Decent Folk Of The World Unite! Throw Off Your Luvvies!

Vive les Français! This is heartening, as predicted: The mood was even more hostile in blogs and e-mails to newspapers and news magazines. Of the 30,000 participants in an online poll by the French daily Le Figaro, more than 70 percent said Mr. Polanski, 76, should face justice. And in the magazine Le Point, more than 400 letter writers were almost universal in their disdain for Mr. Polanski. That contempt was not only directed at Mr. Polanski, but at the French class of celebrities — nicknamed Les People — who are part of Mr. Polanski’s rarefied Parisian world. Letter writers to Le Point scorned Les People as the “crypto-intelligentsia of our country” who deliver “eloquent phrases that defy common sense.”

Read This! Cassivi, Lussier & Petrowski: Sicker Than Ever

I just heard Cassivi & Lussier on the Christiane Charette rebroadcast. Wish I hadn't. Then went to website and learnt from comments board that in earlier roundtable Petrowski called it a "viol doux" or "gentle rape", and Perron was the only harsh judge, the other guests, Legault, Khadir & Weinstock all reluctant. What does one do when the media are full of apologists, relativists, and self-congratulatory elites re. the rape of a 13-year old girl? I couldn't make myself listen, it's just too sickening. WTF. Cassivi & Lussier are sickening enough. First off, they lied, claiming they had never invoked any other question than "the circumstances" of the arrest, as they view film festivals as equivalent to churches re. refuge from prosecution. Well that's just not true, Lussier's two posts go much further, as does Cassivi: he constructs his column in a heavily pro-Polanski manner, although the only argument he claims to make himself at the end is the "sanctity" of festivals. Then as to their supposed argument, as I wrote in a polite but sharp comment to Lussier that the poor delicate flower wouldn't post* (see below), according to this supposed logic, if there was a film festival held anywhere, even say in the house in California where the rape occurred, as long as Polanski didn't venture out of the festival (arriving and leaving by helicopter, for example), he shouldn't be arrested. What are the conditions that make a festival so special? A neutral place of watching and discussing an art form, that allow one to be inspired? So all other art venues are off limits too then. And if certain cafes fulfill the same function, and homes, and grocery stores, without whose sustenance there would be no ART!, and streets, and neighbourhoods, and on and on, until one agrees that Polanski could absolutely be arrested, just nowhere on earth - maybe they're waiting for him to do like Laliberté and go into space? And as for this refuge argument, it's the first I've heard of film festivals being considered as neutral ground equivalent as diplomatic missions and religious institutions - art as a foreign country? Should they get their own passports? 'Cause there's more than few I'd like to deport about now. And even if one was to accept this hideous comparison between churches and film festivals (?!), maybe Cassivi, Lussier et.al. would like to reveal when churches have protected simple criminals, especially those accused of rape (other than their own priests), from deportation? Refugee claimants, political motivated targets, the vulnerable, OK, but millionaire rapist film directors? I don't think so. Finally, if you read the disgusting postscript to Lussier's last post, you'll note he takes care to righteously distinguish, as many have done, that Polanski was "only" convicted of "unlawful sex" and not rape, failing to note that this was the result of a generous plea agreement that saw the six charges (giving a drug to a minor, committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14, rape of a minor, rape by use of a drug, oral copulation and sodomy) reduced to "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Obviously, plea agreements are the consequence of the prosecution and defence both feeling uncertain of their chances, and perhaps in the prosecution's case, concern about the time, trouble and cost of prosecution, especially given the felon's status. If Polanski and his lawyer thought he could get away with it, he wouldn't have pled. And reading the victim's testimony and knowing Polanski's admitted guilt, his chances didn't and don't seem good. But hey, the sophists who defend him, in effect, should be overjoyed he can return and clear his good name.

Cassivi & Lussier went even further on Charette, though, in their attitude. They claimed that the multitude of virtually unanimous attacks on them were representative of the lack of nuance and discernment by essentially, though they didn't use the term, the lumpenproletariat. They compared themselves as suffering from the same sort of intolerance as immigrants under attack during the reasonable accomodation debate, or the "intolerance" suffered artists "under attack" from Conservative funding cuts (8 min mark). Are you sickened yet? And wasn't it wonderful how they were almost weepy about the hate mail they were getting, they, the poor innocent victims of commoners' troglodytic attitudes, and how Charette comforted them and encouraged them! For the very first time in my life I longed for Duplessis and getting the scum blackballed from all employment. Wrong, I know, but when two white, French Canadian, financially comfortable culture writers, effectively defend Polanski's supposed "right" to swan about film festivals, complain about the subsequent criticism they receive, and compare their situation to that of (mainly non-white, non Christian) immigrants suffering from xenophobic attack...what's bad enough for them, really? What do you do with such people?

I almost forgot, Cassivi upbraids Roy for his mean article, Charette on his side, letting the listeners know that HE's got some legal training too, and "Roy doesn't seem to be able to read and grasp nuance, strange for a Law Professor" (his words) and that he's going to respond tomorrow - can't these people hear themselves? "I've got some legal training" vs. Law Prof - genius. He also appreciates his friend Boisvert's article today, which without naming Lussier or himself, basically rips he and all the sophist sickos apart, comparing their reaction to Polanski with their reaction to an accused bishop, Politically Correct Pedophilia, but again claims that somehow everyone, but everyone, including Boisvert, is missing the point that only precious arts and film folk seem to understand. I mean, to call them imbecilic evil ponces is an insult to both imbeciles and ponces.

*To get an idea of how cluelessly self-indulgently evil they are, you have to also read Lussier's responses to comments on his blog, the vast majority he won't publish, which, if they were anything like mine, were sharp but without swearing. I want to stop writing about this, and I would if I could say to myself that the banality of evil demonstrated was foreign, but when I turn on the radio in my own country and hear this shit by accident, when I can't escape it, I feel I have to do something, if only as catharsis. Paris, LA, NY, I get, but Montreal? Really? We have these scum and their facilitators, like Charette, here? I'm taking numbers. Je m'en souviendrai. Anyway, here's some of Lussier's replies to comments - the poor dahling:

Lussier
a) Nuance: j’ai dit ce que VOUS estimez être une connerie. C’est votre droit. On peut quand même déplorer que la nuance soit visiblement une notion en voie de disparition. Le niveau de ce débat en est une preuve flagrante.

b) C’est parce que vous ne voyez pas tout. Même si certains estiment que je suis très - trop - permissif dans la modération des commentaires, je dois quand même en laisser plusieurs de côté. La décence m’interdit de les mettre en ligne.

c) à en juger par la teneur des courriels que je reçois depuis dimanche, que la décence m’interdit de reproduire dans un espace public, je n’ai certes pas le monopole de la malhonnêteté intellectuelle…

And a good response by one commenter, fruitloops:
C’est la DÉCENCE qui vous empêche de publier un point de vue, pourtant poli? L’allusion plutôt rigolotte à une possible altération temporaire de votre jugement? Pourtant Polanski dans ses petites fêtes ne carburaient apparemment pas au Gatorade. Vous avez l’épiderme un peu trop sensible, trop sensible pour le sujet abordé en tout cas. Je n’ai lu nulle part des projets de lynchage à votre sujet, ou celui de Polanski.

Preferential Voting Coming To UK?

If so, it would be a Westminster system earthquake that would embolden those like myself who have repeatedly advocated this system, at least as a way station for reform. Seems Brown is going to do exactly what Martin (still believed majority possible) and coalition should have. I saw it in the Times: Hain signalled that Brown was ready to announce reforms to the voting system. It is understood there will be a bill in the Queen’s speech this autumn that will set up a referendum on ending the first past the post system in Westminster elections. “There is an emerging consensus in the Labour party that we should change the electoral system,” he said. The ballot, which would happen after a general election, will propose the “alternative vote” system where voters rate candidates in order of preference. “It would help repair the gaping chasm of credibility which exists between citizens and politicians,” said Hain. If a voting reform bill does become law, it would be a “poison pill” for an incoming Conservative government. David Cameron, the Tory leader, would be forced to decide whether to use political capital and parliamentary time to repeal the legislation.

Law Prof Roy Smites Cassivi & Sophists

Gotta give it Le Devoir, probably best 1-2 punch on Polanski in the world today, with Chouinard and Alain Roy, Law Prof specialising in the Rights of the Child at UdM. I especially like his destruction of Cassivi - it's rare in Canada, unlike UK or France, for commentators to directly criticise other commentators. His conclusion is unarguable: "il faut revenir à l'essentiel: une enfant de 13 ans a été agressée par un homme en situation de pouvoir."

L'affaire Roman Polanski - Une banalisation outrageante des droits de l'enfant

Le cinéaste Roman Polanski a agressé une fillette de 13 ans il y a 32 ans. Il a fui la justice américaine avant de recevoir sa sentence pour le crime qu'il a commis. À la demande du procureur général de Los Angeles, Polanski a été emprisonné samedi dernier par la police suisse à son arrivée à Zurich, où l'on devait incessamment lui rendre hommage pour son oeuvre cinématographique.

Depuis, des voix se font entendre. Quels emmerdeurs, ces Américains! Franchement, rouvrir ce dossier après tant d'années, alors même que la victime a publiquement pardonné à son agresseur. Et «honte à la Suisse», écrivent certains chroniqueurs, pour avoir piégé Polanski. «Un festival de films, écrit Marc Cassivi, de La Presse, devrait être un lieu protégé, au même titre que l'enceinte d'une église.» Un argument qui trouve écho dans la pétition de 70 signataires qui dénoncent cette atteinte à la «liberté d'expression» dont la Suisse se fait complice. Quant à la Californie, elle aurait bien d'autres chats à fouetter avec son taux de chômage élevé et ses coupes dans l'éducation. Bref, qu'on laisse donc ce pauvre Polanski tranquille.

Ni une chose ni une poupée

Sous l'impulsion de la convention relative aux droits de l'enfant signé à New York en 1988, les États ont progressivement changé leur conception de l'enfant. D'objet de droit, l'enfant est devenu sujet de droits à part entière. Si sa vulnérabilité justifie la mise en place de protections particulières, elle ne doit plus servir de prétexte à quelque forme d'assujettissement que ce soit. L'enfant n'est pas la chose, ni la poupée de qui que ce soit. Il jouit des mêmes droits que les adultes, sans distinction. Les crimes commis à son endroit ne peuvent et ne doivent pas rester impunis.

À travers les hauts cris poussés à la suite de l'arrestation de Polanski, on perçoit une réalité tout autre. En lançant mille et un arguments tous plus fallacieux les uns que les autres, on minimise le crime commis contre une enfant, on oublie qu'une atteinte aux droits les plus fondamentaux d'une personne vulnérable a été commise.

Ceux et celles qui se désolent du fait qu'une manifestation culturelle est transformée en «traquenard policier» se rendent complices d'une banalisation outrageante des droits de l'enfant. Ce crime est socialement et juridiquement injustifiable et il est de la responsabilité des États de le sanctionner. Nul ne saurait se retrancher derrière de pseudoparavents d'immunité pour refuser d'agir. Qu'il s'agisse du secret professionnel sous le couvert duquel un mineur raconte les sévices dont il a été victime ou de la liberté d'expression dont un festival de films serait garant, rien ne peut justifier l'inaction des uns et des autres.

Certes, il est infiniment déplorable de constater le laxisme dont les autorités ont fait preuve pendant si longtemps. Il est tout aussi déplorable d'imaginer que leurs actions puissent être motivées par des considérations bassement politiques. Mais au-delà du cynisme que nous inspirent les joutes qui se déroulent en haut lieu, il faut revenir à l'essentiel: une enfant de 13 ans a été agressée par un homme en situation de pouvoir.

Why Republicans Win: Tomasky, Exhibit A

Republicans shouldn't ever win anything. Yet they do. Culture wars. But why? Well, this Tomasky post is the single best example of what sickens ordinary people about le beau monde de NY-LA ("cosmic scales", awful Bush, silly Poles, tee-hee, rape schmape, Bitter Moon was great!):
Free Roman Polanski

I see here that Roman Polanski is petitioning for a return to the United States on the strength of supposedly new evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. He seeks dismissal of the charge that he had intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.

There is no doubt that what Polanski did was deeply creepy. From the Guardian's report:

The incident, which sparked a media storm, reportedly took place after Polanski booked 13-year-old Samantha Gailey as a model for a Vogue photo shoot. He is alleged to have given her champagne and Quaaludes (a sedative) before having sex with her at the Mulholland Drive home of his friend Jack Nicholson. Gailey publicly forgave the director in 1997.

But I say enough. If his victim forgave him 11 years ago, maybe it's time for society to do the same. Let's also take into account the fact that the most horrific thing in the world that could ever happen to a person happened to Polanski, which obviously can't excuse what he did to Gailey but surely is entitled to its space on the cosmic scales.

Maybe Bush could pardon him. After all, the Poles are about the last people on Earth who still like Dubya, so why shouldn't he throw them a little bone?

FOOTNOTE: If you've never seen Polanski's "Bitter Moon," go rent it. Amazing. It may be his best film, and yes, I say that with full knowledge that Rosemary's Baby is everything they say it is.

Lussier & Cassivi Are Polanski Scum

I've just told La Presse I'll never buy their paper again as long as Cassivi & Lussier write for them. Same goes for the Guardian, NYRB, etc., and Tomasky. It's not complicated. Chouinard and Roy have already put paid to their imbecility. Just how useless are these homo sapiens (I can't really think of them as people now).

Why McGuinty Right & Radwanski & Iggy Wrong

I assume Radwanski is being facetious with his advice that McGuinty & others shouldn't follow through on "fair play" rules they proposed in opposition, such as real restrictions on political advertising. It's precisely this kind of thing which makes McGuinty such a force, not simply in a short term "boy scout" way, but as part of a long term strategy. Reputation, or as some might say nowadays, branding, is hard to construct and easy to lose. No one issue gets one there. But a series of issues, especially those that seem to work against one's interests as most narrowly defined, impresses the electorate and achieves their trust and support. Even those issues that irritate many, like pit bull bans, or pesticides, or cellphones, or whatever, had the implicit message, "McGuinty's a good man, a good Dad, and he's looking out for you." There is only a tiny fringe of Ontarians who actively dislike McGuinty. The overwhelming majority think he's a good guy, whomever they vote for. And once that's the general view of a sitting leader, well, that's awfully tough to beat.

It's curious, how doing the right thing, morally and policy-wise, is almost always the right thing to do politically. Of course it takes a party that trusts the leader, and the leader must set the tone himself. The cornerstone of McGuinty's success was his relationship with Kennedy, as with Blair & Brown, as with Chrétien & Martin, etc.. That meant each had to trust the other would play his role properly. As soon as that trust ends, the jig is up. The greater responsibility always lies with the superior, but McGuinty, having been democratically elected leader, had the moral authority, which he strengthened through his honourable conduct towards Kennedy and others. Of course, it helps if the guy you beat on the last round of the convention floor, accepts his defeat, is a team player, and doesn't spend his time subsequently denigrating you and working with his minions to unseat you. And there's the rub. Because one such, even should he succeed in toppling the democratically elected leader through a coup de parti and having himself installed as leader by a small circle of elites, is actually poisoning his own well and ensuring his own defeat. Having endorsed and encouraged disloyal conduct, having seemingly profited form it, no-one, least of all himself, can claim, according to this value system, that "crime doesn't pay", superficially, not that there is any ethical standard to be observed, as he himself was the first to behave unethically, contra McGuinty. Gandhi: "As the means, so the end." Canny man. He did overthrow an Empire, you know?

Brown, Martin & Ignatieff all doomed themselves by their conduct. Yet, some never learn, seemingly. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read these various articles saying, y'know, maybe Dion-Kennedy-Rae were on to something with their strategy. Maybe the votes are over here, rather than there, and guess what, here is actually proposing policies and upholding behaviour that fall plumb into the finest, most famous traditions of the party, and this reinforce its Unity & Just Society brand. Hey, what a surprise, doing the right thing would also have been/is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, 1/3 of the party essentially rode roughshod over the other 2/3, did so most despicably, and now we're all going to suffer. I've already said the sooner it's over, the better, so we can extract the poison, move on and get ready to fight for Canada. But I don't delude myself that it's likely. L'histoire, tel un fleuve, suivra son cours inéluctable, et nous allons nous retrouver tous dans une tempête, perdus dans l'immensité d'un océan troublé.

PS. It's not just McGuinty type advertising rules that are needed, but as noted previously, some OFCOM type oversight of the media.

Polanski, Litmus Test For Elite Alienation?

Reading through the reaction to the Polanski arrest on media reaction boards, in France, the UK, USA & Canada, it seems to me that this affair might signal a divorce between the masses and their hitherto cultural elites, as their fiercely different conceptions of ethics and morality are highlighted. Lussier's rightfully getting a kicking at La Presse, I've discovered Tomasky's even more of soulless dolt than I thought, and had other sad realisations, but most of all it's striking, even in France, how contrary, judging from the comment boards, is the reaction of the general public. A good example are the Le monde comment boards which start out with lazy anti-American, pro-Polanski prejudice in the first reactions, only to eventually be dominated by cold rebuttals about the nature of justice. I suspect that ordinary readers, shocked by the tone of the articles and the initial comments, are incited to re-establish some equilibrium. I'd be curious to know how many of the later anti-Polanski comments are by first-time or rare commenters. I suspect quite a few people who can't be bothered to comment normally find themselves pushed to do so by the sophism of the pro-Polanski coverage and initial comments (Grayling's got a cold-headed appraisal in the Times). The fierceness of popular reaction to cultural elites' sympathy for Polanski represents a rare litmus test for the alienation of these elites from the population on which they depend. The last event which swung so quickly was the Diana affair in the UK - I'd say the cultural elites are playing the role of the Royal Family in this one. They think the world is and works one way. They're about to discover an awful lot of people on whom they depend feel very differently, I suspect (NB. I'm not speaking of the constitutional niceties of the Diana affair, where I think the Crown was right, nor of the general hysteria of the public at the time, which was wrong, but rather of a rare public division in the body politic, and of which the Crown was seemingly oblivious, until it was almost too late).

Auger Says It Well

Auger is perhaps the only evenhanded commenter in his evaluation of the Coderre thing. Basically, you reap what you sow. In the end, as any decent analyst of history or economics or psychology will tell you, things tend go according to form. Or as the scorpion said, "It's my nature". Long-, long-, long-term, a good result, though.

PS. Thanks NDP.