Director

Free Roman Polanski

Rosemary’s Baby” is one of the greatest films of all time, a one-of-a-kind original. The director of this masterpiece, one Roman Polanski, raped a thirteen-year-old back in the ‘70s. Technically, he never admitted this, and the charge of rape was dropped during a plea bargain, the state’s cynical way of making its own version of justice easier for the guilty, not guilty, and victims alike. But based on the victim’s testimony and her stalwart defense of that testimony throughout the years, she said, “No” and he didn’t stop. So why would I not restrain myself from praising this man’s cinematic talents? Why would I call for a rapist to be left alone? Two reasons, both of which I think any committed anarchist and individualist should take under serious consideration, and neither of which has to do with Polanski’s artistic abilities.

First, and most importantly, the victim wants all of it to end. She has forgiven him, and wants the government to drop it. For something as serious as rape, where there can be no true justice or complete restitution to the victim, I would say let the woman live in peace with her husband and children. Consider what a rape victim already has to live with, and then compound it with incessant media attention and governmental interference. For her sake, and for this first reason alone, it should be done; that is, if we truly had a government that was concerned with “defending” people’s “rights” in some Jeffersonian tradition.

But that’s not what we have, and this is at the heart of my second reason for defending the seemingly indefensible Polanski. We are under the control (and most of us are in thrall) of a government that goes after a criminal even when the victim herself does not wish for it to happen. Polanski’s real crime, as I shall explain, is not rape, but contempt for The Law. In the government’s zeal to keep this case open after more than 30 years, everyone involved except the presiding judge, now dead, has been adversely affected, and virtually all of them wish for it to end.

If your objective is to help a rape victim, after being convinced that a rape did indeed occur, you would think the next logical step would be to ask the victim what she wants, and then follow through. Would you like to know how the government determined what the thirteen-year-old victim wanted?

By asking her the most detailed, graphic questions about the incident. She sat in a roomful of grown men and discussed where Polanski touched her, where he placed his penis, where his semen ended up, the color of her panties, and much more. In the victim’s own words (from a fascinating documentary called “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired”):

“All that stuff was so traumatic, that I never even had a chance to really, you know, worry about, you know, what happened that night with him. It was like– it… just… I had to worry about surviving the next day…

“I would’ve as soon just as walked away from it the next day, but you can’t stop it once it starts [emphasis mine]. I mean, I just, I just went in my room pretty much, and just turned it off.”

You can’t stop it once it starts. Instead, the government is flagrantly ignoring the victim’s repeated requests, and going after Polanski as if he raped the government, or the idea of government, or the government’s idea of society, or its rather perverted sense of right and wrong, a sense that is far more perverse than Polanski’s perception. That is the true objective: Polanski violated the state’s authority by fleeing to a safe place to escape the state’s incomprehensible sentencing, which is its only recourse toward restoring anything to a rape victim.

Polanski was given the opportunity to plea bargain, which he did. The government’s way of dealing with this rape was to drop the rape charge. Perhaps this was in part due to the family’s reluctance to put the victim on the stand, but there you have the state’s version of justice. In doing this, the government has admitted that slapping Polanski with anything that will stick is “justice,” just like going after Martha Stewart. The plea bargain was for “unlawful sexual intercourse,” a crime so simultaneously innocuous and foul that the criminal could spend anywhere from 6 months to 50 years in prison. For “unlawfully” screwing. This is called “plea bargaining.” Slap me with anything that hurts less, your honor. What nonsense.

The prosecutor admits that he watched numerous of Polanski’s films in preparation for his case. He noticed thematic use of “corruption meeting innocence over water,” and drew a parallel with part of the rape scenario taking place in a Jacuzzi. He was planning on using this “evidence” in court. Apparently, the Jacuzzi was central to Polanski’s plan to corrupt the innocent “over water.” Proof of guilt if I ever saw it. More nonsense. If this is proof of guilt, then why can’t I draw a parallel between the fictional Rosemary surrounded by evil men and women who wish to exploit her body, and the evil of the non-fictional state surrounding a young rape victim, demanding intimate details and flagrantly denying her family’s request for Polanski not to be incarcerated?

Polanski’s plea bargain originally allowed him to leave the country to continue working, which he did. The prosecution permitted it; until he was photographed in Germany sitting next to a young woman during Oktoberfest. More proof of guilt. As one member of the state’s prosecutorial apparatus admits in the film, he told the judge, “He’s giving you the finger, he’s flipping you off.” Apparently, the state told Polanski before he left for Europe not to sit next to any pretty girls. Good grief.

Polanski’s “violation” of the state’s probation was what caused the further confusion in the state’s already horrendous manner of administering “justice.” Polanski had already been subjected for more than a month, in frightening prison conditions, to “psychiatric evaluation.” In spite of the fact that up until this point Polanski was obedient to all the state’s directives, it was not enough. Amazingly, the lawyers on both sides of the issue, including the plaintiff’s own private lawyer, agree that Polanski was treated unfairly. The victim again:

“I was young, but the way I felt was: The judge was enjoying the publicity, and he didn’t care about what happened to me, and he didn’t care about what happened to Polanski. He was, like, orchestrating some little show, um, you know, that I didn’t want to be in.”

As Arthur Silber has pointed out:

“From a broad, theoretical perspective, any trial in any State can be regarded as a show trial. In this discussion, I use ‘show trial’ to refer to a trial in which the guilt or innocence of the defendant may be a concern to those dispensing justice (or what is designated as justice in that State), but that determination is not the primary concern. The primary objective is not answering the question of guilt or innocence in a strictly legal sense (applying the relevant law to the specific facts of the case), but political in nature. The major value of a show trial to the State is its usefulness as propaganda; more specifically, the major value is the utility of the proceeding to the enhancement of the perception of the State as legitimate and/or to the demonizing of the State’s chosen enemies. In the absence of a widespread campaign of terror directed against the general population, a people will regularly and consistently submit to the State only if they view that State as basically fair and good, devoted at least to some significant extent to their well-being and welfare [emphasis mine]. Thus, even and especially in a show trial, the State will be at pains to demonstrate its fairness and objectivity.”

Thus, the state must go after Polanski the Eternal Rapist, perhaps until he is dead.

The state has a whole lot of bloviating idiots on its side, none of whom is listening to the victim any longer. Even these film critics think that Polanski deserves to be consigned forever to some distant circle of hell. Honestly, to listen to enough of this would make you think some greater atrocity had been committed by Polanski than what the state is doing on a daily basis on the other side of the world, all of it based on lies.

Granted, the rape was certainly atrocious, but the victim herself, and she is the only victim, has verified that it is over and time to move on. Why, then, is there this collective outpouring of vitriol on one man, but “Collateral Murder” can be shown in viral fashion all over the web, yet these same angry writers and critics make no calls to shun or even complain to the politicians and military personnel making the daily atrocities happen?

To question the state in the way Polanski has done is a crime; to accept whatever the state does as “good intentions” is a virtue. The state is in charge, regardless of what you think.  Therefore, you may protest the state’s mass murders all you want. But when the state says, “Jump!” or in Polanski’s case, “Stay!”, you had better do so. The protesting of endless war can only go on as long as the government will tolerate it. But when they tell the anti-war crowd to disperse, they’d better disperse.

The state can commit atrocities as long as it can sell itself as the enforcer of The Law. The Law, as foolish millions believe, is something that exists outside of ourselves, somewhere in this universe. The Law is merely an abstract, made by men — men who rape; men who steal; men who lie; men who murder. We trust these men to go after another rapist. This is “justice.” It makes no logical sense.

The fools who support the state’s latest arrest (in collusion with another state) of Polanski think this is all about rape, which is all about women as victims, which is all about feminism, which is all about being morally righteous, which is all about The Ring. The fools are wrong, as they will refuse to admit to themselves whenever the state comes after them, which is approximately every two weeks with every paystub that shows 1/4, 1/3, or 1/2 of their income raped by the state.

The state’s latest arrest (in collusion with another state) of Polanski is not about rape at all. It’s about the state’s inability to do anything about rape or most other crimes against the volition of individuals, for whose protection the state allegedly exists.

Think about the morning of September 11, 2001. Taking the state’s specious claims at face value, in the span of two critical hours, the state that steals billions of dollars every year from those of us stuck on this land mass, that erects an insurmountable bureaucracy, that has the greatest technology at its disposal, that regulates and oversees every air traffic control tower in the country, was totally and completely incapable of stopping a single bad thing from happening. The government’s response was to shut down the entire airline industry for a week and give them a ton of money they stole from all of us, affecting untold numbers of other businesses, an action that prevented absolutely nothing but cost private businessmen millions. You can’t stop it once it starts. Now think about a thirteen-year-old scared out of her wits. The state’s apparatus is completely incapable of preventing or stopping the rape. The state is equally incapable of sparing the victim any further harm, and only exacerbates her pain. This is something else you are forced to pay for.

The state’s latest arrest (in collusion with another state) of Polanski is about the state’s desire to grandstand, to show its usefulness. It’s about power and authority, and our lack of the state’s permission to question its power and authority.

If the state’s actions were anything at all about justice for the rape victim, I would gladly shut up and let the bureaucracy run right over Polanski, “Rosemary’s Baby,” “The Pianist,” and my anarchist convictions notwithstanding. The artists and entertainers signing the petition on Polanski’s behalf are probably only doing it because they love his work. I doubt very many of them question the state’s existence or legitimacy any more than Polanski’s detractors. But on this single point, I stand with them.

Run, Roman. Run.

B.R. Merrick writes for “Strike The Root” and “A Voice for Men,” lives in the Northeast, is  proud to be a classical music reviewer at Amazon.com and iTunes, and in spite of the poisonous nature of television, God Himself will have to pry his DVDs of “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” out of his cold, dead hands, under threat of eternal damnation.

This article was originally published at “Strike The Root” on June 14, 2010.  It has been reprinted here with permission.

About B.R. Merrick

B.R. Merrick writes for "Strike The Root" and "A Voice for Men," and is proud to be a classical music reviewer at Amazon.com and iTunes.

View All Posts
  • http://denisspaceeh.spaces.live.com/ Denis

    Good article, nice paralell to rosemary’s baby. I got a chuckle when you worked in the Ring.

    The only thing that concerns me is…

    “The Law is merely an abstract, made by men — men who rape; men who steal; men who lie; men who murder. We trust these men to go after another rapist.”

    That’s quite a generalization, bordering on sexism / misandry.

    You’re not an anarchist, you care too much about the injustice. You’re absolutely right, the government is completely incapable of stopping bad things from happening. Read machiavelli much?

  • An Non

    Ditto! Great Article, B.R.

    Here is a paper which supports your position:

    IN PRAISE OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN
    SEX OFFENSE CASES
    James Herbie DiFonzo

    http://www.houstonlawreview.org/archive/downloads/41-4_pdf/difonzo.pdf

  • Snark

    I love how controversial you’re being lately. If I didn’t know better, I’d say you’re trying to radicalise the movement further ;)

    Or perhaps, simply saying things which have been formerly taboo; freely speaking those things which have not traditionally been covered by freedom of speech.

    Only one small quibble, however.

    You speak of how the rape victim in this case – and indeed, she is a rape victim, we will grant her this, given the evidence – had to go through all the intimate details of the rape.

    Now, I know you speak in the context of her wanting it all to end, but not being allowed to, when you criticise the state for making her do this.

    But rape complainants ABSOLUTELY MUST be cross-examined in THE MOST intimate detail. Because, given the false rape epidemic grinding up countless numbers of men and boys, we must have sufficient and extensive safeguards against rape lies turning into actual cases.

    I am sure that you do in fact agree with me on this point, since it is the VERY SAME FORCES you describe in this article, who perpetuate the false rape industry – lawyers and politicians looking to ‘get convictions’.

  • Snark

    ““The Law is merely an abstract, made by men — men who rape; men who steal; men who lie; men who murder. We trust these men to go after another rapist.”

    That’s quite a generalization, bordering on sexism / misandry.”

    On the contrary, Paul is being most perceptive here. The forces which propel Citizen Joe or Jane to commit a murder or a sex offence are likely the very same forces that propel other citizens to become upholders of the law – in whatever capacity – where they can bust some heads in a socially approved manner.

    Of course, you may argue that in the latter case it is guilty heads being busted, or at least that is why those people became state enforcers, to punish the guilty.

    And I say, so what? They have merely channelled their desire to harm others into socially approved and legitimised pathways.

    Consider ‘feminist jurisprudence’ and how punitive that is: the women carrying it out within the system are guilty of possessing the same violent, vindictive and hateful urges as the criminals they might bust once in a while.

    The second law of the universe is that might doesn’t make right.

  • B. R. Merrick

    Thanks for the comments, guys.

    Denis: “That’s quite a generalization, bordering on sexism / misandry.

    You’re not an anarchist, you care too much about the injustice.”

    Well, I wouldn’t call it misandry, mainly because the links refer to certain acts of which we can reasonably be certain crooked men were involved.

    Although rape was never proven in the Clinton scandal, there was ample evidence that he assaulted, harrassed, and had consensual extra-marital sex with women, one of whom was about the same age as his daughter. Where there’s smoke (and Clinton’s corruption doesn’t end there)…

    The IRS is an organizatin started mostly by men.

    It has been proven with evidence that Bush has not told the truth throughout the course of this war.

    And finally, Barack Obama is definitely a murderer. These are the sorts of people who have been put in charge. True, women often back up men in these sorts of corrupt undertakings, and women actively support the empire as well, but this does not excuse the behavior of these corrupt men.

    Snark: “But rape complainants ABSOLUTELY MUST be cross-examined in THE MOST intimate detail.” I agree wholeheartedly, and I honestly believe (after much observation) that the free market has better solutions, both for the accuser and the accused, which is why I am indeed an anarchist.

  • B. R. Merrick

    “…of which we can reasonably be certain crooked men were involved.”

    Sorry. That should be “in which.”

  • Jabberwocky

    Was the girl ravished or raped? Did she just say no, or did she fight back?

    I ask, because it just doesn’t look like rape-rape to me. It looks like regrettibly getting caught up in the heat of passion. Did he hold her down, threaten her, etc. I don’t know the case that well. I don’t follow what happened 30 fricken years ago. I would say this, there is no way reasonable doubt should not get him off at this point in time. Such a waste of resources.

  • Snark

    I just realised this wasn’t written by Paul. Well now I feel kinda dumb.

  • http://strike-the-root.com/user/188 B.R. Merrick

    Jabberwocky, from what I understand, she was 13. Now, I am of the considered opinion that there is no such thing as adolescence, and that people who are 13 should be considered young adults. That being said, I still think it’s a bad idea, even when the sex act is volitional, for a 13-year-old to be having sex with an older person, as sexuality is quite new at 13.

    Worse than that, however, is the fact that we live in a culture that retards maturity, in part through government schooling, but also in popular culture, and the way that children are raised. I figure the young woman in question was probably completely within that category. Polanski was in a position of authority, and was making promises of photo shoots to an impressionable person. He also appeared to go to great lengths to seem nice, at least for a time.

    Beyond that, she said “No” more than once, but she was in that big house by herself with no one to drive her home. Added to that, she had willingly tried alcohol and at least a portion of one quaalude. She was not in a very good postion, emotionally or physically, to fight off Polanski. That is essentially my understanding of what happened. One of the links in the article is to a portion of the court record, where she explains in detail what happened during part of the event.

  • An Non

    @ B.R. Merrick

    I’d like to point out a comment I made on this post on
    gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com since it also involved a 13 year old girl:

    http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/06/tx-supreme-court-prostitution-charges.html

    I said in part:

    ” …. The issue of age in regard to consent is only being compounded and made more confusing by the fact that, due to presence of endocrine disruptors (see http://www.emagazine.com/view/?806 ) and environmental pollutants, girls are increasingly reaching puberty before age 10. ….”

    So, in biological terms, because of the decreasing age for the onset of puberty, I agree with you that 13-year-old young men and women should be treated as young adults.

  • Jabberwocky

    Yeah, that does seem pretty slimey. Age of consent is such a tricky area. 16 seems like a good number, but what about all those 14 year old girls having sex with their 17 year old boyfriends. That’s not that rare, a Freshmen in High School dating a Junior basically. I think if your 30 or over, the age of consent should raise to 18. If your 19 or younger, the age could be 14. That lets High Schoolers sow their wild oats but keeps adults from being overly predatory.

  • http://www.youtube.com/doomaxe2 Vladislav

    It’s very interesting to read the degradation of the Man’s morals and ethics in these comments and this article calling for the freedom of a man who has had sex with a child. To be fair, let’s put this into some logical perspective:

    Let’s suppose the said 13 year-old girl has sexual intercourse with a 17 year-old male in 1977. Would I really have much to say? No, not really since that is somewhat of a reasonable age gap and I have known some younger females who seem to want to get a ride quite early.

    However, that’s not what happened.

    What happened was that a man in his 40s had sex with a 13 year old child. Even for me, a man, that’s pretty sickening. Instead, I see comments here debating whether or not it was rape. The idea of it being rape is immaterial, the fact is:

    ROMAN POLANSKI HAD SEX WITH A CHILD. ANY PERSON WHO THINKS SEX WITH CHILDREN IS IN NEED OF URGENT MEDICAL ATTENTION AND SHOULD BE QUARANTINED FROM THE POPULATION.

    This kind of fledgling indifference and skewing of the facts is why organizations like NAMBLA can exist. So, I 100% disagree with this article and Roman Polanski should meet death for soiling a child. He was well into his 40s – this is an unacceptable age gap.

    Remember, he had sex with a child. Just throwing that out there. If you Men seriously are going to contend with me that having sex with children is reasonable, then you have no business calling yourself men. As many problems and retardation we have of our women, having sex with our children isn’t going to help in the least. As many problems as we have with our women, we still have a duty to protect our children.

    Roman Polanski had sex with a child.

  • B. R. Merrick

    VladislavK, you have completely missed the point of the article. Your solution, to kill a man who committed a non-lethal crime, would scar the female rape victim for life. You would fit in nicely with any arbitrary judge, sitting on his self-important bench, pronouncing the death penalty for anything that disgusts you. You know what? You disgust me.

  • Vladislav

    B.R. Merrick,

    I’m glad I disgust you. It disgusts me that Roman’s Polanski PEDOPHILIA nature isn’t alarming for you. Having SEX with CHILDREN is wrong morally and this website, as does many other “men’s rights” website, continue to push for this excuse of a man to “go free.”

    Why do YOU look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself a question: “What if somebody in his 40s took actions to have sex with my female child?”

    Of course, you will spin it for your “Oh but you’ve missed the point blah-blah-blah.”

    The point: Roman Polanski is a pedophile and had sex with children.

    Let me repeat: Roman Polanski is a pedophile and had sex with children.

    One last time for your thick skull: Roman Polanski is a pedophile and had sex with children.

    Pedophile and the defilement of our children = DEATH. You are the pathetic reason organizations like NAMBLA can exist. Go back to your Talmud.

  • http://www.plasticpond.net  Plastic Pond

    Roman Polanski deserves to rot in jail for abusing a teenage girl:-”

  • B. R. Merrick

    It is not “spin” to point out that at least two commenters have indeed missed the point of the article. To kill Polanski or let him “rot in jail” is to ignore the female rape victim’s wants and needs. It is a pat answer to a complex issue, wherein the victim should first and foremost be listened to. The quick fixes proposed by both commenters will also undoubtedly ensnare a great many innocent men.

  • keith

    @ Vladislav

    “Let’s suppose the said 13 year-old girl has sexual intercourse with a 17 year-old male in 1977. Would I really have much to say? No, not really since that is somewhat of a reasonable age gap and I have known some younger females who seem to want to get a ride quite early.”

    It seems by your statement that you don’t have a problem with a dick being stuck in a thirteen year old, but that more importantly it meets your criteria.

    This is often the presentation of the self righteous, many of whom wear blue uniforms and black gowns, swinging guns and gavels.
    I find it difficult to deal with my personal hypocrisy, because I’m just so well intentioned and a damn nice guy and well people like me. Especially when I play the hero.

    There is a fundamental problem with sticking a dick in a thirteen year old. She is a biologically developing organism whose risk of cervical cancer will increase as a result. It happened to my own daughter. It doesn’t matter what year it is or how old the dick is, your putting that person at risk. The message about the health risks is much more profound than your pedophile killing strategy. It also informs little developing girls that they are putting their own life and health at risk. But of course that strategy doesn’t make me look like a hero or white knight, it just makes me look responsible.

    This comment is not designed to answer to the article. But rather the spin that ensues and how often the cause of the victim turns into grand standing by the would be heroes and heroines. I consider intrusive examination of a child that may have been assaulted as rape. But hey that’s me.

  • B. R. Merrick

    keith, that was far better said than anything I wrote in my article. Well done.