The French decades-long hospitality to confessed child rapist Roman Polanski, especially when held up next to Sarkozy’s nasal exegesis of the burqa, drips with pretense and hypocrisy. Likewise for the Hollywood elite who have come out in support of him.
By Ibrahim Abusharif, October 7, 2009
No escape
When Oscar-winning film director Roman Polanski pleaded guilty more than 30 years ago to having illicit sex with a 13-year-old girl, his legal counsel brokered a plea agreement, according to press accounts, in order to avoid incarceration. But then the judge (now dead) reportedly reneged, and Polanski, 43 at the time, was confronted with the possibility of serious jail time. So the director, like in good movie drama, fled the country and has lived in France ever since, frequently visited neighboring European countries.
According to a New York Times op-ed piece by a friend of his, Polanski dined privately with three French presidents and has lived a life unmolested by French political and law enforcement officials for decades. In fact, he enjoyed the perks of celebrity status as he continued his film career. According to a Slate “Explainer” article, France and the United States have an extradition agreement in which both countries must consent to transfer fugitives. The Americans wanted Polanski, but the French declined, hence the man's freedom until Swiss law enforcement authorities finally arrested him two weeks ago.
While I make no judgment about this case per se, the following comes to mind: the French seem to have no problem granting freedom and privilege to a man who "drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl in the home of actor Jack Nicholson" (according to Slate). Yet French President Nicolas Sarkozy may declare, with little public dissent, that a woman who wears a burqa is not welcome in France because the burqa is a symbol of a woman's repression. In other words, the rape of a girl has no negative symbolism, and if there were such symbolism, then its expiration is rushed along nicely by a rapist's association with the arts.
Is this what we may infer from this French quandary? To recap, a middle-age man who reportedly forced a girl to satisfy his lust in natural and unnatural ways repeatedly is welcome in France to live, work, sign autographs, and dine at high levels, but a woman who dresses like the mother of Jesus (God bless mother and son) is told that there's no room at the inn...
Read more @ alt Muslim
He may have been tolerated in France because he didn't represent a significant danger to their culture and national identity.
As far as i am aware he was not seeking to convert all of France into drug-pushing pedophiles whilst insisting on his god-given right to have sex with 13 year old girls. He probably didn't assert at every opportunity, that his way is the right way and refuse to listen to any opposing views on the basis that his were sacrosanct and non negotiable. Finally, he probably didn't spend his time whining about the injustices of the state that was protecting him.
Just a thought.
I doubt the French muslims are also forcing their non muslim counterparts to convert at gunpoint either, so your diatribe seems - atleast to me - to be based on... misinformation, fear, uncertainty and doubt instead of some concrete truth.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Sounds to me like someone needs to start reading proper newspapers...
Don't just do something! Stand there.
That sounds like Churchill's description of a fanatic: "Someone who doesn't change his mind and doesn't change the subject."
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
i don't know about the burqa spin on this, but the story repulses me. Why would any country, especially those that claim to be civilised democracies protect a "criminal". There are no "allegations" here, it is a fact Polanski drugged and raped a 13 yr old-minor. Even before the drugs took effect she repeatedly said "no", yet he continued. If anything this case should highlight just how corrupt democratic governments, and the movie industry is. When you have presidents, and prominent actors/actresses, directors all defending this man under the most pathetic statements, it leaves me lost for words.
It seems as if wealth can buy you freedom amongst many other things, in the civilised world, sounds a bit like some third world countries. I mean you can barter with the police, offer them the right sum if you've done something minor, like i duno?, killed them its cool no one will remember that beggar woman, pay up and all will be a secret. What's the differece here a paedophile who ran bail then paid off foreign authorities for his crime. He deserves everything coming his way, i pray that he goes down, but justice will never prevail on this earth.
“O my people! Truly, this life of the world is nothing but a (quick passing) enjoyment, and verily, the hereafter that is the home that will remain forever.” [Ghafir : 39]
You know the solution is sooooo simple:
Physically cut the guy off from the rest of the world and he'll never sleep again (puns intended) then the Swiss can send him back to his belle France by which point he'll be of no use to any of the Moulin Rouge chicks and they'll have him shipped off back to the US for free and all is funky dory for the rest of mankind (well at least this saga ends).
Benefits for all 1 more time:
The Cut: punishment - use it (wrongly) you lose it (harshly)
Swiss are happy as their arrest was worthwhile
France: no more use for him so send him packing and the amount of punters to their show won't be affected by the loss of 1
US: bingo - they get their wanted guy back
Castration?
Is that a law anywhere? Rapists (who are men) get castrated?
I am sure I have read that some countries (for some reason poland is the name that springs to mind) use some chemical form of castration.
The UK used to use it too for some crimes - such as perversion and homosexuality. It was used on Alan Turing a couple of years before he committed suicide.
A bunch of people recently got a petition together online and got the Prime Minister to give a meaningless apology for how he had been treated.
EDIT - reading about it on wikipedia, it just seems to be a concoction of drugs given to people where the effects wear off when they stop taking them. It has been used in Europe and the USA amongst other places.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
so its like a male version of the pill, then?
Don't just do something! Stand there.
The pill is not supposed to kill the libido (but the way it works in fooling the body can potentially have serious repercussions), these drugs are.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
And thr chop would sort out that issue better than the drugs
In Islam the maximum penalty for rape is death, right?
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
Does anyone think chemical castration is a good idea for homosexuality?
Which one is the better idea: castration or chemical castration?
You seem very eager about the 'chop'...
"Chemical castration" is just a prescription of drugs to lower the libido, allowing the person more control.
Ideally, people should be able to control themselves, but then again, if that was the case, there would be no crime in the world, no theft, no oppression, no murder, no rape, maybe even no hunger... or atleast less of it.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.