Re: [Marxism] Polanski is Free!! (NYTimes.com: Swiss Reject U.S. Request to Extradite Polanski)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Mason Akhnaten: Sad to see so many people on this list applauding a man going free who, in his 40s, gave booze and pharmaceuticals to a 13 year old, then raped her while she was intoxicated. I understand some people on this list think age of consent is a capitalist invention. Whatever you think of age and consent, hopefully it is clear that between alcohol and qaaludes, a 13 year old is not in a position to be a consensual partner to sodomoy with someone 30 years their senior. Regardless of the ages involved, one cannot render consent while under the influence of drugs. Yes to all of this, except that you are even ceding too much to the worship-Polanski crowd: it is explicit from her testimony that the rape was not consensual, that she was pleading the whole time for him to stop. So even leaving aside the question of age, and of the drugging, I don't know what the fricken hell they are arguing about in calling it consensual; it wasn't even in fucked-up nambla terms. The age and the drugging simply pile more on. It is somewhat disgusting that someone on this list thinks Polanski is blameless because the girl was precocious andsexually experienced. Yeh Thorstad went right over the top here and this is a good example of where nambla-style excuses for child rape, which apparently are legit on this list, meet and make up with normal bourgeois excuses for rape. But I guess all that stuff about 'she was asking for it', 'look at what she was wearing', she has fucked before (experienced in Thorstad terms), 'she's precocious' (really? how dare she be precocious, whatever that means) is so thick in bourgeois sexist ideology that we all grow up with that it rubs off even on some revolutionaries and ends on on marxism lists without any problem being expressed by anyone very much. I couldn't care less about whether the LA cops get their hands on him now after decades or not, nor about the legalities of extradition or not, but Mason is right on that it is pretty disconcerting to see people on a leftist list making these kind of excuses for violence against a 13 year old girl (even a (shock) precocious one) Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Polanski is Free!! (NYTimes.com: Swiss Reject U.S. Request to Extradite Polanski)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Shane Mage shm...@pipeline.com wrote: Suck on it, all you pathetic prurient puritanical apologists for Los Angeles Justice. Swiss Reject U.S. Request to Extradite Polanski By NICK CUMMING-BRUCE The film director won't be extradited to face charges of unlawful sex with a minor because of a fault in the American extradition application... reply - A rapist goes free and Shane celebrates - 'nuff said. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Polanski is Free!! (NYTimes.com: Swiss Reject U.S. Request to Extradite Polanski)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Jul 12, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Dennis Brasky wrote: A rapist Libelous language in the strict sense of the word. Despicable language in every sense. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Polanski is Free!!
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Here's my pal Arthur Trusscott's take on Polanski and others like him, from New Interventions, Volume 13, no 2, Spring 2010. Paul F ++ Arthur Trusscott Different Strokes for Different Blokes THERE'S nothing like having a reputation as a writer, sculptor or film-maker to have your other reputation as a dirty old man referred to in the most delicate of phrases by the artistic intelligentsia. This has been proved over the last few months with the publishing of Vladimir Nabokov's last book, an exhibition of Eric Gill's works, and the arrest of Roman Polanski. In September, Polanski had his collar felt in Switzerland upon his arrival from France, where he has lived for the last 30 years or so. He was held under an international alert issued in the USA in 2005 in respect of charges relating to his having illegal sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl in the USA in 1978. He is currently on bail, pending an extradition decision. He could face a life sentence if he returns to the USA. Now, a man in that predicament is usually pretty much on his own. Gary Glitter, for example, convicted in Vietnam of having sex with under-age girls, was universally reviled. That nobody came to his defence comes as no surprise; indeed, Channel Four actually ran a make-believe drama featuring his trial and execution for the sexual abuse of a child. But Polanski has friends, lots of them. In the US Nation on 1 October, Katha Pollitt listed some: '... Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Martin Scorsese, Pedro Almodóvar, Woody Allen (insert your own joke here), Isabelle Huppert, Diane von Furstenberg and many, many more. Bernard-Henri Lévy, who's taken a leading role in rounding up support, has said that Polanski 'perhaps had committed a youthful error' (he was 43). Debra Winger, president of the Zurich Film Festival jury, wearing a red 'Free Polanski' badge, called the Swiss authorities action 'philistine collusion'. Fréderic Mitterrand, the French cultural minister, said it showed 'the scary side of America' and described Polanski as 'thrown to the lions because of ancient history'. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, co-founder of Doctors Without Borders, called the whole thing 'sinister'. Closer to home, Whoopi Goldberg explained on The View that his crime wasn't 'rape rape', just, you know, rape. Oh, that! Conservative columnist Anne Applebaum minimised the crime in the Washington Post.' 'Nobody knows you when you're down and out', goes the old blues song. That's not the case if you're a famed film-maker. Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, does not wish to see him in court again, as she does not want to have the distressing episode raked over once more. That is an understandable response, and it should be respected by the authorities. But one gets the feeling, however, that the clamorous chorus in favour of Polanski is more about propping up his cultural reputation than respecting the wishes of a woman who wants above all to put this traumatic experience behind her once and for all. In the world of left-wing politics, the World Socialist Website's statement on the Polanski case tried to deflect the condemnation of his behaviour by pointing to the very serious crimes committed in the name of US official policy, and to the fact that people responsible of far greater crimes lived freely in the USA: 'Accepting that Polanski's case involved a criminal offense, the circumstances of his sudden arrest after the passage of more than three decades at the age of 76, the substantial evidence that his earlier prosecution involved serious misconduct by the judge, the many mitigating circumstances arising from the facts of Polanski's own tragic life, the sentiments of the victim, the artistic significance of Polanski's work [it's that excuse again -- AT], and, finally, the reactionary characteristics of the media campaign -- all these elements and circumstances should give pause to those who have adapted themselves, without taking the time to think, to official public opinion. This is not apologetics. Thirty years after the fact, things need to be looked at critically -- all the facts of the case, all the human circumstances. It needs to be borne in mind: the abuses of the state -- the extension of its powers -- is far more dangerous to the public well-being than the actions of any individual. Dangerous precedents are being set in this case.' Of course one must question the motives of the US authorities and those of the right-wing media in this and other similar cases. Both have long been guilty of gross hypocrisy. But what about the arrogant attitude of Polanski's illustrious friends? Taking into consideration the ancestry of the World Socialist Website in Gerry Healy's branch of the
Re: [Marxism] Polanski is Free!! (NYTimes.com: Swiss Reject U.S. Request to Extradite Polanski)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Jul 12, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Dennis Brasky wrote: A rapist Libelous language in the strict sense of the word. Despicable language in every sense. Better despicable language than a despicable deed. Sad to see so many people on this list applauding a man going free who, in his 40s, gave booze and pharmaceuticals to a 13 year old, then raped her while she was intoxicated. I understand some people on this list think age of consent is a capitalist invention. Whatever you think of age and consent, hopefully it is clear that between alcohol and qaaludes, a 13 year old is not in a position to be a consensual partner to sodomoy with someone 30 years their senior. Regardless of the ages involved, one cannot render consent while under the influence of drugs. It is somewhat disgusting that someone on this list thinks Polanski is blameless because the girl was precocious andsexually experienced. The grand jury testimony is public record--there was a significant amount more to the story than the girl's character. My sister was a precocious kid at 13--in no way does that trait imply she could drink alcohol, take pharmaceuticals, and still be in the right frame of mind to render consent. Making excuses for Polanski by saying the girl was precocious is the same as excusing a rapist because the victim was wearing a sports bra and biking shorts. Of course, the main reason I find it disturbing: it seems the only way one can blame the victim in this case is if one identifies with the victimizer. It is strange to see those defending Polanski stating that those on the other side are with the LA Pigs. If the only news stories I saw about the LA police were rounding up white rapists, I'd be thrilled. This situation seems similar to blacks cheering when OJ walked free; Polanski escaping extradition is not going to change a damn thing for anyone in NAMBLA or any other sexual predator. This isn't about sodomy, it is barely about age of consent--it is really about premeditated sexual predation. If you take what Polanski did (taking photos, giving alcohol, giving drugs, asking to remove clothes for photos and swimming), no adult would be surprised that Polanski was trying to have sex that evening. I personally find the age difference repugnant, but there are states where 14 is a legal age of consent. So again, it has very little to do with age. It has to do with how Polanski operated--and that was like a lecherous predator. It is not something to celebrate. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Polanski - why so much passion about it?
Louis Proyect (l...@panix.com) wrote on 2009-10-03 at 09:04:11 in about Re: [Marxism] Polanski: obviously there is a lot of passion about it. It would be interesting to discuss why this is the case. Cheers, Lüko Willms Frankfurt, Germany YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Polanski -pedophile
For anyone who believes in the rights of young females the discussion ends at Polanski's conviction. He anally raped a 13 year old child after drugging her. On 5 Oct 2009 at 16:32, S. Artesian wrote: We were supposed to bring this issue to a close, remember? But we can't. This is like a Bunuel movie. Don't like the food, the guests scare me, there are sharp objects all around and still I can't get up from the tabele. OK, we want go through more of this? I've got one more go-round in me: 1. This is no perfect example, no example at all. Polanski has not been kidnapped. The Sheikh, to my knowlege did not agree to plead guilty to lesser charges then flee the country. 2. This is not a new policy of the US govt. Requests for extradition by one country to another have a long tradition. Agreeing to them and rejecting have an equally long history. 3. This is a request for extradition, not an extraordinary rendition. I know the two words share a lot of the same letters, but the acts are quite different 4. Regarding civil suits-- it's unclear if Polanski ever paid any of the $500,000 he agreed to pay to his victim back in 1993 [stand up guy, that Polanski, only takes the victim what 16 years to get a settlement- that's due process for you]. As of 1996, he had paid squat, and the amount with interest was around $605,000. 5. As for due process-- Polanski was afforded due process, certainly as much as any rich white connected male can expect to be afforded in the US. He was indicted on charges of rape and sodomy based on the grand jury testimony of the victim. Possible defendants are allowed to testify to grand juries, but are generally not required to so testify. I don't know if Polanski did, and as with everything else, I really don't care. Polanski then was afforded due process after indictment, was arrested, released on bail, obtained legal counsel and negotiated a plea bargain to plead guilty to lesser charges-- sex with a minor-- and avoid the charges of rape and sodomy. Polanski on the advice of legal counsel agreed to this deal in the hope, not the guarantee that the prosecutors would be able to persuade the judge to agree to the reduced sentencing and all that jazz. The judge did not agree. Polanski then, according to due process, could have withdrawn his guilty plea, and could have asserted his innocence of the more severe charge and faced a trial and the decision of a jury of his peers. He elected instead to process a little due on his own and flee the country. He has lived well in France and Switzerland for some 30 odd years, and I don't care about that either. 6. I do not believe that those defending Polanski, or expressing concerns about this process are supporters of child molestation, excusers of rape. I do think those who express those concerns are, however, wasting their time and ours, by maintaining that there is some overstepping of legality, there is some witch-hunt going on. Polanski is what he is-- a child-abuser I do think those who excuse Polanski, based on his age, his creative contributions, his tragic past [give us break on that one, please], are in fact excusing child rape. To my knowledge, no one on this list is arguing that. 7. Those who think, however, that this event says anything at all one way or the other about the US judicial and/or political system, are making something out of nothing, or in this case, something out of a scumbag. Literally. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Polanski polish films (was: China's nationalized sector)
Rakesh Bhandari (bhand...@berkeley.edu) wrote on 2009-10-05 at 11:16:40 in about [Marxism] China's nationalized sector: Polanski I say that thinking that Pianist is one of the greatest movies I have ever seen. And I enjoyed no movie more than the one with he did with Depp. Have you seen Nóz w wodzie? His first film? A real polak film... in English its called Knife in the Water. Cheers, Lüko Willms Frankfurt, Germany YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Polanski
I've been reading this list on and off for a while now and have to say that I can't believe the amount of bandwidth that has been wasted discussing Roman Polanski. Why aren't you all discussing McKenzie Phillip's incestuous relationship with her father, too? I personally could care less what happens to Polanski since the question of innocence or guilt has already been answered by Polanski himself. His credentials do not excuse him from prosecution, nor should he be dealt with differently in terms of sentencing because of his Hollywood profile. My point is, what the hell does this have to do with Marxism beyond a passing interest? It certainly doesn't deserve the three-five days of debate among supposed Marxists that has already occurred on this list. -ron jacobs YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Polanski
Ron J wrote: I've been reading this list on and off for a while now and have to say that I can't believe the amount of bandwidth that has been wasted discussing Roman Polanski. Why aren't you all discussing McKenzie Phillip's incestuous relationship with her father, too? I personally could care less what happens to Polanski since the question of innocence or guilt has already been answered by Polanski himself. His credentials do not excuse him from prosecution, nor should he be dealt with differently in terms of sentencing because of his Hollywood profile. My point is, what the hell does this have to do with Marxism beyond a passing interest? It certainly doesn't deserve the three-five days of debate among supposed Marxists that has already occurred on this list. Okay, I've been persuaded by Ron and Fred to wind this down. I invite comrades to make one more statement, if they must, and then we move on. Btw, this issue consumed Doug's list as well, so much so that he had to blow the whistle to call a halt. When one person refused, he was unsubbed. So obviously there is a lot of passion about it. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Polanski
That it is a class issue does warrant some Marxist attention, but beyond that, yes, let's move on. That Polanski should be tossed in the slammer as a sterling example to all and sundry _precisely_ because he is a member of the ruling liberal intelligentsia is the relevant principle in play here. -Matt I've been reading this list on and off for a while now and have to say that I can't believe the amount of bandwidth that has been wasted discussing Roman Polanski. Why aren't you all discussing McKenzie Phillip's incestuous relationship with her father, too? I personally could care less what happens to Polanski since the question of innocence or guilt has already been answered by Polanski himself. His credentials do not excuse him from prosecution, nor should he be dealt with differently in terms of sentencing because of his Hollywood profile. My point is, what the hell does this have to do with Marxism beyond a passing interest? It certainly doesn't deserve the three-five days of debate among supposed Marxists that has already occurred on this list. -ron jacobs YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Polanski
Haven't read this exchange, but I wonder whether anyone has commented on the social construction of childhood (Marx Wartofsky once wrote about this from a historical materialist point of view). The 19th century bourgeoisie were quite interested in reducing the period of childhood to facilitate the exploitation of child labor. There is no possibility in our social world or anyone that I can imagine that a 13 year old could have the autonomous power to choose freely to engage in a sex act with a forty four year old man. There may be a question about enough time having passed in determining Polanski's punishment. I don't know about that, but those who think childhood is so flexible or such an invention that it could be as short as Polanski wants it to be seem oblivious to the biological possibilities of a thirteen year old, the as yet undeveloped nature of the frontal lobes, and the actual minimal independence a thirteen year old has a chance to develop. Polanski may find himself attracted to the wildest versions of social constructionism, but Marxists should be very skeptical of this line of argument. Simply put, a thirteen year old cannot be the willing sexual partner of an adult. It's not biologically or cognitively possible. Not in this society or in any society that we can now imagine. Polanski's statement that she was not an innocent is insidious. Now on the passivity in the face of 15 million unemployed. Boltanski and Chiapello have an interesting idea: Workers who are employable and mobile enjoy privileges that the immobile are not able to wrest from their employers. In fact the privileges enjoyed by the former may even contribute to a further reduction of the resources available to the immobile. Yet the immobile blame themselves for their condition, and are grateful for what they have, given that they are not mobile as the better off workers are (of course the immobile do so many tasks the mobile have the time to do what they need to remain mobile--develop new skills, network, innovate) . The point is that the working class is divided upon itself, making the demands of the immobile, the unemployed and the uninsured seem special, narrow and resentful. And then there is that social Darwinist streak in American social life. Remember also that anyone who admits the possibility of involuntary unemployment and thinks that there is a public obligation to reduce the resultant suffering or thinks the state should take steps to make American capitalism live up to its equal opportunity creed (say subsidized pre school or student loans) is called a Marxist by Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and Father Coughlin. At present people don't want to be called Marxists just as not long ago no one wanted to be a liberal. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Polanski
Here I go again, the French Council Comunist/Libertarian Marxist, with my very own two cents' worth of social commentary. 1) Polanski is officially a French citizen, which explains why France is so upset about his arrest. 2) Polanski is sort of caught up in the midst of a major France/Switzerland row at the moment. Sarkozy wants to end tax evasion and has demanded the Swiss government give up the names of all French citizens who give their money to Swiss banks. Given that, since the 18th century, Switzerland has always attracted the money from 'tax-weary' French citizens (about 60% of all the money held by Swiss banks comes from France), it is no wonder that Sarkozy's insistance on transpirency would cause a great uproar. 3) Polanski has a chalet in Gstaat in Switzerland, and he goes there every winter. He has never been arrested before by the Swiss authorities. 4) The Swiss chose to arrest him during an international Film Festival, instead of waiting for his annual winter retreat. 5) He had sex with a 13-year-old back in 1977 (he was then 42, he is now 77). He consistently maintained that he was unaware of the girl's true age when he had sew with her. The victim, Samantha Gardner, has publicly forgiven him, has withdrawn all charges (in 2003) and has even expressed dismay at his recent arrest in Switzerland. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Polanski
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Koechlin d.koech...@wanadoo.fr wrote: 5) He had sex with a 13-year-old back in 1977 (he was then 42, he is now 77). He consistently maintained that he was unaware of the girl's true age when he had sew with her. The victim, Samantha Gardner, has publicly forgiven him, has withdrawn all charges (in 2003) and has even expressed dismay at his recent arrest in Switzerland. As far as the case is concerned, based on the victim's testimony to a grand jury, she stated to Polanski in numerous occasions that she *did not* consent to any type of sexual intercourse. Whether aware or not of her real age, Polanski committee rape. Erik Toren YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Polanski (bis)
Let's get back to basics 1) Polanski acknowledged the fact that he had sex with a minor (of 13) in 1977. 2) Polanski's wife was murdered by Charles Manson's gang in 1969. 3) In 1977, he voluntarily spent 48 days in a mental hospital, as ordered by a Californian judge, to ascertain his true mental status. 4) In 1977, he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex but declared that he did not know the true age of the young girl when he had sex with her. 5) When I understood that I could not get an impartial trial in California, says Polanski, I decided to move to France on 1st February 1978. 6) He subsequently renounced his American citizenship and adopted French citizenship. 6) In 2003, he received an oscar for his film The Pianist (a film on the Holocaust), but was unable to come to the US to claim it. 7) The victim, Samantha Gardner, has publicly forgiven him and has withdrawn all charges. 8) This caused the Californian judge, Espinoza, to amend the charges in the international warrant to one of misdemeanour. 9) Switzerland and France are presently engaged in a war of words over tax evasion. Obama seems to be taking the side of Switzerland and of minimising the risks posed by tax evasion. This is in line with major US interests who have voided last week's G20 summit in Pittburgh of any punch. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Polanski
I don't care if you call be a breast-beating liberal, though I dislike liberalism as much as anyone. But, more to the point: You know Ian, take your breast-beating liberalism somewhere else, because all you are doing is equivocating over the language of the law. Did the court find that he had consensual intercourse? If the justice system is bogus, corrupt, sentencing people to rape camp etc. then it's bogus corrupt and who gives a rat's ass about what the court found? Hence why I said through a fair trial. Proper legal process should, I would have thought, be something that Marxists should defend. [hey, by the way, Ian/Shane got any daughters? Ask them how they feel about poor persecuted Polanski], That's not even worth responding to - that sort of argument has been used in the 'how would you feel if a black man raped your daughter', or a 'how would you feel if one of your family was in the WTC' context. If she doesn't want to proceed, that's fine. OK, as I said I don't care. But stop this bullshit about defending an artist, I certainly not defending someone on the basis of their being an artist, as should be clear from my earlier post. 1) he did force a child to have sex with him No, that is what he is *charged* with. 2) he did plea bargain It looks that way, but we have no way of knowing on what basis the plea bargaining proceeded, if that indeed was why the other charges were dropped. 3) he did plead guilty To sex with a minor, not to non-statutory rape. 5) the only reason this is news, the only reason Woody Allen [although not you, I'm sure you're sincere] signed a petition is because Polanski is part of a wealthy elite Agreed. So tell me, why should the treatment of Polanski be any different than the treatment of Mike Tyson? It shouldn't. He had his defenders as well. I'll listen to any of those people if they are also prepared to come to the defence of a non-celebrity, non-artist, blue collar worker, or unemployed person, or illegal immigrant faced with comparable circumstances. Solidarity, Ian YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
