horror in which pedophilia is held wrong? Is it OK in certain circumstances or for certain types of people? Or is there a social statute of limits so that if it happened long enough ago it can be excused?"

I think GrahamY's original assessment of the horror in which pedophilia is held by the vast majority of the community is probably fairly accurate. May I suggest there is a commonplace confusion between this widely shared revulsion, and the 'grandstanding' upon this issue on occasions undertaken by would-be leaders of the 'vigilante pack'.

Opposition to pedophilia is such a (no pun intended) 'motherhood issue' that anyone grandstanding upon it must surely instantly acquire recognised moral superiority and exemplary rectitude, isn't that so? The idea is then to ride upon the public recognition of this rectitude, this moral superiority, toward the attainment of some other (generally political) objective.

GrahamY alludes to an excellent example of this grandstanding behaviour in the hounding from public office of former Governor-General Peter Hollingsworth. I would contend that the appropriated 'moral superiority' of those more prominent in the hounding-out was sought primarily to damage the office more so than the man, and to channel understandable and expected revulsion into the cause of changing the polity of the nation, rather than from any more than ordinary concern with the prevention of pedophilia.

The seeming absence, as yet, of any outcry in reportage of the Roman Polanski matter is probably due to no local existing, or would-be, grandstander having yet worked out how to use it in some local political 'cause'.

I seem to recall an event in a society in which adultery was (at least publicly) held in similar revulsion, to the point where a woman caught in the act was up for a stoning. The leaders of that pack were likewise seeking to appropriate unto themselves moral high ground, from which they could then discredit a freelance teacher who was teaching certain other things which perhaps they saw as undermining their political power.

Graham, I don't know why you are confused. Things like this a just all over the place. Always have been. There is an enormous spectrum of views on what constitutes pedophilia, what is acceptable and what is condemnable. And there has always been an enormous variation in the way it has all been dealt with and how different people have been punished.

Do you really expect fairness here?

Look at the condemnation of artist Bill Henson, which was discussed to death in a number of threads on this forum. Was/is he a pedophile? What about his key photo of the underaged girl, with her arm across her breasts but her fanny exposed, over which his exhibition was closed down, being published in full in at least one major newspaper!

Extraordinary duplicity! But that's what we live with.

This sort of thing pervades our system of law and our whole society.

I don't think I need to say much more than this. It is all just a dog's breakfast and that's the end of it!

Why would you ever expect fairness, logic or reason to prevail?

Hi to all the Forgotten Australians

A Topic That brings another one of society's prominent people out from the closet of their rapes on a child 30 years ago ,

G.Y, I noted you state About peter Hollings Worth , Why did You Not State george Pell , , The Whole Former Labour And liberal Goverments Hell Even our former Prime Ministers Were aware Of Us victims The Forgotten Australians, whom were raped and abused in their state and territories instutional homes ,orphanages girls homes , boys homes . state ward homes , foster homes , out of home care State church homes , ,church homes ,And Many More , of Australia's states And Territory's of which we vicitms were raped and abused , , and have now started to been heard by only a few in our new Goverment , of australia ,

Do You Think It Is exectable for D.O.C.S lawyers to stand up in front of 3 judges and say these log book records have been destroyed lost, misplaced ,

when the victims has no idea this ever happend ,

then the courts say to the victim see ya later with no justice just rape you over by the court system ,

those very documents i stated , of which N.S.W. lawyers for D.O.C.S. stated in court last year has now allowed for 2 pedophiles to roam our society , and the law won't touch them because D.O.C.S. destroyed the evidence that proved a case ,

the victims word was the truth but was denide justice , yet those records prove the victims truth , so the courts their self have covered for the state of N.S.W, D.O.C.S.

You Tell me is this coruption within the court system and D.O.C.S. their self ,

And The Former leaders Of N.S.W. And Our prime ministers And premiers , and Welfare And Juvenille justice System .

So Will A.C.I.C , Be Just as Corupt When The Complaint Is Handed to them ,

and cover up the same past and that of the truth ,

From A Real Forgotten Australian,

made a mistake in Last Post It Should I.C.A.C.

Independant.Commission.Against.Courption

Why Not Talk about What is Giong On In our own Country

In Victoria last month their Is A known Pedophile raising another Lot of Children how Do we not Know Those children will be Abused like His Former Victims

Also Thses People Who harm our Children How About Everyone Get behind me And submitt To all politicians that They Are Never To be Released From gaol period

lets Have Some guts In this Country and stop the Protection Of Pedophiles In Australia They Have more rights Than us Victims

And The Previous goveremnts Who were In Charge of Everything They Should Be All Brought into a royal commission as In Asking have They Ever Been Notified by Anyone That They were a victims Of rapes And abuse In the states and territories Institutional children Homes of Australia because i can Assure You they all knew About us victims The Forgotten Australians

Thats One Of The Reasons bob carr changed The Limitation acts of a victim of a crime or Injury

So How About all you people out their with the brains put pen to paper and ask for these laws to be changed , and mainly for Pedophiles Never to be released and yes the death penalty

so what stopping australia from doing any of this we are supose to be the fair county the lucky country well thats fair for the death penalty and yes they are lucky they have been caught so the death penalty can be granted

i reckon if mr rudd put that as a vote for him to stay in power next election he would win a land slide victory

stop the cover ups and coruption of destroying victims truth fisrtly and if as stated these have been destroyed those in those departments should be guilty of such crimes as destroying evidence as they are just as worse as the pedophiles who raped us when were children

so much for the word justice in our country when our goverment departments destroy victims trut

I don't see any confusion here, though I know many will. My view remains consistent, at least in my eyes :), and holds for each of the four examples that have been named here so far - Polanski, Henson, Hollingsworth and Ferguson.

Polanski, IF guilty of these accusations, should unquestionably face consequences for his actions. No doubt, if the allegations are true, his young victim, or victims, will have had some difficult memories to deal with throughout their lives, as a result of encounters that occurred largely because of their own immaturity at the time, and the vast age and power imbalance between them and Polanski. These issues need to be redressed, irrespective of the time lapse and the status and respect Polanski might have achieved since.

Henson was wrong, in my view, to photograph children of the age and maturity levels that he did and in the manner in which he did. I had my say on that at the time on OLO, and put myself at odds with many posters I normally find myself agreeing with. :)

Hollingsworth was wrong to turn the blind eye that he did and, in my view, needed to be removed from high office as he was.

Ferguson was wrong to molest children and quite correctly needed to face severe consequences, which he has done. Having said that, I deplore the vigilantism that is hounding him now, long after he's paid for his crimes, and way out of all proportion to the threat he now presents.

To me, these four men (and Polanski of course only falls into this category if the allegations are correct) are all culpable of sexually exploiting children or (as in Hollingsworth's case) condoning it, and are all deserving of condemnation and severe penalty as a result.

I agree with Bronwyn, all those men should definitely have been punished. No matter who the perpetrator, if they are guilty of any form of paedophilia, no matter how long ago, then they should have the book thrown at them.
I am of the opinion that paedophiles can never change their desires for children, and should be permanently incarcerated.

Huffnpuff, I am very sorry for what happened to you as a child. I have met many others in my work who have had similar experiences.

I believe that the almighty dollar drives everything, especially in any governments eyes. If the government agrees that former governments were guilty for allowing abuse to go on in state run or religious run homes in those days, then they would be obliged to pay compensation- and they won't want to do that!

I don't believe any amount of money or compensation can take away the hurt that all these children have endured, but just being told they were believed and that they have recognition for their pain would go a long way.

The governments have been paying out truckloads of money through the health system dealing with both mental and physical illnesses brought on by this abuse, so it was false economy anyway.

Bronwyn, Polanski admitted to his crime. There is no doubt about his guilt.

I am not aware of any evidence that Hollingworth "turned a blind eye" nor that he "condoned" pedophilia. Both of these allegations are possibly defamatory, but perhaps you have evidence of which I am not aware.

Can I suggest that posters be very careful with these sorts of allegations? According to the law you are entitled to your opinions "no matter how mad", but only so far as they are based on actual facts. If you get the facts wrong, then you, and us to a lesser extent, are in strife.

So Bronwyn, I think you need to argue your case a bit more, or I will probably have to delete the post.

GY
Essentially I agree with Bronwyn.
Having said that I do have issues with some arbitrary age line drawn in the concept of paedophillia.
I have met 15 yo girls who are more mature than many adults I met.
In essence it's all relative and should be judged on individual merits.

One old instance from England, a 15 female who had been on the street since she was 12 and a 26 yo separated teacher. After 6 months together the estranged wife blew the whistle over access. Objected to his new partner, having contact with the son.(being replaced by a younger model? she was 6 years older than him).
He lost his job did time and on early release went, on the sex offenders register.
( later history: The girl went in to care where she was raped by a foster dad and son. They were charged and jailed, the court case was messy.
When the ex-teacher's parole was up he went to Scotland she followed and they married....She died 3 years later of Hep C complications), the foster brother had infected her

He was convicted and did a runner before sentencing. This is his ghost of justice past. He'll get a plea bargain.

I find the support for him bizarre, but the case itself seems fairly black and white to me.

GrahamY, I stand corrected. The former Governor-General and, before that, Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, spells his surname without an 's'. I feel terrible for having mis-spelled it, but it is a surprisingly common error. I was sure I was correct, but, having checked the website of the Governor-General's Office, http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/content.php?id=25 , and assuming it to be authoritative, I see I was wrong.

As was Bronwyn, but in a much more serious manner. Her post, for which she has received a well-earned smack, provides a perfect illustration of your opening post observation that "It has seemed to me that the community regards ..... anyone who has had any sort of institutional connection with the pedophile at the time when they committed their crime(s)should be held partly guilty as well."

I can however, understand Bronwyn having jumped to the conclusions of which you spoke. Those were precisely the inferences that those who hounded Peter Hollingworth from office intended should be drawn (by others, of course, not the 'grandstanders' themselves), if I recall the drift of most of the publicity at the time.

What seems to have been forgotten, or perhaps was never even stressed at the time, was that Hollingworth, as Archbishop, and ultimately responsible for church schools, stood in the notional relationship of employer to the person subsequently found to have in fact been involved in pedophilia. Pedophilia is a most serious crime. The authority responsible for investigating crime is the POLICE, not an employer. At the time when it was alleged Hollingworth should have taken action AS AN EMPLOYER, there had been no approach by those making the allegations to the police. The most Hollingworth was in receipt of was allegation, not evidence or record of a conviction.

Just imagine if Hollingworth had suspended or dismissed someone involved in teaching on mere allegations, and that it subsequently became noised about that the reason therefore was suspected pedophilia. A career and life shattered! Any subsequent exoneration of such dismissed teacher could not repair such damage.

Bad Bronwyn!

I agree totally with Bronwyn.
The bloke who we are lead to believe sat on his hands in my view did great wrong too.

"...all those men should definitely have been punished. No matter who the perpetrator, if they are guilty of any form of paedophilia, no matter how long ago, then they should have the book thrown at them."

That's awfully harsh suzeonline!

A with all sorts of things, there is an enormous spectrum with pedophilia, from innocent but inadvertently illegal activites, to mild intentionally illegal stuff and on to very serious stuff.

You can't seriously be lumping the likes of Henson with the likes of Ferguson, can you?

The latter has (as far as I can determine from what has been expressed in the media) deserved all the punishment he has received (except for the ongoing vigilante activity), while the former has undertaken activities over which there is great doubt about any illegality or damage being perpetrated. He deserves NO punishment. His activities needed to be carefully assessed and if they were deemed to be illegal then he needed to be ordered to not undertake anything of the sort again, end of story. No penalty is appropirate unless it was clear in the first place that he was breaking the law.

"I am of the opinion that paedophiles can never change their desires for children, and should be permanently incarcerated."

So if an 18 year old man takes up a relationship with a 15 year old girl, which in some countries falls within the definition of pedophilia, he should be deemed an incurable child-molester should he?

Come on suze. The world isn't that black and white. Some people who commit even the gravest of crimes can be entirely remorseful and if given the chance to live a normal life, will absolutely never offend again. You can't blanket all pedophiles with a lock-em-up-forever policy. You've got to treat every case individually.

Exam:”Having said that I do have issues with some arbitrary age line drawn in the concept of paedophillia.
I have met 15 yo girls who are more mature than many adults I met.
In essence it's all relative and should be judged on individual merits.”

I have to agree with Exam. An 18 year old (any gender) with a 15 year old (any gender) is a whole different situation to a 7 year old with a 30 year old.

Is this what you meant Exam as far as “individual merits”?

12 year old with a 26 year old – yeah not cool but not the image we have of pedophilia, would still carry about a 20 year sentence in Oz though.

Like the rape thread and how it is mixed up with power and control. But having said that maturity matters in decisions about how one understands the consent given and a more mature person would not be persuaded or groomed in the way a young person is.

The people who chose to have sex with a child did have a choice to make, the law and consequences are not a secret. As in all things adult they were in control of their own destiny while the child’s control was taken from them. Having knowledge of a crime being committed and doing nothing does carry its own penalties.

Examinator and Ludwig may believe it is ok for some slightly older adults to have sex with minors, but the law doesn't and neither do I.

I agree it wouldn't be right to treat young adult sex offenders the same as older offenders, although I would worry they were breaking the law, no matter what age they were!

It is well known that you cannot legally have sex with someone under 16 isn't it?

Would you like to have the law changed?
What would you change it to, and would you be happy for a young female relative of yours to be legal prey for older boys?

Come on guys! These laws were made for a purpose.
Would you be happy with even more girls under 16 being mothers, because that is one of the consequences of having a blase attitude to underage sex?

I tend to agree with Bronwyn and Suze on this one. No confusion at all. There is nothing new about celebrities or the institutions that benefit from celebrity-dom coming out in defence of their own. It happened with Woody Allen marrying a girl who was raised ostensibly as his daughter although I am not equating this with pedophilia as I believe she was of age when the relationship began.

We see it with the Church all the time in relation to offending priests although with public outrage and media attention there will no doubt be less protection of these mongrels in the future.

Ultimately it is the general public that does not accept pedophilia in any form no matter the grey areas.

Polanski had the wit, money and contacts to escape and evade capture for decades. He has been most fortunate to have lived a good life for his best years when he could have been in gaol.

I have no sympathy for him.

Of course he will be unlikely to serve any time and all will be forgiven, somehow and some way. Cripes, there is enough spin already to make him appear the victim!

The real victim of his crime is distressed to be in the limelight again, but that is the fault of the perpetrator Polanski, not the police and public servants who are only doing their duty.

If Polanski really cared about the victim he would have ensured she had closure many years ago.

It is a fair bet that if the perpetrator of the crime had been some ordinary man there would be no sympathy from the celebrities and notables who seem to think that they and theirs should be above the law. Polanski was an opportunist creep without a conscience who took advantage of a kid. His other misfortunes in life are irrelevant except when sentencing is being considered.

If he got ten years I would not be unhappy because he deserves that at least and more for evading justice and costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions?) trying to bring him to justice.

Graham Y

<< Bronwyn, Polanski admitted to his crime. There is no doubt about his guilt. >>

I thought so, but wasn't 100% sure at the time I posted, and besides I was hearing the word 'alleged' being emphasised in news reports.

<< I am not aware of any evidence that Hollingworth "turned a blind eye" nor that he "condoned" pedophilia. Both of these allegations are possibly defamatory, but perhaps you have evidence of which I am not aware. ... So Bronwyn, I think you need to argue your case a bit more, or I will probably have to delete the post. >>

I have a low opinion of the man, but I'm not wasting time arguing any case against him. It was probably just careless choice of wording. Delete the post if you must, or preferably just the section that bothers you.

<< Bad Bronwyn! >>

Okay, Forrest, I'm off to the naughty corner. I'll take your post with me and read it 100 times as penance. :)

G'Day All,
If I have read the news article correctly then:-
Polanski admits to the "alledged" offence
The 'alledged" offence occurred in 1977
The international warrant for the "alledged" offender was issued in 1978
Why then has it taken 30 years to catch up to him?
Who by or How has this warrant been over-looked for 30 years?
No Statute of Limitations means exactly that and applies to Murder, Kidnap and Abduction and Statutory Rape.
Anyone that commits any of the for-mentioned crimes should be well aware that if any of these crimes catch up to you then it is as if the crime has just been committed
I have seen this gender war on the other threads then where are the women that should be asking:-
What about the young girl at the centre of this "alledged" offence?
How has all this fame of the "alledged" offender affected her?
What is her position on all this?
Further:- Now that she may get her day in Court what is it doing to her to see these Governments rushing to the aid of the "alledged" offender does she not have rights as well?
Does not the now woman count in all this?
Thanks have a good life from Dave

PS not a mention today so far, quickly removed from eyesight.

dwg,

There was a news item on Channel 9 last night in which it was claimed that the victim in this case, a now 45-year-old woman, had forgiven Polanski. I think the newscast named her.

This link, http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/868448/polanski-arrested-on-1978-us-warrant , included the following text as of around 8:00 AM today:

"The woman named as the victim in the 1970s case had joined defence lawyers in urging the dismissal of the case against Polanski."

and,

"Polanski's legal team argued that the conviction should be annulled because the judge who heard his case in the 1970s had improperly colluded with prosecutors. The judge has since died.

The challenge was made after the allegation of misconduct emerged in a documentary released last year "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired."

[US] Judge Peter Espinoza said this year that while he believed there had been "substantial misconduct" in the case, Polanski's attempts to dismiss the charges would not be heard as long as he remained a fugitive from justice."

Without even touching upon the issue of statutory rape in either this case or in general, there are now clearly issues that transcend this claimed pursuit of justice on the part of US prosecutors. Things like 'abuse of due process', 'offended dignity', 'arrogance', 'cover-up', and 'bullying at the highest level' come to mind. Things we see far too often these days among those who wield executive authority, that threaten not only to degrade the quality of justice overall, but left unchecked, threaten all our liberties.

Grandstanding.

I'm surprised the US Secretary of State has not already intervened in the interests of both the nation, and preservation of the quality of justice, to terminate this charade.

As to any howling mob? General Dyer. Amritsar. 1919. Jarlian Wallah. Machine guns. And this time with artillery as well! (Asked at his subsequent Court-Martial why he had used machine guns on the crowd, Dyer is alleged to have answered 'because I had no artillery, Sir!')

How abuse of process bites back.

Sue:”Come on guys! These laws were made for a purpose.
Would you be happy with even more girls under 16 being mothers, because that is one of the consequences of having a blase attitude to underage sex?”

Hey Suze, I don’t think it blasé as much as very realistic. We have the laws and an 18 year old might end up in court for sleeping with a 15 year old but a judge is likely to let him walk out. Our 15 year old girls can get contraception and abortions without parents knowing (that is legal for a reason)… because in reality they are sexually active and the boyfriends at that age range from around 15 – 22 years old.

Umm... yeah those are my approximate numbers from my personal observations of teens.[smile]

Judges job to work out the individual circumstances?

Polanski admitted the offence and tried to plea bargain to a lower penalty. His lawyers claimed a technical breach of process allegedly because the judge disregarded a claimed acceptance of a plea bargain.

What the victim now thinks of the offender is irrelevant. She has moved on and of course she would rather it was all quietly put to rest at this stage. Exhuming the case causes her more harm but there is a greater good in demonstrating that perpetrators of serious crimes will always be pursued.

The spin makes the US justice system the persecutor and the girl a youthful vamp. Polanski is portrayed the victim who has suffered many challenges in his life but brought entertainment to millions.

It is to be expected that Polanski's supporters would try to muddy the waters with spin. Polanski is a powerful person and he has consistently shown that hell will freeze over before he is held to account.

It is right to keep the unsolved and unresolved case files for serious crimes open forever. Would-be perpetrators need to understand that they will always be pursued and regardless of their power or standing in the community justice will be served.

Thanks Forrest
I had not seen that article & after reading it,
It is the pursuit of the "Statutory Rape"(sex with an under 14 year old) that the US prosecuters are chasing then, after reading that article it would appear that this is the only side they now have.
If this is all they have to pursue after this time and the woman has moved on without any hang-ups then it should be "let dead dogs lie"
TPP you are right with the 18 year olds
There was a case here that friends of mine were involved in 18 year old boy 14 year old girl they both spoke to me together and alone
Thier answers to me were, they were a couple and they both gave me the answers that 18-14? but 24-20 what was the problem they had set themselves on being together and after 3 years they still are and are as an affectionate to each other as they were 3 years ago
I had to turn back time to many of the old marriages and found that most men were24-26 woman 18-20
Now before the blokes jump on my case and the shielas jump hooray for a chauvenist to admit this it has been fairly well accepted that a woman matures mentally and physically at a much younger age than a male usually by about a 5-6 year difference on average so I had to relax my views.
Thanks all Have a good life from Dave

"Hey Suze, I don’t think it blasé as much as very realistic. We have the laws and an 18 year old might end up in court for sleeping with a 15 year old but a judge is likely to let him walk out. Our 15 year old girls can get contraception and abortions without parents knowing (that is legal for a reason)… because in reality they are sexually active and the boyfriends at that age range from around 15 – 22 years old."

Agreed Jewely.

So then in response to suze, this sort of technically pedophilic illegal activity has most definitely got to be treated very differently to that of the sort perpetrated by Dennis Ferguson.

"Would you like to have the law changed?"

No, not really. Although if I had a close look I'd probably desire a few minor changes. The point is, and I think you now agree, that we cannot dare to have anything like a blanket penalty for anything that falls under the banner of pedophilia.

TPP

Not taking issue with the necessary discretion of judges however I am not convinced that anyone who is deemed mature enough to vote should be allowed much leeway for committing a serious crime. (This is something that should be taken into account by the Greens who are proposing a much younger voting age.)

If an 18yr old is old enough to vote s/he is old enough to understand that minors should be left well alone.

'Consensual' sex between minors is a different matter entirely.

Talking generally, I believe that the proponents of 'rape is rape' - who do not see any shades of grey - are barking up the wrong tree.

"Ultimately it is the general public that does not accept pedophilia in any form no matter the grey areas."

Ah but Pelican it IS accepted to some extent by the general public, within the grey areas. That's why there are grey areas!

Henson's 'art' was accepted by a large portion of the general public (with a larger portion not giving a brass razoo either way about his work and therefore not in the slightest bit concerned about it possibly being pedophilic). Only a small minority was offended or in any way bothered by it.

Any sexualisation of minors could fall within this grey zone. What about your everyday K-Mart catalogue and the like that shows young girls dressed all manner of stuff in order to advertise clothing? No sexualisation indended (?). But it can still come across that way.

And what about the printing of Henson's photo of a nude underaged girl in a major newspaper with pubes displayed? Blatantly ilegal surely! That was sexual and pedophilic to just the same extent as it being shown in Henson's exhibition, but put on view to many thousands of people who would never have gone to his exhibition! What the crazy crap gives?

It was totally unnecessary to print that photo 'unmodestly', in contrast to many other papers that printed it with blacked out areas variously over the breasts and/or pubes....and face as well! But who objected? Just about no one apparently.

I have NO problem with Henson's photo or with it being shown in an exhibition. But I have a huge problem with it being shown 'immodestly' in a newspaper. This view just seems so natural to me, and yet it is apparently only shared by a tiny fraction of people who are in any concerned about law, morals, pedophilia, etc.

So yes, there is widespread mainstream acceptance of stuff that I would consider dodgy....and I certainly don't consider myself to be a prude!

The Australian had this AFP account of the matter this morning http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,,26140226-10388,00.html. I think that Polanski's conduct was pretty abominable. You'll notice he also has a history of dating much younger women.

It's not that relevant that the victim thinks he should be forgiven. While she is one party to the matter, the public also has an interest. And that interest is best served by people like Polanski being subject to the due process of the law.

The essence of our belief in the justness of our legal system is that applies to all equally, whether they are millionaires, paupers, or famous movie directors. Imagine a justice system that depended on the success in life of convicted people to determine whether they were guilty or not. What if Polanski's career had been a flop? Would it be OK to extradite him then?

One of the things that was most striking about the case of Marcus Einfeld was that he was dealt with more harshly than others in his situation might have been because much more should have been expected of him. That's how the justice system ought to operate. To those whom much has been given more will be expected, not less.

Tricky Cornflower… but if they are old enough to abort, take a pill to avoid aforementioned aborting then society has already agreed it happens and the Dr’s don’t ask who the father is and don’t mandatory report. On a side note: 15 year olds can get an abortion without fuss (they pay here, NZ was free) in Aussie but cannot get the Rod in without parental consent given for this minor surgery.

A male at18 years old is about the perfect age to be attracted to a 15 year old female – and of course they can be forced to vote, hardly requires intelligence, might as well make the 9 year olds do it.
I imagine a judge would be more looking at a “peer” group when making a decision about youths having intercourse.

Rape is very different so I guess that is why we have the label “pedophile” in one situation and “rapist” in another. When it is adult/child sex (not peer group) I guess the only thing separating the two lables is the level of violence opposed to grooming along with power and control/influence?

Oh then the statutory rape thing – does Aussie have that label as well?

My gawd it’s a minefield.

GY:”And that interest is best served by people like Polanski being subject to the due process of the law.”

This process changes for those who are wealthy and have better lawyers, fame, a tragic past…?

Ludwig
I agree in part with your statement but my meaning was more the grey areas in terms of the media's reporting of 'support' for Polanski in terms of Graham's opening post. And the support for Polanski from some sections of the film industry. Although it has to be acknowledged that many other celebrities have not come out in defence of Polanski.

There are clearly grey areas on censorship when it comes to Henson but most people would not place Henson in the pedophile category even if they disagreed with his sexualised portrayal of underage children.

For some reason the artistic temperament and pushing the boundaries is okay for some on this issue when it comes to Art - others not so.

I tend to agree with Graham's comment about expectations for high profile people including the trust and authority bestowed on those in authority like priests, teachers, doctors and politicians. We generally do expect more because they are in a position to cause more harm by their actions.

In some cases like Einfeld, he was treated harshly in the media because of his position than a general Joe Blow down the street who might similarly behave like a hypocritical nong. That is the price of exposure and position should one betray that trust.

GY

Spot on.

There is also the other problem that there could well be other sexual crimes he has committed against minors but the victims would never come forward in the knowledge that he is 'untouchable' by authorities.

Isn't that the real power and menace of the powerful, that they are in effect above the law and they can have the law do their bidding?

In Australia we have even had senior politicians who have molested children (or consorted with criminals or were responsible for fraud etc etc) and got away with it for years despite the efforts of victims and whistleblowers. Usually it was only luck (for the good) and their arrogance that finally brought them undone. The rich and influential can get away with many things, but not always in that great country America it seems.

We should be applauding the US, not being suckered in by spin merchants to suspend our critical faculties and judgement to excuse this sorry crime against a child.

G'Day All,
I apologize for my statement
"Let dead dogs lie" and any offence taken by it
After reading Graham Y's link it is now apparent to me that this is not just a matter of "alledgedly" a one off
Apparently he has "alledgedly" deliberately evaded US Authorities he "alledgedly" has a history of it, He "alledgedly" plied the girl at the time with both alcohol and drugs, He "alledgedly" is quite acceptable in his own mind that it is OK but "alledgedly" is well aware that it is wrong & illegal
The US Authorities are right to test all these "alledgedlies" in a court of Law not only for the offence itself but for justice in the eyes of the people and then "IF" found guilty the full punishment for the "alledged" offences
Thanks All have a good life from Dave

Graham/Cornflower,

Spot on with your last posts.

What the Polanski affair and the ensuing debates illustrate is that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

Just because someone is famous should not make them above the law and does not give them the right to hide behind a phalanx of supporters and other interests to evade justice.

All society needs to do is be intrepid in relentlessly exposing what's in its dark corners and justice will take care of itself.

GrahamY writes:

"It's not that relevant that the victim thinks he should be forgiven. While she is one party to the matter, the public also has an interest. And that interest is best served by people like Polanski being subject to the due process of the law."

That well may be, but 'due process' is exactly what it is both contended, and now, on the part of US prosecutors, admitted, has not occurred in this case from the outset. It seems that the claimed 'improper collusion by the [US] judge [in 1978] with prosecutors' and the admitted 'substantial misconduct' in the case may have been in relation to the nefarious practice of 'plea bargaining', whereby prosecutors settle for a guilty plea to lesser or fewer charges in order to be assured of getting at least some 'runs on the board' in their 'pursuit of justice'.

The appearance exists of Polanski having perhaps been tricked by prosecutors in 1978 into making admissions to what may have been represented to Polanski as a 'lesser charge', but that charge in actuality carrying a prospective sentence of 50 years gaol. Add to that the reported 42-day prison hospital mental assessment that was ordered at the time of his plea bargaining 'confession', following which he somehow remained free to leave the country despite the prospect of a 50 year sentence being deemed appropriate for his 'admitted' offence, and one starts to think that a 'flight from justice' was exactly what at least some interests in the prosecutorial process at that time wanted to occur. Perhaps someone other than Polanski had something to hide that might have come out if a trial took place.

The extent to which some posters have overlooked or discounted claims like the one by British writer Robert Harris, that "Polanski had spent much of the [recent] summer at his house in Switzerland" staggers me. If true, suspicions must surely be raised that there is some agenda other than the routine administration of justice at work in this matter. Perhaps such putative agenda counts upon blind revulsion masking upcoming improprieties.

It was inevitable that a comparison would be drawn with Henson.

Frankly, anyone who can't tell the difference between drugging and forcibly sodomising a child, and taking semi-nude photographs of one in an established photographic style, with the consent of them and their parents, is as eligible for psychiatric treatment as Dennis Ferguson.

If Polanski was a Catholic Priest the key would of been thrown away by now (and should be). Why is it that some arty farty types prance around with no shame. Recently our gutless pollies let Henson off for his disgusting antics of photographing a young girl nude. Many are in prison now for far lesser crimes than Pedophile must be shaking their heads. To think it is against the law to photograph your kids on the beach. What a warped world.

There are degrees of guilt in this case,

If RP had had consentual sex with this girl while both were under the influence, then there might be some point to his defense.

However, he deliberately plied her wirh drugs and alcohol (an offense in itself) and then physically forced himself on her.

It was planned, rape of a minor, with the aggravating factor of under age drugs and alcohol.

In many countries he might only now be emerging from jail.

What he has achieved in the interim is irrelevant, that he used money and influence to escape punishment for so long should not be a mitigating factor.

However, the attempt to lump Henson's art with this offense is pure rubbish. One is paedophilia, the other prudity.

Very late on this - 'cos I'm posting from beautiful Brunswick Heads where I'm esconced in my favourite holiday hideaway with my kids, and the mad Frenchman that runs the place has finally got the wireless broadband working...

Anyway, it's nice to be able to agree with some people with whom I've had some differences. I have absolutely no sympathy for Polanski, but my recollection of Hollingsworth's 'sin' was that it was that he dismissed the complaint in question as not constituting 'sex abuse' when questioned about it on 'Australian Story', rather than covering any crime up per se.

As for Henson, I think it's quite wrong to lump him in with paedophiles and sex abusers. As I stated here at the time, Henson broke no laws and (as Ludwig says) only offended the morality of a small but vocal minority. Henson's art is only pornographic in the eye of the beholder.

Anyway, back to my CC & dry and the balmy ocean breeze...

Shadow Minister

<< However, the attempt to lump Henson's art with this offense is pure rubbish. One is paedophilia, the other prudity. >>

In your eyes maybe. In mine, and many others, not so at all.

Both these men are guilty of preying on and deliberately exploiting the emerging sexuality of very young girls. Both used their status and power differential to exact a price from these girls, who with a little more maturity would most likely never have agreed to being used in the manner in which they were.

There are degrees of difference, I agree, but there are strong similarities too.

My criticism of Henson BTW has nothing whatever to do with prudery. It's the exploitation that I object to.

CJ

You and I don't disagree very often, but yes we do on Henson. I'll leave you in peace though to enjoy the ocean breezes and your CC and dry. I'll direct my piece to poor old Shadow Minister instead. But I know you'll read it just the same. :)

What of Germaine Greer's The Boy? By Bronwyn's definition Greer would be streets ahead of Henson in the paedophile stakes, putting forward photos of boys for old feminists to ogle and imagine the "semen that runs like tap water". Another charming Greer quote, "A woman of taste is a pederast — boys rather than men.". Here is the typical feminist reaction that appeared overnight celebrating Greer's self-avowed pedarism:

http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2004/01/the_boy

Henson and the drooling Greer (who invited others like her to do the same) are as different as chalk and cheese. That is why Henson's art did not invite articles similar to those encouraged by the dipsy media-tart Germaine Greer. Henson's artistic intent was to reflect life, beautifully and poignantly, not to provide soft porn to grab a headline and revive long-lost notoriety. Greer only ever had one book in her and I always wonder just how much of that creative effort she owed to others around her.

Why target Henson when Greer fits the bill so neatly?

Bronwyn,

The scale to which the Australian public has over reacted to the "threat" of paedophiles was brought home to me when I wanted to take photos of my son and daughter playing on the beach, and found myself threatened by a robust matron who would not back off even when I explained that they were my children.

Life is full of risks, and we all take care to reduce them to acceptable levels, but there is a limit at which the cost and restrictions of the precautions outweigh the benefits to our well being.

I am prepared to wear seat belts, avoid alcohol, and drive within the speed limits. I would be safer if I wore a crash helmet and limited my speed to 40kmph at all times, but the cost in discomfort and time make this unacceptable to me.

Like wise the Henson photos of pubescent girls which don't show any naughty bits, but could be interpreted by a small portion of the population as mildly erotic.

What is the next step? Do we put fig leaves on the statue of David or a shroud on the Venus de Milo?

When do we stand back and realise that a small band of vocal puritans are setting the agenda, and shackling our thoughts. (or as per Monty Python: "Stop! This is getting too silly")

Bronwyn, you may mean well, but your (and others) censorial intentions are as big a threat to my children's future as the paedophiles.

Cornflower

<< Why target Henson when Greer fits the bill so neatly? >>

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm certainly not 'targeting' Henson. I only referred to him because his name had already beeen mentioned here and because I do see parallels between him and Polanski.

Regarding Greer. Firstly, she is no 'dipsy' and wanting to get her message out on occasions, and knowing exactly how to do it, doesn't necessarily qualify her for the description of 'media-tart' either. I don't agree with all she says, but on balance tend to feel she has something worthwhile to contribute more often than not. I'm sure I wouldn't agree with a lot of what she says in 'The Boy', but as always with her I know it would contain real food for thought.

This passage from the article you provided is a good example of how Greer makes links others often don't and is particularly pertinent to the discussion here. It might go some way towards explaining why the young girls in question allowed themselves to be manipulated and exploited by older men.

<< There are implications for young girls when society dismisses boys as not worth looking at. Mothers and fathers send out the message that boys are awkward, ungainly and silly. They give the impression that boys have nothing to offer but are suddenly horrified when their daughters go out with older men. If they don’t like it when this happens, why aren’t they encouraging heterosexual girls to discover their sexuality with boys their own age? Or does society, for all its moral outrage, actually secretly believe it is only right and proper for a girl to be sexually indoctrinated by someone older and ‘wiser’ rather than the peer who is her true equal? >>

Greer's use of text, as opposed to Henson's reliance on a visual statement, means she's able to make a much more complex and nuanced case. Accusing her of 'pedarism', while maybe understandable, does an injustice to all the other facets of her argument, which as always contribute significantly and positively to public debate.

Shadow Minister

I totally agree with you about the hysteria surrounding the whole issue of paedophiles and have great sympathy for you regarding the photo incident. I hope you held your ground and took your photos. :)

I'm not puritanical and I'm not even advocating banning Henson's work. My argument is and always has been that he is wrong to exploit young girls as he does and should desist from further doing so.

I don't see any real public benefit in his work, and the little there might be certainly doesn't outweigh in my mind the damage done by condoning these exploitational type of relationships between older men and very young girls, whose limited life experience doesn't qualify them to understand and recognize when they're being manipulated and used.

I made this very clear in my last post and if you can't see the subtle yet very real difference between my position and that of the puritanical ranters then there's no point in me continuing further dialogue with you.

Cornflower, a poster whose views I nearly always find interesting, if not downright refreshing, in this thread has expressed unequivocal support of GrahamY's post of Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 10:06:10 AM. GrahamY's post included a link, one which I question whether she (or GrahamY, for that matter) read with comprehension. GrahamY (and, by expressed agreement, Cornflower), while recognising the importance of due process, seemed not to have recognised that such due process in the Polanski case had been compromised from the outset, calling into question the very 'admissions' themselves upon which the revulsion with which most view Polanski is now based.

Cornfower wrote, earlier in the thread, "Polanski admitted the offence and tried to plea bargain to a lower penalty. His lawyers claimed a technical breach of process allegedly because the judge disregarded a claimed acceptance of a plea bargain." Nothing like this claim can be derived from GrahamY's link. Does Cornfower have some other authoritative basis for this claim? Something very like it, however, seems to underpin the official US line, and it is that very underpinning which is now in question, not whether there should be any statute of limitations upon pedophilia-related crimes.

One of the features of any prosecutorial system that accepts 'plea bargaining' is that one or a number of more serious charges (for which little, if any, evidence may actually be in hand) may be laid for the sole purpose of bullying an accused into pleading guilty to an allegedly lesser offence. Such a system facilitates the targetting of individuals for malicious prosecution. There may have existed a 'get Polanski' mindset, based at the time upon what Polanski 'thought', as distinct from what he may actually have done. Plea bargaining facilitates, if not encourages, entrapment, for the 'evidence' for the 'lesser' charge never has to face the scrutiny of a trial before a jury.

The office of District Attorney is frequently an elective one in the US. If someone was attempting to 'grandstand' upon revulsion to pedophilia, the plea bargaining system makes it easier.

Now read http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3055#72731 and scroll.

Bronwyn

Yet Greer has also maintained she is the best judge of when a youth is mature enough for her to have sex with, disputing that even young legal ages of consent are any worth.

It is interesting you would seek every opportunity to explain and rationalise Greer's excesses, from her own lips too, but you would see Hensen as "guilty of preying on and deliberately exploiting the emerging sexuality of very young girls (and using his) status and power differential to exact a price from these girls, who with a little more maturity would most likely never have agreed to being used in the manner in which they were."

I wouldn't see either Greer nor Hensen ase paedophiles, but it is interesting that you would fudge your definition to exclude Greer while using it to convict Hensen. There is a gender difference.

Shadow Minister,
Well said!

Bronwyn,

Considering that girls modelling for Henson and their parents knew him, and permission was freely given, I fail to see the manipulation, or any harm to the girls.

Art in its nature explores the limits, and in my time I have seen many works of "art" that in my opinion were either offensive or just plain rubbish. However, the fact that they provided some meaning to others means that they have some merit.

The alternative of only allowing PC artworks would reduce most artwork to "hallmark" like banality.

I fear the work of paedophiles, but fear more the thought police.

Who can forget the feminist attack aimed at muzzling and kneecapping Michael Leunig over his cartoon "Thoughts Of A Baby Lying In A Child Care Centre"? As Leunig has commented later, a lot of opportunities were lost to him from that day for having the temerity to put truth first in commenting on life. Art that disturbs PC is plainly not wanted.

http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/profiles/Transcripts/s1103411.ht

Henson's work has originality and truth like Leunig's, which are what sets it apart in my view from the tired grossness, sensationalism and worst of all, lack of originality of Greer.

Forrest Gump

Hi and thank you for your generous comments.

I don't think politics are relevant, either then or now, the main question being why hasn't Polanski surrendered to authorities and before now.

The US justice system can be relied upon to resolve any alleged questions of unfairness or lack of due process.

No-one is denying him his day in court to present his case, in fact it is guaranteed should he return to the US.

Has he ever denied a sexual offence involving the girl was knowingly committed by him?

Shadow Minister <'Considering that girls modelling for Henson and their parents knew him, and permission was freely given, I fail to see the manipulation, or any harm to the girls.'

I often wonder how those girls will feel later in life when they realise a stranger photographed them nude, and the whole world then checked them out online or on a wall?

Where do we draw the line with painting or photographing nude unrelated children then Shadow Minister?

If we come out and say 'Hey it is ok to do this in the name of art', then you can imagine the free-for-all amongst the paedophile ranks as they all rush to learn how to paint and do photography.

Sorry, but those days are gone, thank goodness.
We need to protect children, not expose them to more danger.

Cornflower

<< I wouldn't see either Greer nor Hensen ase paedophiles, but it is interesting that you would fudge your definition to exclude Greer while using it to convict Hensen. There is a gender difference. >>

I'm not 'fudging' anything, or certainly not to my way of thinking. As far as I'm aware, Greer has written about young boys in a general sense, and as just one aspect of a complex body of work. Henson, on the other hand, has used real life images of very young girls who are very much alive. These girls are more than likely to see things differently as they mature, and will very possibly live with regret at the way their personal journeys of sexual awakening were exploited to make a permanent and very public statement.

I'm not defending Greer in a big way here. I haven't read the book and for all I know it could contain material that would put her work on a similar footing to that of Henson's. From what I know at this stage though, I do not see her writing as representing the same level of personal violation as I do Henson's photographs.

I agree, gender could be an influencing factor to some extent as well. Statistics indicate that women and girls the world over bear the brunt of exploitation in various forms, so I do tend to be a fierce protector of their rights. Rightly or wrongly, I tend to consider men and boys fairly capable of defending themselves. :)

Bromwyn, and All other so-called Prudes,

There is presently a poll going on with regards to
Should Art Galleries display nude photos of young Children
on Ninemsn
the count for yes--13,439 which has risen 597 in the last one and a half hours
the count for no--82,182 which has risen from 73,954 in the last one and a half hours

Must be a lot like youse out there(aye)

Just thought some one might like to know
Have a good life from Dave

DWG,
if you're unable to differentiate between prude & indecent then perhaps you should review your mentality. May I suggest looking at this debate like walking towards a cliff. One little step is insignificant however, keep walking & you'll know. Same goes for Moral.

Individual,
I don't understand the meaing of your post
I wasn't saying anyone was a prude but that word and others of the near same meaning comes up whenever this "Moral" issue raises its head
If you take note of the number for and the number against then you will see that the majority are against it
By the way I voted NO
Because it was worded SHOULD the art gallery BE allowed

Thanks again from Dave

Cornflower says:

"The US justice system can be relied upon to resolve any alleged questions of unfairness or lack of due process."

You must be joking, Cornflower! Have a look at this:

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/20091001-australian-inventor-loses-445-million-microsoft-battle.html

A judge sets aside a jury verdict! Money (Micro$oft money, up to $445M of it, that is) has clearly talked with respect to theft of software ideas and breach of patent in this matter. How much more so if some rich benefactor was to get behind some 'grandstanding' political aspirant hoping to rally support from among the justifiably many who are revolted, be it sanctimoniously or with sincerity, by pedophilia, using the Polanski case as a vehicle? Hell, let's not look at ALL of the facts that may surround the Polanski matter in a TRIAL when there is an admission that has been obtained already. March the guilty bastard in, and send him down! No matter that breach of due process surrounded, maybe even coerced, those admissions in the first place.

Did I mention possible entrapment? Due to the (deliberate?) incompetence that permitted Polanski to flee the jurisdiction in the first place with such serious charges hanging over him, it now has to be considered why the victim does not want Polanski to be returned to the US over this matter. Could it have been that the victim, knowingly or unknowingly at the time, was part of a 'get Polanski' entrapment scheme that depended upon a malicious prosecution to get results? Sad to have to ask that question, but one that GrahamY's assertion that "It's not that relevant that the victim thinks he should be forgiven. While she is one party to the matter, the public also has an interest. ....", in the context of the existence of the plea bargaining system, now makes necessary.

There can now be no winners, least of all the cause of justice. Polanski's belated seizure in Switzerland can only be seen as an attempt to make US law operate extraterritorially before conviction.

DWG,
sincere appologies. I misread/misinterpreted your post.

Individual
No Probs, I thought you might have misread
By the way the last count before they took that poll down was about 89,500 - No
14,500 - Yes
Like i said must be a lot of us "prudes" out there (aye)
Have a good life from Dave

Polanski, IF guilty of these accusations, should unquestionably face consequences for his actions

Correction - he was found, and is quilty. He ran away before he could be incarcerated. Which was not due to "incompetence" as some obtuse writer stated, it was because he once again engaged in criminal behaviour. Giving someone bail is not incompetence it is a caring Christian Act.

Criminals break laws, by definition. He has a criminal mindset, likely due to to his sense of entitlement. Like most Polliwood types.

Triple the original senctence or at least 5 years.

The main issue is that he part of Hollywood. Polliwood attempts to set social mores at every turn. His credentials fit the Hollywood Politically Correct Narrative. Polanski should be thankful he isn't a Southern Baptist.

If so he would be wandering the wilderness now.

The law is not fair in many areas.

Have there been any OLO articles about the short comings of the Laws of Egypt, Syria or Turkey? If not why not?

Quite a few years ago I read the book
"Roman," by Polanski. And I remember the
chapter where he fully described being
arrested on a charge of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a 13 year old.

The young lady in question was neither drugged,
nor seduced by Polanski. She was egged on by
her mother who had ambitions for her daughter
being made as famous as the young actress Nastassia
Kinski.

Polanski agreed to a plea-bargain with a publicity
seeking judge who reneged on his part of the agreement,
and Polanski has been a fugitive from American justice
ever since. He has been happily married for over 18 years
and has several children.

The young lady in question was financially fully
compensated for her dalliance with Polanski - and she
wants the current charges dropped.

Who and for what end is pursuing Polanski now is a
question that needs to be asked.

I'm not condoning paedophilia by any means - and taking
advantage of minors is a criminal offense - however
there's more to this particular situation than meets
the eye - and as we do know celebrities are often
"easy targets."

Foxy you write

'Quite a few years ago I read the book "Roman," by Polanski. And I remember the chapter where he fully described being
arrested on a charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13 year old.'

Do you really believe someone who takes advantage of a 13 year old girl with apparently no remorse would be telling the truth? If he was the mother should be charged along with Polanski. Her act is as bad as his.

Foxy,

Now that OLO has recovered from what had the appearance of a denial of service attack on its servers that prevented viewing or posting for much of yesterday, I can comment on your post.

It is interesting that you observe ".... as we do know celebrities are often 'easy targets.'". I had not followed Polanski's career prior to this current contention, and was not aware of the account he himself gave as to the events that set this matter in train. The whole of this discussion, both here and elsewhere, seems very light on reported facts or claims. Thank you for raising these notes of caution.

Whilst we have only Polanski's word for it that the circumstances were somewhat different to what has been baldly claimed on behalf of the US justice system, its just too easy, under the plea bargaining system that prevails there when a claimed victim (then 13) is represented (by her mother?) as desiring to avoid the need to appear in court and give testimony, for claims and evidence in support of even the 'lesser' charge regarded as being 'acceptable' to escape close scrutiny. The so-called admissions obtained under such a system may well not be worth the paper they are written on.

So, contrary to what Cowboy Joe and others have asserted, Polanski has not been 'found' guilty, but has 'pled' guilty. There is a most important difference. It seems just too convenient that for around 30 years US justice could not take advantage of known opportunities to seek extradition of Polanski, but now that the judge claimed to have engaged in improper conduct of the case has died, that extradition is sought. When you consider the words used by Judge Peter Espinoza that "while he believed there had been 'substantial misconduct' in the case, Polanski's attempts to dismiss the charges would not be heard as long as he remained a fugitive from justice.", perhaps the intent of this extradition has been misunderstood. Could the authorities have been preparing to dismiss the charges, but now find themselves facing a lynch mob?

dwg, in his post of Thursday, 1 October 2009 at 9:00:07 AM refers to an online poll being taken by NineMSN on the question 'Should Art Galleries display nude photos of young Children?'.

There is a need for caution in accepting the results of any online poll, particularly one conducted within the mainstream media. Entities within the MSM invariably have editorial lines that they will be pushing. It is not beyond belief that MSM or other interests could seek to fudge online polls. There is no way members of the news-consuming public can scrutinize the conduct of online polling. It must also be remembered that this question, in the context of the Polanski conundrum that is the subject of this thread, is a red herring. Accepting that a genuine component of such a vote may nevertheless convincingly decide against such display, it is so much easier and safer to (perhaps sanctimoniously) vote about display of nude photos of young children, than it is to address the issues in the Polanski matter.

The opening post raised the question as to whether there existed a defacto social statute of limitations in respect to pedophilia charges. The discussion following has revealed that whilst a probably overwhelming majority favour no such limitations, there is great misunderstanding as to the nature of the legal process whereby admissions are extracted upon which 'guilt' is subsequently assessed or claimed to exist. The upshot has been, that if you search 'Roman Polanski' on Twitter, for example, you will see a lynch mob mentality in full cry. Much more dangerous, given that extradition is being sought not on someone in respect of whom there exists a trial verdict, but on someone whose recorded sentence was only 42 days psychiatric assessment detention, long ago completed, arising out of a plea bargain.

Australians should be very wary of future ramped-up US usage of extradition process. I did not raise the overturning of a US jury verdict in favour of an Australian software author against Microsoft for nothing in a previous post. Offend Microsoft here, get tried there!

Hang on Forrest.

Polanski admitted the crime, then did a runner when it looked like he'd serve jail time.

Why does he deserve any sympathy whatsoever, on the basis of his own testimony?

G'Day All
I was reading an article "Yes, He's talented And He"s a Rapist" written by Lynden Barber.
After reading this article and part of a statement tendered in Court, of the young girl at the time, there is very little difference between Polanski and Ferguson
Ferguson is a low life, Why not Polanski?
I guess it must be that Ferguson was caught sentenced and gaoled before he could escape to somewhere else build a career make a lot of money marry and have a child or two of his own
Ferguson is a low life so too is Polanski
Whether Polanski served his time back then or now what's the difference
Child predators are low life and so are child abusers just because some one has money should make no difference
Thanks have a good life from Dave

I agree dwg, this Polanski guy is as bad as Ferguson, as would be any other convicted paedophile.

I very much doubt that the US courts would go to so much trouble and expence to bring in a suspected (apparently having already pled guilty) paedophile from another country just because he is famous and they want to bring him down!

Whether or not the victims mother condoned or arranged for Polanski to have sex with her daughter to further her career is not relevant.

The girl was 13 for goodness sake. No more excuses.

The comments concerning a politically initiated arrest of, a dare I say it Jewish / polish motivation are e not only naïve but they are embarrassingly stupid.
The Polanski issue has, via traits of a double jeopardy inspired plot, the continued the harassment of an individual under the ploy of justice for the victims of pedophilia. Iitiated by DA Gunson
If the writer attempted to look up the self help groups available to these victims, too numerous to mention here although
Here is link worthy of note!
http://www.nationalalertregister.com/national-alert-registry21.htm
One could easily draw the conclusion Australia was in the hands of radical right wing Christian element of greater malevolence than the so called, evangelistic groups so active in the USA.
What is so annoying to me is that the perception of pedophilia is being associated with the media in such a narrow context as an association by fame rather than actual circumstance.
For this reason alone I would argue that the person making the accusation be as widely publicized and criticized for the wrongful incarceration of the accuse persons, rather than the absolute totalitarian joke that is the legal system In Australia.

Here is a photo of the couple at time of the “alleged rape”.
Remember that Polanski was 45 at the time, and the and the case reads more like a soap opera than a sexual assault.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

The simple fact is that Polanski is still attempting to protect the dignity of the person so central t this case and that the media, and legal system, so paranoid about these circumstance s won’t let it go.
And we have all these ersatz so called anti pedophilic idiots jumping on th band wagon of ignorance and spouting such misleading garbage it’s impossible to tell fact form fabrication.!

thomasfromthecoma
There is no doubt about his guilt
Low Life simple as it is
I suppose you would condone the crap that has gone on with my son as well
I suppose you would condone any other child abuser as well
If the mother or anyone else would allow this to be done to a thirteen year old CHILD is just as guilty as the low life that did the crime
I bet if it was up to Ferguson he wuold say how concerned he is for his victims as well if it was going to get him off the crime he paid so should Polanski
Child Abuse and Child Molestation no forgiveness
The girls statement doesn't seem like she was very much apart of any form of consent and said that the girl was scared of him
Thanks from Dave

dwg stop confusing you oown problesm with polanski. if you actaully can , read , and i assume you can unless, your getting your input this done for you , you would see the obvious level of legal garbage and involvement that has ocurred within the so called legal capabilities of the california legal system . wake up !
ferguson is ferguson , polanski is polanski thats where the resemblance ends

Re CJ Morgan's post of Saturday, 3 October 2009 at 2:55:50 PM.

Polanski was party to a plea bargain with the State of California. According to reports, the terms of that plea bargain were that in exchange for pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse, Polanski was under order of the court to be detained in the State prison system for (up to?) 90 days for psychiatric assessment, with the court agreeing to validate whatever recommendation should arise from that assessment.

In the event Polanski was released by the Department of Corrections after only 42 days a free man. One can only conclude that that release was consistent with the recommendations made, and that there was either a standing authorization, or one specific to the order under which he was detained, for that release. As to whether that order also could be deemed to have the status of a sentence is something I should imagine may well soon be the subject of legal contention in the US: the fact of Polanski's early release seems prima facie evidence that it was so regarded, and is evidence as to the totality of the State of California's part of the plea bargain made.

If release, as opposed to remand for sentencing, occurred (which it did), it would seem that the contention that Polanski is a fugitive from US justice may be nothing more than a post-dated, long-running, face-saving fraud on both the US public and the international community. Make the lie big enough .....?

As to Polanski's testimony, there is none. There was never any hearing. I'll say it again: it was a plea bargain. Plea bargains means public scrutiny of both the basis for the charges, and testimony, is avoided. The only reported testimony is that of Samantha Gailey (now Geimer) before a grand jury, a procedural requirement in the US, as I understand it, for an arrest accompanying the laying of charges, and as such unchallenged as the basis of ALL charges laid, and all but one, withdrawn.

Celebrity blackmail?

http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/something-stinks-in-the-roman-polanski-case-meanwhile-feds-arrest-him-in-switzerland/

'Terminator' to terminate?

thomasfromtacoma
No confusion
The act of Polanski is no different to Ferguson
Polanski is arrested on a US warrant as the crime is a Breach Of US Federal Laws So The US Prosecutors have the right to Prosecute
Sex with Children is a crime
Ferguson Took an underage girl-So did Polanski
Ferguson had sex against that girls wish -So did Polanski
Feguson raped that girl- So did Polanski
Where's the difference- Polanski has money and career
As to my sons case more criminal behaviour than one can put here in 350 words and continued cover ups Why? The person backing the show has money and power
Contact me direct and I am quite happy to send the info
graysond49@yahoo.com
Thanks from Dave

Further to CJMorgan's post of Saturday, 3 October 2009 at 2:55:50 PM, note this wording in a news item:

"By the time Polanski met Geimer, whose mother, Susan Gailey, was dating one of his friends, ....". See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/27/AR2009092700876.html

Does nothing jump out at you?

It could very well be that something like the circumstances summarized in Foxy's post of Thursday, 1 October 2009 at 9:01:32 PM may have actually been what prevailed. If anything like that was occurring, it is also very believable that Samantha Gailey's age may have been misrepresented to Polanski as being more than in truth it was at the time, if indeed he did anything whereby her age was material. All grounds for reasonable doubt. None of it tested under cross-examination.

The only peg upon which the unthinking, or those unable or unwilling to inform themselves as to this case, can hang their hat is the bald wisdom after the event that at the relevant time the subject of the plea admission Samantha Gailey was only 13.

Excused further thought. 'He must be guilty'.

What a perfect 'grandstand' issue for interests, for example, wishing to ramrod acceptance of broader extradition rights of US jurisdictions under the terms of extradition treaties by other countries: what a perfect vehicle for intimidation of politicians across the world; 'if you question extradition, you must be pro-pedophilia'. Heard any Australian politicians utter a word on it, for example?

They should have. A news item from the Canberra Times of 26/06/2007 contained these statements:

"Early one morning in 2002, the Australian Federal Police raided the Griffiths's weatherboard house and arrested Hew for breaking a US law. Hew Griffiths had never even been to the United States. He didn't own a passport."

and;

"In February [2007], two US officials brandishing a one-way travel document bundled Griffiths on to a United Airlines flight to Los Angeles and then to a US jail ahead of his trial in Virginia."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/hew-who-how-an-unsung-aussie-ended-up-in-us-jail/134134.aspx?storypage=0

But a judge in Rhode Island can vacate a jury verdict against Microsoft in favour of an Australian.

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/20091001-australian-inventor-loses-445-million-microsoft-battle.html

Its all about Microsoft, not pedophilia!

On reflection, I was prepared to believe this statement of mine in an earlier post a bit over-the-top:

"If release, as opposed to remand for sentencing, occurred (which it did), it would seem that the contention that Polanski is a fugitive from US justice may be nothing more than a post-dated, long-running, face-saving fraud on both the US public and the international community. Make the lie big enough .....?"

I may have independently have been more correct than I then knew.

I have just done a Twitter search using the term 'extradition'. This is some of what I found in connection with a current extradition being attempted by the US from the UK of a Mr and Mrs Brian Howes on this site:

http://extradition.org.uk/2009/04/27/couple-faces-extradition-over-chemical-sales/

which says, in part:

"I must explain this in more detail as people will not understand it: when an Arrest Warrant arrives from the US in the UK with an indictment the person or persons are arrested and put in front of a Sheriff in Scotland or a Magistrate in England.

The person or persons arrested are not charged or questioned in any way but put in front of judge and REFERRED TO AS FUGITIVES even if you have never been to the US.

Most people arrested on this warrant from the US are transported to court the day after arrest without any legal representation and given only minutes with a duty solicitor who almost always has no experience in Extradition."

The capitalisation emphasis is mine.

Mr Howes, and his wife, are accused of selling chemicals lawfully able to be sold in the UK, over the internet, to US methamphetamine synthesizers, an offence in the US. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/7328974.stm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1751520/the_brian_howes_extradition_case.html

If convicted in the US, they face up to 98 years gaol. I mean, they must be guilty, mustn't they? Thats twice what Polanski faced! And they're FUGITIVES!!

Could it be that the timing of the Polanski arrest, and the attendant lynch mob mentality it has elicited, is intended as a smokescreen and damper of outcry in the UK if the Howes' extradition goes ahead?

Are you completely thicker is this a stupidity ploy dwg.
Polanski so called victim went to the producers 3 time s the third time is he rape allegation.
The family was clearly attempting to extort monies from Polanski s in the settlement application which went through for an undisclosed sum
Yet Polanski remains criminal due to the settlement interpretation. Talk about getting screwed by the system.
The defendant consented to t he advances on each occasion if you read the transcript.
Unfortunately its morons like you that insist on their interpretation s to be the be all an end all that creates the hanging judge dogma so prevalent in society.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26160396-2682,00.html
Just in case you don’t think judges are the only persons capable of being morons explain the above link
Gees Louise how stupid can one person get!

No Thomasfromtacoma, it is you who is misguided (to say the least)!

If Polanski was not guilty of this crime, why did he feel the need to hide from US authorities all these years? Why didn't he just explain the 'injustice' of it all to the US judges years ago?

"The defendant consented to t he advances on each occasion if you read the transcript."
THE DEFENDANT WAS 13 YEARS OLD! She cannot legally give consent to a criminal act at all.

Polanski, like everyone else, knows it is illegal to have sex with a 13 year old girl, whether she says yes or not.
Are you condoning paedophilia if the child is ok with it?

thomasinthecoma
The "Alledged" rape occurred
Be it the girl now a woman gets paid which apparently admitted took a little persauding. When paid, also apparently is when the woman that was a girl was blinded to the law by money.(not much different to thousands out there)
FACT the girl is under 14 there cannot be consent by law to said act
RAPE is the taking of sex without your partners consent
As no consent can be given for said act by one partner RAPE
End Story

Thanks Suzeonline

All the Best from Dave

The problem with you holier than though people is that you cannot interpret the circumstance from your own limited viewpoint.
Polanski was not convicted of rape no matter how many times you say he was.
He admitted to unlawful sexual intercourse, in a plea bargain to settle this case with the minimum of fuss. Read that as mutual consent , NOT RAPE , as you all so erroneosly suggest.
Until a reporter and, no doubt fed by a DA wanting a reputation, (remember frank costigan), reneged on this deal.
I defy any of you so called experts to determine age from appearance, let alone consent.
Rape occurs without consent i.e . . . . unwillingly.
Get your facts straight before you start to interpret the law.
He fled, because the system screwed him, much the same your limited perspective has.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26161270-5006336,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26170802-5006786,00.html

What’d you think the royal commission into corruption, which Atkinson we readily boast is not going to happen, is all about?
The system is corrupt.

Thomasfromthecoma,
I have read enough now to determine that the thing is guilty
I am not interested in all the talk get him to US have him stand trial end of show.

The point of corruption when people stop arguing this and that and say once and for all
Elected members do something about it or next election your not there
Also bring in Citizen Initiated Referenda That would at least put a lttle pressure on the politicians to do something if thier electorate could put them back before the people anytime that they refused to do what people want
Have a good life from Dave

Typical wimpy way out dwg.
The fact that you think there is a democracy in operation in Australia is enough o show your naiveté.
The problem is there isn’t a democracy operating in Australia, and the 2 party systems, whereby a caucus determines agenda should be enough to tell you so.

I'm also having difficulty sorting this one out. I suspect a conclusion would be easier to arrive at if I had a 13 year-old daughter.

Nevertheless, I find some of the attitudes here puzzling.

thomasfromtacoma, you state...

>>Polanski was not convicted of rape no matter how many times you say he was. He admitted to unlawful sexual intercourse, in a plea bargain to settle this case with the minimum of fuss. Read that as mutual consent , NOT RAPE , as you all so erroneosly suggest.<<

Yet it was you who earlier provided the link to the actual grand jury transcript.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

If you read through this to the end, you will find that on a number of occasions, the girl in question says "no".

"I said I wanted to go home"

"No, I think I better go home"

"He reached over and kissed me.And I was telling him 'No' you know, 'keep away'"

"I was just going 'No. Come on. Let's go home'"

"I was going 'No. Come on. Stop it'"

"I was mostly just on and off saying "No. Stop".

And so on...

Does this "read as mutual consent"?

This doesn't resolve the statute of limitations issue, the DA's motivation for resurrecting the case in 2009, the ethics of plea-bargaining or protection from random extradition.

But it does at least seem a reasonably straightforward case of rape, of a minor.

I agree Pericles. While there are issues about statutes of limitations and the why the US government has belatedly decided to pursue Polanski, what is far more worrisome to me is that some people here seem to think that it's OK for him to have had sex with a 13-year old girl and subsequently to have avoided punishment for that crime.

On the facts that have been presented here Polanski pled guilty to the crime as part of a plea bargain, then fled the USA when he thought he'd be sentenced to a term in prison. And on the basis of the girl's testimony to the Grand Jury, it certainly looks like he forced himself on a kid whom he'd drugged deliberately in order to rape.

I honestly wonder how some people here sleep at night.

Thomasinthecoma
It seems to me that you seem to think that it is OK for an Adult male to have sex with CHILDREN
You defend Polanski to no end run people down that say it is wrong
If you are the example of others out there no wonder DoCS and other child safety depts have deaths, abuse, etc in thier agencies

As CJ Morgan Pericles Suzeonline and many others have pointed out The Grand Jury transcripts does not display consent no law gives the right to a 13year old to give consent the Thing admitted it I am no longer going to debate with someone that would try to twist this show to disguise the fact.

With people out there like you no wonder the abuse of my son has gone on the way it has

Thanks to All the good People out there have a good life from Dave

You are quite wrong there Pericles and c j Morgan.

for 1 thing I have a 15 yo daughter and we have a great relationship , in that she can tell me anything she does , and I attribute that to being confidant of her position being treated as an adult in society.
And that includes telling the truth.
Next if that that sound like a rape dialogue to you, then you got to be kidding me.
For one thing I can’t believe there is much dialogue in a rape, so you can interpret the dialoged another way.
But you doubt you still insist on the scenario being a rape even though, the parents brought this child to Polanski 3 times.
Why?
Would they do this, would be a wise question at this stage.
Not jump on the trail by media bandwagon, and prejudge the issues before it starts.
I am all for by pedophiles getting the book thrown at them but you can’t put Polanski in this category.
Your naiveté still showing I’m afraid.

This isn't personal, thomasfromtacoma.

I am genuinely interested in the fact that you are able to read that transcript, count the number of occasions that the child in question said "no", and still believe that Polanski's actions did not constitute rape.

>>Your naiveté still showing I’m afraid.<<

Calling me naive isn't going to divert my curiosity, I'm afraid.

Rather than simply chuck insults around, which is easy, perhaps we should hear from you how many times a child has to say "no" before you accept that she is an unwilling participant.

Maybe you should ask your daughter.

Ask her, if she were first fed champagne, then given a quaalude, whether she believes that even under those circumstances, one "no" should be perfectly adequate.

Or, let's look at it another way.

Your daughter comes home one afternoon, and shares with you (because she can tell you anything she does) the fact that she had been given champagne, then a quaalude, then sodomized.

What would you say?

Would your question be "so, did you say "no" enough times? Only ten times? My dear, that's nowhere near enough. You need to say it at least [enter thomasfromtacoma's number here] times. Less than that, it's clearly consent, I'm afraid."

But it doesn't even appear to be about numbers with you, does it?

>>For one thing I can’t believe there is much dialogue in a rape, so you can interpret the dialoged another way.<<

In which case, your question to your daughter would be:

"What, my dear? You didn't say no? No dialogue at all? Well, that's obviously rape, then"

That seems to be a total inversion of reality.

Or at least, your position requires a little more clarification, don't you think?

Pericles the impersonal huh
What a joke you are.
Firstly my daughter wouldn’t be out attempting to extort millions form a Hollywood film director.
Secondly my daughter wouldn’t be in such a situation because she has the integrity of not attempting to lie to a court.
So why don’t you jump on the bandwagon, the mind numbing stupidity, of the anti Semitic Nazis that want Polanski incarcerated.
Its cases such as this and blind justice simpletons like yourself take the interpretation of circumstance to such extremes.

This article would be very useful reading for thomasfromtacoma and others who sympathise with Polanski on this issue:

http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/

Enough.

Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 6 October 2009 9:33:00 AM:

"I honestly wonder how some people here sleep at night."

So uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, eh?

O Lord High Dymo, Thread-Labeller-in-Chief of OLO, Imperial Arbiter of Morality, and Final Determinator of All that is Hateful, to thy infallible judgement we all now kowtow.

Pigs.

There is no question as to the existence of any statute of limitations, either legally or socially, with respect to pedophilia. There is none.

What the opening post of this discussion asked was why there had not been much public commendation of the arrest and proposed extradition of Polanski back to the US. GrahamY may have well got his answer from this discussion, but I suspect it is not the one he expected. That answer is that far more Australians see through a US judicial process ethically corrupted by the plea-bargaining system, the weasel-worded confusions of the term 'statutory rape' as distinct from 'unlawful sexual intercourse', the laxity of custody and/or bail in what is now contended to have been a very serious crime, the apparent lack of pursuit of persons perhaps accessory to the crime (the mother?) at the time, and the calculated opportunism of the timing of this attempted extradition as a diversion from other far more unjust extraditions to the US of persons who have never been to the US nor committed any crime in the country where they live.

For heaven's sake, people, the testimony to the grand jury is not fact, simply very serious allegation. It is taken simply to justify the issue of the warrant for the arrest of the accused and the laying of charges. It is not subject to cross-examination on behalf of the accused.

The apparent predilection of a 43-year-old man for young girls may rightly be almost universally deplored, but in this case it is perhaps understandable that what was once an 8-year-old child wandering Nazi-occupied Poland alone may have perversly sought to recapture a lost youth.

CJ Morgan
Thanks, That article explains near every question asked about Polanski's case.

Thomasinthecoma might just read it.

I now agree
Enough

Thanks have a good life from Dave

<< it is perhaps understandable that what was once an 8-year-old child wandering Nazi-occupied Poland alone may have perversly sought to recapture a lost youth. >>

By helping himself to the bodies (willing or not) of young girls?

NO, Forrest!

A thousand times no.

Many children were and still are orphaned and abandoned during times of war or what passes for peace - they do not all grow up to "recapture" their youth through the sexual occupation of the bodies of children.

Polanski could've served his sentence in the USA at the time of his crime and still gone on with his doubtless brilliant career. I am a big fan of his movies. However, unlike some, I can also distinguish between the artist and the lascivious man.

You're right Forrest, I have been a bit surprised at the level of support on this forum for Polanski. Mind you, my primary intention in starting the thread was to start a conversation. That's what forums are all about. But I long ago gave up being overly surprised at what my fellow humans believe - that's why I do polling, because I find it often impossible to predict human behaviour.

That having been said, the polls on this issue are pretty unequivocal - the majority reckon Polanski is in the wrong. The curious thing is how the literary, arts and media establishments appear to be prepared to cut him slack that they wouldn't anyone else.

One of my theories is that a lot of positions that we humans hold are post hoc justifications for a decision we have already made. The responses to this issue seem to support that contention

If this is too long, fast forward to about 6 min 15 seconds.

Anyhow, I thought this PJTV Video: "Hollywood's Lame Defense of Roman Polanski" was interesting and hope you do too.

http://www.pjtv.com/v/2517

Insightful, articulately explores just how perverse Polanski may be.

Unlikely the Polliwoods will be accused of being hypocritical, now or in the future, as they do not have any values that can not be morphed, modified or nullified depending on the Situation of course.

Polliwood can be hyper-critical of any political or social event (particularly if about Attractive, Educated, Female, Rural Dwelling, Fishn n Huntn, Christians)but if the great unwashed, movie going drones dare to criticise the elite, perverse and talented R Polanski, well you better look out.

After all Whoopie has decried from the TV Appellate Bench that it wasn't "Rape, rape" gesticulations of quote marks you can visualise.

Is it possible to imagine the scale of their outrage if Polanski were Father Piljek for example? It would be relentless, after all the Father would be a hypocrite.

But we can not accuse Polliwood types of being hypocritical because they do not possess any non-negotiable ethical values. Except 1 rule conservatives = evil. Democrats = everything that = political correctness.

Thomasfromtacoma<"...for 1 thing I have a 15 yo daughter and we have a great relationship , in that she can tell me anything she does , and I attribute that to being confidant of her position being treated as an adult in society."

Your daughter is not an adult at 15 years old Thomas, and trust me, no 15 year old girl tells their father everything they do!
Your naivity is astonishing.

As a father of a 15 year old girl Thomas, I am even more amazed that you take the position that you do on the paedophile Polanski.

In my opinion, and obviously the opinion of the US courts, the guy is a paedophile- a rapist of children.

Then you spit out this little gem<"...anti Semitic Nazis that want Polanski incarcerated."
Ok, so now it is the rest of us 'nazi's' against the Jewish paedophile is it? A cheap shot Thomas.

Suze
Don't let him get to you while ever anyone speaks against Polanski we will just be labelled "Nazi" Jew haters by this idiot

I suffer from depression from the hurt that children face and was assessed as such

This depression is only growing because of my son's abuse and the increase in child abuse in all forms

Yeah, we have had differences, so what, but with this child abuse and peadophilia you have made yourself clear on it

You owe no explanation to anyone for standing against this shite in society

As they have said to me stay strong but it is so bloody hard at times

Take care all the best from Dave

Well said forest Gump. It’s about time people realized that comment on a website no matter who organizes it is just that comment, no judgment no jury. Yes dwg I read the other links that’s why I am more informed than your obviously depression related spiel thank god your eligible for jury duty in the states otherwise who would hang all these called child molesters.
I you remember the background to Polanski his wife was murder by the e Manson gang, pregnant and they cut the child from the mother no doubt in a cult type ceremony. Did he bring that up in his defense yet you want to by bringing a man hose parents were tortured a murdered b the Germans. What kind of person are you. You say your son that as somehow molested I presume yet you don’t give any details and you expect Polanski to go through the anguish of his background .And your depressed!! What do yo think that might do to person? Christ almighty wakes up to the real world monsters not you depression induced scenarios of what might be.
Your all weak gutted if yo don’t have the audacity to see the obvious and not the media quasi- judicial related dealings of this Hollywood trial. Insisted you lap up the irresponsible doodling s of a nether Jew bating unruliest that and I quote GrahamY “that’s why I do polling, because I find it often impossible to predict human behavior. “
Since when do you have the god given right to predict human nature you pompous ass.
There is no statute of limitation for murder or pedophilia which is only right.
However there is a limit on due process, double jeopardy ensures or is supposed to ensure that.
Of course Australia doesn’t have DJ laws because they’re still back in the arc when it comes to the judiciary.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/6110842/search-continues-for-missing-qld-cop/
Please explain this one, oh holier than though ones,
And as for c j Morgan you obviously only want people to agree with you rather than observe any political- judicial process.

Thomasfromthecoma
Yes, I would hang the child molesting bastards
Yes, Well aware that Polanski has had a bad deal as a young person
does that give him the right to then use the young girls that he has the way he has NO
He's an admitted Rock-Spider
No room for them in society the world is already over populated
You wake up and grow a brain
From Dave

Contact direct graysond49@yahoo.com

You’re wasting your money on that shrink dwg.
What I would suggest is that you’re indeed right, all guilty child molesters should be at least chemically castrated and hanging is too good for them. Having g said that I don’t believe that Polanski deserves this fate it’s as simple a stat and the reason is that Australasian judicial system is so badly flawed that these so called political based public cements we call servants will us this law to remove all political opponents to their way of thinking i.e. Nazis .
Wake up and read between the lies oops lines..

It was enough.

The scene from the film 'Brave Heart' came before Forrest's eyes. The old, wounded, dying Scot, lying back and saying he could now die happy, after a successful stoush with the Sassenach that had until recently lorded it over the Scots, taking their women as soon as they were of marriageable age under the doctrine of Prima Nocta, among other things.

Forrest had to accept Fractelle's rebuke in her post of Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 2:51:34 PM. It was one of the three free kicks she had earned on that other thread. He could understand Fractelle's sensitivity in this matter of the Polanski extradition. She had good cause for her vehement detestation of sexual exploitation of women. If only she could be brought to understand that Forrest wasn't trying to excuse what Polanski was accused of doing, simply to ensure that he received the benefit of due process of law.

It WAS enough. Forrest knew he was winning. The change from the capitalised shouted NO to the lower case 'no' in 'a thousand times no' said it all. That little seed of doubt, that slight betrayal of the realization that what she felt was more understandable anger than righteous indignation in this case. There was seldom ambiguity in Fractelle's writing. There was, too, the use of the words 'willing or not' which at last opened the door to the prospect that maybe there had been willingness involved. All that now remained was to get acceptance of the possibility that Polanski may have been deceived as to Samantha Gailey's age, and it would be game, set, and match for the cause of due process of law. There would be room for reasonable doubt.

Forrest just knew Fractelle wouldn't knowingly run with the rest of the huge lynch mob that were busily basking in the warmth of their own self-righteousness, meanwhile mindlessly baying Polanski's guilt like a pack of hounds on a runaway slave hunt. They were just displaying simple blood lust. Go Kunta Kinte!

Yes, enough.

What will be achieved in bringing Roman Polanski
to trial - apart from giving publicity, power
and control to the American judicial system?

Even if it were possible to conduct a fair hearing
31 years after the alleged rape was committed, what
will be achieved in forcing the victim to re-live
the experience so publicly in court, when she has
repeatedly said that she wants these charges dropped.

Can justice be achieved through a process which violates
the most fundamental due process rights of both the accused
and the victim?

Why is Polanski being targeted now - he's travelled through
Switzerland so many times in the past without being
arrested. Why now?

Can there be justice under retroactive laws when the defendent
has been granted almost no opportunity to protect his legal
rights? Is justice itself not being victimized here?

Thomasfromspatonme <'...that’s why I am more informed than your obviously depression related spiel thank god your eligible for jury duty in the states otherwise who would hang all these called child molesters."

You are a disgrace Tommy! Using another person's mental illness as a weapon against their beliefs! Shame on you.

Foxy, we will have to agree to disagree on this Polanski issue.
As far as I am concerned, no amount of elapsed time or any hidden agenda of law agencies can negate the crime this guy did.
He drugged and had sex with a 13 year old girl! That fact is not in dispute at all.

The fact he never returned to the US, where I assume his poor dead wife and baby are buried, tells me he had something to hide and wasn't prepared to face the courts after his admission of guilt.

He deserves everything he gets.

go back to treblinka and tell the jews suze
see i can make inane rhymes
about poeples calls signs.

The keen-eyed and intuitive gaze of the warrior was in evidence as Forrest read Fractelle's latest missive, he detected the internal conflict that preceded her words.

The questions, would Polanski receive a fair trial?

Weighed against the fact; Polanski sodomised an under-aged girl by 20th C standards and values; Prima Nocta an anachronism.

A line needs be drawn somewhere. Willing or no, victim or complicit, a young girl's life was changed at the whim of a successful artist; tortured perhaps, innocent most certainly not.

Fractelle notes sadly that esteemed CEO of OLO has not the vision of the warrior-wordsmith, and misses target. Once again Fractelle has proved too difficult for the conservative and, self-admitted, confused OLO editor.

In conclusion; no exclusion for artists, the law must be seen to act, and sundry other clichés may be applied.

Sad for all. Young girls still weep.

After reading as much as I could
The reason Polanski came to the notice of the US Court system is that the girl now a woman wasn't paid her compensation promised by Polanski
The girl now a woman went to the Courts to enforce the payment and when the Courts upheld her payment with interest Polanski paid her
Only after this payment was made the girl now a woman said that she didn't want it to go any further
TO LATE the can of worms was opened now the US Courts want the Law upheld
Further the Swiss consider he is still a flight risk as they refused bail pending extradition because of that very reason

Further after the abuse that has been metred out on my Son I should say it is all forgiven it's alright
If that is anybodies thinking then rot in hell
Have a good life from Dave

PS thanks Suzie

What has clearly not occurred to you, thomasfromtacoma, is that your conclusion that Polanski has done no wrong has exactly the same validity as that of someone who believes every word against him.

It is not a better view, a smarter view, a more considered view or a more logical view.

It is just your personal take on the situation, that's all.

And all your bluff and bluster cannot hide this reality.

>>Its cases such as this and blind justice simpletons like yourself take the interpretation of circumstance to such extremes<<

Leaving aside the pointless and irrelevant insult that seems to be your stock-in-trade, my concern here has nothing to do with Polanski's guilt or innocence.

I was merely looking for clarification on your definition of rape.

>>Polanski was not convicted of rape no matter how many times you say he was. He admitted to unlawful sexual intercourse, in a plea bargain to settle this case with the minimum of fuss. Read that as mutual consent , NOT RAPE , as you all so erroneosly suggest.<<

And my question - which you still have not answered - was "how many times a child has to say "no" before you accept that she is an unwilling participant?"

A subsidiary question is now on the table, prompted by your suggestion that...

>>I can’t believe there is much dialogue in a rape<<

In order to signal her unwillingness, does a child a) speak up and say "no", as the grand jury transcript suggests that she did, or b) keep quiet, on the basis that rape contains no dialogue?

I'd be particularly interested in your daughter's response. Have you shared your views on rape with her, by the way? Does she agree, that saying "no" is irrelevant?

The term pedophilia (or pedophilia) has a range of definitions. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

http://www.sarahweinman.com/confessions/2009/09/on-polanski.html

So that where California law stands or doesn’t stand at the time of the offence.
So warm up you r hangman’s noose you retrograde retards and ensure that the law is backdated so Polanski gets the chair. I am sure that will satisfy only the hardened of you o called enlighten ones.
In the Mean time whilst you sit back in your armchair explain this one.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26172085-2682,00.html

Apparently you can rape anyone in South Australia if they’re too drunk to say no
What joke!

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26173380-5005962,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26172488-5005962,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26173382-5007060,00.html

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/6110842/search-continues-for-missing-qld-cop/

Just few headlines making news in Orstrailya The lucky country
Pigs arse!
What freedom of speech
What legal system
What democracy
I have yet to see an example of Australian democracy that even come close to that allowed in the USA.

the probelm is i havent said polanski is innocent peuriles
just that he isnt a pedophile

Are you sure, thomasfromtacoma?

>>the probelm is i havent said polanski is innocent peuriles<<

But whoever wrote the following dribble clearly thought he was.

>>Are you completely thicker is this a stupidity ploy dwg. Polanski so called victim went to the producers 3 time s the third time is he rape allegation. The family was clearly attempting to extort monies from Polanski s in the settlement application which went through for an undisclosed sum Yet Polanski remains criminal due to the settlement interpretation. Talk about getting screwed by the system. The defendant consented to t he advances on each occasion if you read the transcript.<<

Signed by - thomasfromtacoma.

That would seem to be a little at odds with your new claim, wouldn't it?

Incidentally, since you have reminded me. Where exactly is the bit in the transcript that indicates she "consented to the advances on each occasion?"

To even the most casual reader, she said "no" on at least a dozen occasions.

Perhaps you are one of those guys that believe that "no" really means "I'm gagging for it, big boy".

Still no word from your daughter, I notice.

You have told her, haven't you, that in order to prove rape, she shouldn't indulge in "dialogue"? And that saying "no" is in fact a form of consent?

Good, fatherly advice, that.

Do let us know how she feels about it, there's a good chap.

well well well pueril has a soft spot
pity it isnt fort the truth
get it through yor thickhead
she lied a dozen times you ass!

Still ducking and weaving I see, thomasfromtacoma.

>>get it through yor thickhead she lied a dozen times you ass!<<

And you know this... how?

Admit it, you're speculating, aren't you?

And as I said before, my question has nothing to do with Polanski's guilt or innocence.

You made some statements about rape that piqued my curiosity, and which you still have not explained.

You appear to reject the common notion that "no" means "no".

And have substituted the child's right to protest with "I can’t believe there is much dialogue in a rape"

That's what intrigues me, as well as whether your daughter agrees with your definitions.

So far, all we have from you is piss and wind.

thomasfromtacoma: Re; paedophilia, <"it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.">

Paedophilia is a clinical term for people who are attracted to pre-pubescent bodies. However, many children of both sexes and all ages are sexually assaulted by people who are not clinically classifiable as paedophiles. They are referred to as opportunistic child sexual abusers. The difference is that they are not primarily or only attracted to children; to them the child (or anyone else) is not a separate person with needs, hopes, dreams or human worth - any person with whom they have sex, whether adult or child, is just an object of gratification. The vast majority of opportunistic child abusers and other sexual offenders are misogynists.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hKiRiF_Gu-IC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=misogynists+are+often+child+sexual+abusers&source=bl&ots=iHM4gzm7wW&sig=1wDF945FNX8fMQwufd4wDhKVbYU&hl=en&ei=3ZXNStvtCpHqsQOi9o2xBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false

How you can read any of that testimony and not feel empathy for that child is alarming, to put it mildly. That poor kid; what an awful position to be in. Btw: I fear for any child in your care.

Pericles - Great posts - clever and insightful. Also Dave and others - thank goodness some people here are decent folk and can see through all of this sad muck. Keep up the good fight :)

Pynchme
Thanks, that is a very interesting read but the trouble is it raised more issues with my Son in my mind than it eased as now I must somehow get to speak to my boy as all the secrecy surrounding him raises to many questions
These bastards that prey on the kids are what I and thirteen others swore an alliegence aqainst in 1974 at Parra Gaol the trouble is there are now only two of us left
Somehow I have got to expose the corruption around my Son's case and with the crap that is going on up here but I am growing old and my body near worn out and the other one that is left is near at his end(72 with bowel cancer)
Somehow,someone will stop this shite in the society I just don't know who
Anyway thanks for the read
Have a good life from Dave

PS if you ever want to know more graysond49@yahoo.com

Welcome, I see we have a few more witch hunters in the fold. Good to see.
The level of comment has now degraded attempting involving a 15 yo into this discussion, which was no doubt is peurilicles the purées purpose, to involve underage comment, so much for adult observation.
So what makes you different from a fascist pedophile, peurilicles? You make dwg the depressed the same offer and I will show my daughter the articles and then see if she wishes to comment although why she would bother is beyond me.
Notice I said show, and, see not like your fascist witch hunting behavior.
We all know what fascism is Pericles don’t we, old chap, although as you obviously don’t,
Feel FREE to look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Now my reply, you ALL better go read “The Crucible” by Arthur Miller, but as you probably won’t (unlike me, with your links)
So I will give you a precise into the substance of the real life witch hunts so prevalent in our society, and be sure of this one thing, the Polanski case is nothing more than a witch hunt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible
I will put this precise in bold large font type so even Pericles the pure, can read it, however, understand it I doubt.
The play deals with McCarthyism no not Charlie the wooden dummy Pericles, but Joseph, (the senator from Wisconsin. Who is obviously similar to but not as limited Atkinson the South Australian attorney General?
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26161507-2682,00.html
Anyway back to the Crucible which is only an analog for fascism.
Just in case you all have lost the plot by now.
The play refers to the Salem witch trials which, again simplistically, involved children testifying against their parents to avoid the torture they knew would eventuate. Many people were burned for their” obvious guilt”, during this legal court sanctioned process.
Starting to sound familiar anyone?
I doubt it you bunch of book burning Nazis.

I'm just a little puzzled why you bring The Crucible into the discussion, thomasfromtacoma.

The point that you ignore - or perhaps forgotten - is that my questions to you have nothing to do with witch-hunts. Unless of course you feel that you are the witch in question...?

But that's just normal everyday paranoia, I can assure you.

>>So what makes you different from a fascist pedophile, peurilicles?<<

I can think of a few small indicators. One, that I am more anti- than pro-fascist. Two, that I have no inclination towards paedophilia. But I guess that, given the logic that you apply to these matters, these facts wouldn't particularly disqualify me in your eyes.

>>The level of comment has now degraded attempting involving a 15 yo into this discussion, which was no doubt is peurilicles the purées purpose, to involve underage comment, so much for adult observation.<<

Just a quick note on this.

Who was it, exactly, who introduced your 15 year-old daughter into this conversation?

>>for 1 thing I have a 15 yo daughter and we have a great relationship, in that she can tell me anything she does, and I attribute that to being confidant of her position being treated as an adult in society.<<

Once again, thomasfromtacoma, you cannot have it both ways.

You say she is treated as an adult on the one hand, but now she is only able to provide "underage comment".

There is too much confusion in your head for you to be taken seriously. You are confused about what constitutes rape, and you are confused as to whether your daughter is a child or an adult.

No wonder you also confuse a discussion on the statute of limitations, the motivation of a Californian DA, the ethics of plea-bargaining and the complexities of extradition, with an Arthur Miller play on McCarthyism.

Although you presumably noticed that in real life John Procter was over sixty, while Abigail Williams was eleven.

So it might have made a pretty good play about the corrupting effects of paedophilia too, mightn't it?

Oh what a surprise! one of Polanski's backers just happened to be a French Culture Minister who liked sodomizing young boys. It says it all really. No doubt all the arty farties will try and defend him also.

http://www.watoday.com.au/world/furore-over-ministers-sex-with-brothel-boys-20091009-gplp.html

True to form the only one that doesn’t get it its Pericles the puerile.
You Orstralians just sit back and get your $4000 bucks per child social security while the real peds out there proliferate.
Why
Because you’re judicial system sucks
Why
Because your dole bludging society demands it.
How many underage pregnancies are the in South Africa oops Orstrailya.
Wiki says 21 per 1000 that’s about 2% just in case you can’t add up Pericles the pure, and I doubt it , as the book burning , you no doubt were involved in , took up to much of your time
Here’s a joke see if you can figure it out Pericles the puerile
A pregnant 13, year old Orstralian, goes to her sister and says mummy what’s pedophile?

Pinch me if I’m lying but you are a complete moron if you think that my daughters in danger of anything but good education and thoughtful logical comment. Something I have yet to see from the trash replies in this article so far, apart from the insightful comments from forest Gump and the like the rest of you can go to a well deserve hell, and burn baby burn
And Pericles the putrid go annoy someone else you r obviously infatuated with 15 yo girls
Runner it’s obvious where you spend your time on the internet with link like that, so take my advice and stop annoying Te people who care.

What joke you ossies are.
Amen and RIP this article

Runner says:

"It says it all really."

and gives a link to an item by Paolo Totaro in 'WA Today', for which I thank him.

Its very first paragraph tells us that Frederic Mitterrand's predilections are not news, having been revealed four years ago in "... a bestseller, critically acclaimed and widely read.", and, in an attempt to explain why it has again become news, claims that it "... sparked a national storm after a political opponent read extracts on national TV ...".

The problem is that we here in Australia do not know whether there really is any 'national storm' in France as claimed, but even if there is, the hallmarks of a 'beat up' are all over this reportage. (Why there would need to be such a beat-up is an even more pertinent question.)

So what your 'It says it all really' is, is an attempt at ascribing guilt by association to Polanski because Frederic Mitterrand, whose confession to conduct in this respect has long been known, has, again claimedly, "enthusiastic[ally] defen[ded].. the film director". In the process of this reprehensible way of pursuing justice, you may be seriously prejudicing the chances of fair hearings of other persons facing extradition accused by the US justice system of offences utterly unrelated to pedophilia. You might read this:

http://bit.ly/qrRcb

The important point to remember, whether or not all or any 'arty farty types' rush to defend Frederic Mitterrand, is that Frederic Mitterrand does not stand in need of defending, whereas Roman Polanski's (and potentially anyone's) right to due process does. Much of the presumption of guilt with respect to Polanski here is based upon his being a fugitive from US justice. What if in truth that was not so? It would make his seizure and detention unlawful, for a start. Could the claim itself be a great big lie?

It is all about extradition, which is what the beating up of the quite unsurprising anti-pedophilia lynch mob mentality surrounding Polanski that we are seeing is, in my opinion, meant to smokescreen or even uncritically justify.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3050#73310

thomasfromtacoma: <<...the only one that doesn’t get it its Pericles...>>

He's not the only one, I'm afraid. I really have no idea what your gratuitously abusive and logically inconsistent rants on this thread are about, beyond the fact that you seem to think that it was OK for Polanski to drug and rape a 13-year old girl.

Forrest, did you read the 'Slate' article to which I linked some days ago? The facts of the case aren't disputed by Polanski - as is evidenced by his plea bargain. In terms of due process, he was charged soon after the event and skipped bail - so I don't see that there's any real issue there.

As for why the US authorities have belatedly decided to extradite him, perhaps it's a product of Polanski's recent attempt to have the charges against him dropped?

Incidentally, I'm probably one of the 'arty-farty' types whom Graham and you might expect to defend Polanski, but I'm afraid that I still think that he should face the music for the illegal and loathsome acts that he has admitted.

Some time shortly after his release after only 42 days of the up to 90 days for which the California court had ordered Polanski to undergo psychiatric assessment, he was able to leave the US. The sparse reporting of this period tells us that he initially arrived in the UK, from which he again departed after only a day, for France. We are told Polanski's citizenship is dually Polish and French.

That being so, should we not infer that Polanski's passport at the time he was resident in the US would have been either Polish or French? Given that Poland at that time was still part of the Soviet bloc, and that Polanski had first, after leaving Poland, lived in France, I would plump for his passport in 1978 being French. Given in turn that France does not extradite its citizens, upon Polanski's arrest under the grand jury warrant, would he not have had his passport seized, whether or not he was considered a flight risk? What were the standard procedures with respect to seizure of passports of aliens appearing before US courts, I wonder? One would think it would have been automatic whether or not bail was involved.

Are there any reports of him having used a false passport to leave the US, enter the UK, and then enter France? The French answer would have to be the most authoritative at this time, and could still be checked, presumably.

Could it be that at the time of his leaving the US jurisdiction Polanski was not in fact a fugitive, but that he was SUBSEQUENTLY branded as being so by a judge that may have been attempting to cover up possible procedural mistakes that may have resulted in Polanski's inadvertent release? Polanski himself may never have been in a position to know his true status may have been, for be it ever so short a period of time, that of a free man. After all, he is said to have learned of the intention of the judge to break the deal in sufficient time to 'flee'.

Well if you’re willing to admit complete stupidity your
Totally pathetic, Gestapo book burning morons.
Let’s just hang the pedophile because you say so.
Your just creeps under the banner of pedophile phobic cretins
Good riddanc

Sorry CJMorgan, our posts crossed; I wasn't meaning to ignore your questions.

Yes, I did read the 'Slate' article to which you provided a link, on the day you posted it. I had been most impressed by the brevity of your post, and anticipated something most definitive and convincing coming from the link. I was singularly disappointed upon reading its content. Nothing there I wasn't already aware of, other than the assertion that 'unlawful sexual intercourse' is actually synonymous with 'statutory rape'.

However, lest I had missed anything, I have just read it again, and visited all the internal links. I am still no more impressed. I did pick up on 18, yes, EIGHTEEN, having been the legal age of consent in California since 1913. I was surprised, to put it mildly, to find it that high. I wonder how many under-age pregnancies occur in California, and whether as a consequence of the high age of consent 'unlawful sexual intercourse' has come to be routinely dealt with in a blase manner, and largely looked upon as simply a commonplace infringement to be typically resolved without law enforcement agencies getting involved.

I was astounded to see the claim that judge Rittenband had been shown, in ex parte discussion of the case, what purported to be a contemporary photograph of Polanski with his arms around two purportedly inappropriately young girls, purportedly in MUNICH. I assume that means Munich, GERMANY. How was any testimony ever going to be taken from them as to either their ages or what the circumstances were at the time the photograph was taken?

The reference to bail is an assertion that there was bail. I wonder whether the paper trail would verify that? If so, why was his passport not withdrawn? Declared fugitive after the event?

Fractelle,

I'm not counting your last post as a free kick. It was more like a nudge from a stockinged foot under a table. You're capable of better than that. Makes me feel like Georgie Porgie pudding and pie, who kissed the girls, and made them cry!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3050#73526

Forrest

Coulda, shoulda, woulda never played your game, with your rules, your goal posts - what did I expect? That you would play the ball?

Polanski sodomised a 13 year girl - the selfishness of such an act is beyond understanding, clearly wasn't thinking of her early sexual experience. He was charged with statutory rape and has yet to serve his sentence. Irrespective of how deprived and unfortunate his life may have been, women and girls are not objects for the solace of injured men.

CJ M

Am as puzzled as you by GY's comments:

<< That having been said, the polls on this issue are pretty unequivocal - the majority reckon Polanski is in the wrong. The curious thing is how the literary, arts and media establishments appear to be prepared to cut him slack that they wouldn't anyone else.

One of my theories is that a lot of positions that we humans hold are post hoc justifications for a decision we have already made. The responses to this issue seem to support that contention. >>

As a working member of the "literary, arts and media establishment", I have to wonder to whom GY was referring? Thomasfromtacoma? Apart from Forrest 'Quixote' Gump, he is the only OLO participant who has approved of Polanski's use of an underage girl's body.

I guess, GY likes to stick to his "post hoc justifications for a decision (he has) already made". Must be really pi$$ed that the pro-Henson crowd have made such distinctions between art and sexual abuse.

Cheers

Response
Sorry folks for the backward jaunt.

Let's be perfectly clear IMO what Polanski on the surface did is Wrong, and bloody Wrong again! If guilty in court then the law should act accordingly.

In my original post I was answering GY's question "WHEN IS PAEDOPHILIA FORGIVABLE" I have difficulties absolutes/ immutable laws. Especially since the age of consent differs between cultures (clearly one size doesn't fit all).

I merely suggested that not all "paedophilia" cases are sensibly cut and dry. By that I mean that there IS a victim as such, that needs protection. This is opposed to some 'legal' sexual relationships that do need protection. e.g. the predatory Executive and his barely legal naive sex-a-taries . I suggested the crime was power abuse. Polanski actions if proved were/are this and abominable.

I offered the tragic tale of the 15yo had been on the streets since 12.....she was an occasional prostitute. She was hardly naive. SHE argued before, during and after court that she wasn't a victim rather she chose him.

To suggest that this girl had the same life maturity to a the average closeted Muslim or catholic school debutante of the same age is ludicrous. To me the common element between Polanski and the exec but differs with the 15 yo (nearly 16 at the time of arrest) was the lack of the victim, all cases involved sex. In the latter case the law in its rigidity made two tragic victim where there was arguably none. Again the above caps question no more.
In the two topics that so horribly shocked StG I did NOT advocate DECRIMINALISATION of sex based crimes merely a change in the manner Law treats them.
It's inexcusable that he believes his poor judgement and limited comprehension gives him license to imply that I am a pervert. That is wrong and LIBELLOUS.

I have often argued it is just short of obscenely unfair to judge other people by your standards/life experience given you don't know/share their limitations/circumstances.
TPP and Ludwig both grasped my point and intentions.

That's better, Fractelle!

I can't let you have it as a free kick, though. There is something in your post I MUST contest. This:

"Thomasfromtacoma? Apart from Forrest 'Quixote' Gump[p], he is the only OLO participant who has approved of Polanski's use of an underage girl's body."

Please don't try to verbal me, Fractelle. I do not approve of anyone's use of any under-age girl's body. Never have. Nor do I believe women and girls should be objects for the solace of injured men. But talk's cheap: I have no way of proving this.

If I recall correctly, Fractelle, you have claimed elsewhere to have spent some time in the USA. You're very lucky to have got back alive if you spent much time outdoors in the south-west. The reason? Rattlesnakes. The rattle is in the tail of the snake: its function is to arrest the attention of the prey; make it stand still. Its in the head where the danger lies: the fangs and venom glands. Its the head that strikes, when the prey stands still.

The Polanski case is a rattle.

Extradition, rendition, and the wholesale abuse, or denial, of due process of law within and by executive and judicial authorities in the US is the head, and where the strike comes from.

How do we know the girl was sodomised? Because someone outside of a trial process has said so. How do we know Polanski knew she was only 13? We don't, because he has never been cross-examined on that. How do we know the miserable despicable little deviant 'likes' very young women in general, and used this one in particular? BECAUSE HE HIMSELF HAS SAID SO, in a BOOK! WE KNOW WHAT HE THINKS LIKE! Therefore we know he must have done it. He copped a plea, didn't he? Isn't that as good as a confession? Then the dirty deviant skips bail (he musta had bail, mustn't he?), becomes a fugitive.

A fugitive with a passport.

The public transfixed.

Foxy asks, in her post of Wednesday, 7 October 2009 at 9:44:42 PM:

"Why is Polanski being targeted now - he's travelled through
Switzerland so many times in the past without being
arrested. Why now?"

Together with unmasking Runner's reprehensible attempt to impute guilt by association, it helped me to what I think is a correct understanding of the role this attempt at extradition may be intended to fulfil. As viewers will be able to see if they visit this thread, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3128#73766 , there has been an attempt at extradition of two UK citizens to the US under Britain's extremely one-sided Extradition Act 2003.

I think the reason Polanski has been targeted at this juncture has to do with the US attempting to secure extraditions of persons under agreements that the public, both in the US and abroad in the country in question, are starting to view as excessively one-sided. With Polanski the US has an 'obviously guilty pervert', now being condemned by words out of his own mouth, or off the pages of his own biography, lest there remain any public doubt, as a 'fugitive' from its justice. A fugitive pedophile!

Of course, the US have got the public reaction that was quite predictable, and now the word 'extradition' is nicely linked with the word 'pedophile'. So when the US continues to press for the extradition from the UK of the Howes', for example, in the eyes of the public to have deserved an extradition they must have done something as bad as pedophilia. It is thereby probably intended that public outcry against one-sided extradition agreements, or extraditions being made under them, will be muted.

Thus the smearing of the Howes' as being suppliers of methamphetamine precursor chemicals to US drug dealers, when the real reason is either the pursuit of outright malicious prosecution, or because Brian Howes is in reality wanted because of his computer systems expertise or some exploit that, perhaps unknown to him, has embarrassed some US firm or government department.

The Swiss, it seems, have lost the plot.
The Yanks of them are asking a lot,
with a warrant, to Roman Polanski demand.
It is hard to know where the Swiss are at,
with them ducking and weaving and running around,
saluting that warrant like Gessler's hat.

The Swiss, they haven't always been like that.

Not so many years ago, in shadowed Europe they stood alone,
all called to arms, defending their home.
Against all comers, be it known.

Back then it sort of went like this:

"What", of the Swiss, the Fuerher demanded,
"if with a million I came and invaded,
your half-million men would be able to do?"
Come, let's make it quick, I'd like your advice!
The quiet thoughtful Swiss thought a moment or two
And then said "Why Fuerher, they'd have to shoot twice!"

"One apple, one arrow" the Swiss always say.

Swiss freedom, like England's
Began in a meadow
Yes, true, absolutely!
A meadow called Rutli.
The odyssey that there begun
Started in twelve ninety-one.
Founded by the Eidgenossen
An Helvetic Confederation

In democratic celebration
Some Yanks unskilled in navigation
Brought the Swiss a 'Liberation'
On April Fools' Day, 'forty four
Thirty Liberators flying
opened up their bomb bay doors
"Bombs gone", streaming
Swiss now dying by the score.
Schaffhausen flattened. "Its no more,
let's get home before it pours"

It was all a terrible mistake,
of course.
The Swiss continued in to take
Hounded, shot-down, frightened Yanks
They overlooked that fatal April prank.
Is this the way to give them thanks?

You Swiss, of the Yanks, now had better beware
(if you give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile)
for by serving-up Roman, the 'fugitive'
a reward for bullying you will then give.
If emboldened thus the Yanks - they would dare -
will soon be wanting your Sturmgewehr*

So Swiss suck it up,
adopt your old stance,
take Roman Polanski
and send him to France.
Then go and make like William Tell
and tell the Yanks to go to hell!

*Army rifle.

I neglected to title the poem I posted above. In English it should be called 'In Switzerland Today'. In what I hope is accurately translated French I have referred to it in tweets as 'En Suisse du Jour'.

Can someone (Ludwig?) help me out with the German equivalent? And/or correct my French if that is neccessary? An Italian and Romansche translation too would help, if anybody can.

(We're such a flaming monolingual lot! Who from choice would choose an island spot
to live? Hey, what? Yes, that's for you Yvon, in case you think its not.)

Further to the discussion that preceeds the poem, I post this link to illustrate just how, in the case of extradition being effected, little chance of the securing of a fair and unprejudiced hearing there would now be for Brian Howes. The link is to 'The Arizona Narcotic Officer - Winter 2007', which bills itself as the official publication of the Arizona Narcotic Officers Association. It is a 2.5Mb pdf document named 'red-dragon pdf'.

Operation Red Dragon was a US drug enforcement operation upon which the US extradition request for Brian Howes and his now wife Kerry was based. The article, at page 8 of the .pdf, describes in its second paragraph how the 'evidence' against the Howes' was first obtained. It alleges that Brian Howes had purchased a hand gun on the internet. What it neglects to mention is that that was a charge of which Howes was subsequently acquitted in the UK. It seems it was a replica incapable of being modified to fire ammunition. But read it for yourself: http://bit.ly/3FxZFO

If that does not immediately start to smell of a 'fit-up', I don't know what does. It was the basis for the search warrants that 'found' the computer-based 'evidence' that the Howes had been knowingly supplying methamphetamine precursor chemicals to US customers. The article, published before trial on a matter that is, or should be, sub-judice, is extremely prejudicial of the Howes' prospects of receiving any fair trial.

One may well ask what the Howes' extradition case in the UK has to do with the proposed extradition from Switzerland of Polanski.

It is claimed that the Howes' extradition is one of, if not the most, complex extradition cases in UK history. One very good reason for that is that supply of the chemicals, principally iodine and red phosphorus, that are regarded as precursor chemicals for crystal meth and therefore controlled substances in the US, is not an offence under UK law. Brian and Kerry Howes live in, and operated from, the UK.

By opportunistically re-activating the pursuit of the person branded as being a fugitive from US justice, Polanski, in circumstances of almost universal repugnance at what it is that has been imputed to, and is to an extent believable of, him, the US authorities perhaps intend to create, internationally, a climate of greater readiness to extradite whenever they ask. They may wish to have equated in the public mind any request for extradition as being an indication of certain guilt.

Just look at the expressed intention, in the face of all the indications of misconduct of procedings, and laxity of custodial oversight, at the time of the alleged offences, of the LA District Attorney shown here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2232546/?from=rss

The US authorities clearly wish to restart the clock on the entire Polanski matter, but this time from the start point of presumed, indeed 'established', guilt. That, in the face of all the seeming sloppiness in the administration of justice in this case, right up to the leaving of a valid passport in the hands of a person released from custody! Its no longer about justice, its about pride.

Plea bargaining itself is on trial, and the world is watching.

Plea bargaining has been one of the principal tools used for bullying the Howes' in that extradition case. "We'll drop the charges against Kerry if ....."

http://extradition.org.uk/2008/02/17/emails-that-show-the-us-extraditions-true-unfairness-from-brian-howes/

The US desperately needed a lay down misere with which to drive its demands in all other future extradition cases, and the Polanski case is it.

Breaking news: it is reported that the US has as of Thursday 22 October, now formally requested the extradition from Switzerland of Roman Polanski. That report is here:

http://bit.ly/1Mcsik

Its significant content is (if the report is correct) that the MAXIMUM sentence Polanski faces upon return to the US is two years upon only the charge to which he pled in the original plea bargain deal, that of unlawful sexual intercourse, to use the words of the news report.

This, if it is a sincere statement by the US government, is a huge backdown from the overwheening and bullying position put by LA District Attorney Stephen L. Cooley in this interview reported in Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2232546/?from=rss

Note how Cooley is reported in that interview by Emily Bazelon as being unable to be 'shushed' by his deputy. These are the interviewer's words:

"I interviewed the district attorney last week in his office,
on another topic, and at the end of the hour, I brought up Polanski.
Cooley's deputy tried to shush him. He shrugged her off
and gave me an essential insight into the tough position
his office is likely to take if it succeeds
in bringing Polanski to the United States."

Essentially the position of the LA District Attorney's office was that of restarting the clock on the whole gamut of charges originally laid 32 years ago. The interviewer's words:

"The DA's office has another weapon against Polanski,
members of Cooley's staff made clear when I was in the office.
That's the other more serious charges against Polanski.
Because he skipped town (yes, that's the recurring theme here),
these other charges were never dismissed, as Rittenband had indicated,
pre flight, that they would be. They include rape, child molestation,
oral copulation, sodomy, and providing drugs to a minor."

If the breaking news is true, the contrasts bring to mind the situation that once existed between General Douglass MacArthur and President Truman at the time of the Korean War.

Should we all be expecting a female DA soon for LA?

Here I will point out some points in the extradition treaty with Sweden and the USA.

Article 3(1) states generally that extradition shall not be
granted for political offenses or if the request appears to be politically
motivated.

Article 5 mandates the denial of extradition if prosecution is
barred by the lapse of time under the law of the Requesting State.

The Article 5 point may be mute as proceedings had already started.

Article 16 is the rule of speciality for this treaty. It provides, subject
to specific exceptions, that a person extradited under the Treaty
may not be detained, tried, or punished for an offense other than
that for which extradition has been granted, unless a waiver of the
rule is granted by the authorities of the Requested State or unless
the person extradited fails to leave the Requesting State within 45
days of being free to do so or, having left the Requesting State, returnsto it.

Provision is made for preventing any lapse of time resulting
from the application of the rule of specialty, for modifying
charges that were the basis for extradition, and for obtaining consent
to prosecution by the individual concerned.

US law sates that the US prosecutor must in all cases when they know where a person (Fugitive) is, start proceeding against that person in order to facilitate the right to a speedy trial.

The treaty also has a clause for "passage of time" that could allow discharge. If 32 years does not invoke the passage of time argument then it might as well of been left out the treaty.

Polanski will also face charges of fleeing the US which is up to 5 years imprisonment. The judge does not now have to accept the plea bargain and Polanski could be facing all the original charges from 32 years ago

The USA consistently breach their international extradition treaties and drop indictments and supersede them with others that the person was not being extradited for.

"Roman Polanski faces 2 years in prison if returned to L.A., Swiss officials say"
http://sentencing.typepad.com

In a flurry of legal paper in the Roman Polanski extradition case on Friday, one thing became clear:

The Obama administration doesn’t intend to adopt Mr. Polanski’s considerable public relations problem as its own. Late Thursday, according to Swiss authorities, the U.S. government delivered its formal request that Mr. Polanski be returned to the United States to face sentencing on a 32-year-old charge of having sex with a minor.

That means the Polanski team failed to persuade the Justice Department to terminate the extradition­ — a step that would almost certainly have stirred a heavy backlash from those who want to see Mr. Polanski face the courts.

Mr. Polanski’s lawyers, including the Washington power player Reid Weingarten, a close friend of Attorney General Eric Holder, had been arguing that the extradition request should not be sent. They contended that their client, who already served 42 days in a California prison, was never going to serve more than an 48 additional days, hence was not a proper candidate for extradition under the treaty with Switzerland.

The Polanski representatives had presented their case both in a meeting with a justice department official, and in a memorandum — but to no avail. The extradition request was filed, and the possible outcomes are now whittled down.

On Friday, both Mr. Polanski’s lawyers and the Los Angeles County district attorney Steve Cooley gave the appeals court another round of briefs on the matter. The justices may rule at any time. A decision in Mr. Polanski’s favor could clear the way for possible dismissal of his case, without his presence. Or the justices could simply stand aside and let the extradition battle proceed.

http://brianhowes.typepad.com/uk-us-unfair-extradition/2009/10/the-polanski-case-taking-stock-after-the-extradition-request.html

It has been reported in recent days that Roman Polanski has been removed from the Swiss prison where he has been being held pending the resolution of the US request for his extradition , to a hospital facility. The reports were not specific as to the nature of the medical condition requiring treatment.

It would not be difficult to foresee a person of his age being diagnosed with any one of a number of medical conditions, any one of which could make it extremely prejudicial to his life for him to be flown anywhere.

It would also not be difficult to foresee the most appropriate treatment for any such medical condition being best, maybe even only, obtainable in France.

It would be interesting to know how the Swiss government would see its responsibilities in relation to both Polanski, and diplomatic relations with its neighbour, France, in such circumstances, with Polanski being a French citizen and all.

Transport by land to France in a manner not prejudicial to Polanski's health, indeed life, could relatively easily be achieved. The Swiss may well see their situation with respect to the extradition request from the US as being akin to that of extraditing someone to a jurisdiction where the death penalty applies to the offence for which extradition may be sought. I am not certain as to whether Swiss law forbids extradition in such circumstances, but it would not surprise me if such was the case.

The Swiss may well in such new circumstances see themselves under obligation to convey Roman Polanski to France for treatment, other extradition treaty obligations notwithstanding.

Below is a section of the French / US extradition treaty which does not allow for French nationals to be Extradited to the USA. I might add that this is a very brave position of the French and they act in the best interests of their citizens.

Article 3. Nationality
1. There is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person
who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States
shall have the power to surrender a national of the United States if, in its discretion, it deems
it proper to do so. The nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of that person
at the time the offense was committed.
2. If extradition is refused solely on the basis of the nationality of the person sought,
the Requested State shall, at the request of the Requesting State, submit the case to its authorities
for prosecution.

The French have protected their citizens as other countries have also. So why has the UK and Australia not protected their Citizens from the USA.

The USA has a Plea Bargain rate of about 97% and if you don't make a plea you are told you will be in jail for the maximum time.

They allow hearsay evidence and even allow secret evidence that can't be challenges.

The Jury is directed by a Judge that essentially tells the Jury what conclusion to come to.

The US justice or injustice system may work for the USA but many like the ACLU will disagree. It does not work for the rest of the world.

"The Polanski conundrum - when is pedophilia forgivable?" (Never! only When he might not be a Paedophile.)

The following is the full text of a news item obtained from this link posted to Twitter: http://bit.ly/OeYii






Swiss foreign ministry hit by computer attack



(AFP) – 3 hours ago

GENEVA — Unidentified hackers have penetrated
the Swiss foreign ministry's computer system
to seize data, forcing parts of it to be shut down
for several days, the ministry revealed Monday.

The "professional virus attack" allowed outsiders
to gain access to the computer system to obtain
unspecified information, the ministry said in a statement.

It said the extent of the data mining was unknown.

"Unknown perpetrators used special software
in this attack to reach the ministry's IT infrastructure
and to acquire specific information," the statement said.

Government computer technicians and specialists from
software giant Microsoft discovered the "well hidden"
software on October 22.

"In concrete terms, foreign ministry staff cannot use the Internet
for the time being but can use the internal network,"
spokesman Georg Farago told the Swiss news agency ATS on Monday.

ATS had reported over the weekend that the Swiss Finance Ministry
and Interior Ministry computer systems also suffered problems on Friday,
but it was not immediately clear if these incidents were linked.







The plot seems to be thickening as to who set the ball rolling with respect to the extradition of Polanski, doesn't it? Can't believe the Swiss would have been using M$ software for their Foreign ministry stuff. How utterly naive!

The question that occurs to me is:

Could some sort of spyware have been emplaced in that software whereby other interests, governmental or private, could effectively spy on the Swiss governments internal deliberations?

The French government, to my understanding, uses Mandriva Linux for government IT.




Proprietary software for government use. Dear, dear!

When will they ever learn?

I wonder what it is that 'persons unknown' don't want Swiss foreign ministry staff to be able to see on the internet?