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 If so, why was his passport not withdrawn?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.