Skeletons in the Closet: How Many More?
When the Roman Polanski story broke, I pretty much ignored it: A paedophile, albeit a very successful and famous one, was finally brought to book and about time. Then the media circus started, led by Polanski's equally or more successful and famous friends who insisted that "genius" was beyond mortal reaches of the law; that he had "suffered" already by losing his wife to a grisly murder and his mother to the Holocaust; that sex with a child was consensual because she hadn't fought; that he had paid for his mistakes; that too much time had passed (why didn't that apply to Nazi war criminals?). There are many aspects to this case that are ethically disturbing and politically dubious, and although I can't possibly consider all aspects, I am upset enough by the case to pitch in my two bits:
One of Polanski's passionate defenders is Bernard-Henri Levy. That in itself should indicate some of the historico-political context of this case, not in the least the historical European unease and religious-racial ideological postures surrounding the Polanski saga: Levy has been also one of the cheerleaders for indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and Lebanon. It does appear that for Levy, the Holocaust provides a perpetual "get out of jail, free" card for all moral and ethical misconduct, as long as the perpetrator can invoke some personal suffering at the hands of the Nazis.
Of course, much of Europe bears the guilt for the Holocaust like its own perpetual cross, obsessing on that single event in history and ignoring/erasing its guilt regarding all other genocides: never mind the killings Europeans did in Africa, Asia and Latin America; it is the fact the Nazis killed fellow Europeans that really feeds this racist morally-devoid cross-bearing. And just as the Holocaust provides the over-arching narrative on Israel-Palestine, privileging the destruction of the European Jewry (who "suffered") over the nameless Palestinians who were expelled, raped, incarcerated, killed, and still continue to "suffer" their torment, Polanski's individual experience of the Holocaust privileges his suffering over that of the children he has molested, abused, raped. And yes, lets not forget that this appears not to be an isolated case, as the "genius" director has had little compulsion in flaunting (possibly) legal but ethically disturbing sex with other underage individuals: Natassja Kinski, for example, was 15 to Polanski's 45-plus at the time of their liason but his defenders argue that in France, Kinski was over the age of consent, never mind the fact that a 45 year old man chasing adolescents qualifies as a predator and paedophile in all functional moral and ethical universes.
But there is another disturbing aspect to the rich and famous coming to Polanski's defense. Levy - not surprisingly - was quick off the mark, starting a petition for Polanski's release and co-signed by many of his literary and artistic luminati mates. The list reads like a veritable who's-who of a certain generation: Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Isabelle Adjani, Diane von Fustenberg. Many on the list are my childhood heroes: people I admired in magazine photos as a child, read as an adolescent, desperately imitated in my early experiments with writing.
In case of Rushdie and Kundera, they are still my all-time favourite writers, whose incisive minds and luminous prose (to quote Rushdie himself) I admire and to which I aspire. In case of von Fustenberg, I adored her dresses as a little kid in the 70s and seem to have acquired a wardrobe full as an adult - even today, a DvF is my ultimate confidence-booster, personal armour, capable of putting a smile on my face even on the worst of days. These aren't just dresses: they are childish dreams spun out of multicolour silk.
Another parallel petition unites cinema and art stars ranging from Martin Scorcese, Bernardo Bertolucci, Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Paul Auster, Jeremy Irons, Harrison Ford,Debra Winger, and of course that other glowing example of sexual predation: Woody Allen.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariel-gonzalez/a-child-rapist-is-not-a-p_b_310624.html
Of course, take away the tag of being petitions in defense of Polanski, and signatories list reads also a guest list: if you were to throw an authentic retro Studio 54 bash, pretty much all of the people those petitions would need to be invited. Including of course Polanski himself!
And that's the giveaway: this is a bunch of friends protecting each other. Regardless of the money they make, the fame they have, the literary and artistics "genius" they possess, the influence they wield - these petition co-signers are no more than a bunch of frat boys protecting one of their own. Unfortunately, they are standing up not for a mate who got terribly drunk and trashed someone's garden on a rowdy Saturday night. These shining examples of nearly a half-century of art are closing ranks to protect a child-rapist!
As if all this were not stomach churning enough, the French polity has dug up dirt on Frederic Mitterand, the country's culture minister, who has been - along with Levy - one of Polanski's most impassioned defenders. Apparently monsieur minister has a taste for little boys! He not only has indulged his twisted desires by paying for sex with children in Thailand, but in a "literary-artistic" twist perhaps inspired by the great genius Polanski himself has also written about it in his 2005 memoirs.
I wonder if Mitterand also qualifies for the Polanski defense: that he is a "genius" and valuable to the arts; that he too has "suffered"; that if it wasn't violent - and it couldn't have been since he paid for it, the act must have been consensual; that little Thai children seduced the poor old man; that he is too important to France to be brought to book? Perhaps my own prejudices are showing but I find it quite revealing of a culture and its ethos that Mitterand's memoirs, published in 2005, but raised no eyebrows. That an entire nation just accepted his self-confessed abuse of children as logical droit de seigneur of a privileged, wealthy, powerful white man over the poor, starving children of the third world! Or perhaps its another take on that old Holocaust/Empire/race card again: after all he was raping/paying for children "over there" and not abusing perfect little white French kids from nice families!
Having read through Mitterand's case, I am left wondering: how many more of Polanski's passionate defenders have indulged their paedophilic urges and gotten away with it? Suddenly, the signatories on that petition list seem a lot more sinister. Are they just frat boys protecting one of their own, or are they also guilty of similar crimes? How many more have raped children in their own lands or - with even greater impunity - in the third world? How many more closets shall be spewing skeletons in the next few weeks?
Finally I am saddened - although perhaps not surprised - that so many of my childhood idols not only have feet of clay, but were perhaps never worthy of my admiration.
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend




Dale Estey says:
A well-reasoned opinion.
A well-reasoned opinion. Thanks for sharing.
Sunny Singh says:
Thanks
Am just really angry/sickened by this...surprised myself by the strength of my reaction.
Sunny Singh www.sunnysingh.net
Louise Young says:
I'm not trying to excuse Polanski
and I know what I'm about to say will get people riled up but I am having trouble with the label of "paedophile." I have always defined paedophile as "one who loves (sexually) children." The term in doubt here is "child." In biological usage, a child is one who has not yet attained puberty. Legally, modern governments have defined childhood by chronological age regardless of physical, mental, or emotional status.
Throughout human history, women/girls have usually become sexually active a year or two after they reach puberty, and in many cultures -- because of differences in gender resposiblities -- young teenage girls often marry men ten, fifteen or even twenty years older than they are. This situation is quite common among the Kuna people of Panama, an indigenous group that I have worked with for over 15 years. These young brides are quite empowered within the culture: among the Kuna, married women have equal -- if not greater -- rights than men.
I would never label a Kuna man who marries a 13 year old girl as a paedophile. If Roman Polanski is labeled a paedophile for having had sex with a 13 year old girl, the label then becomes cultural: he is a paedophile in some cultures but not in others. This is a classic slippery slope: when labels (especially sexual labels) are cultural specific, the argument quickly disintegrates into "It's a sick perversion and I don't like it."
Roman Polanski broke the law and he should be treated identically to any other lawbreaker. He should not be excused by his celebrity but neither should he be persecuted because some people judge his offense to be beyond pardon.
I agree with so much of what you said -- and I want to thank you for summarizing the situation so well. Your blog really gave me a lot to think about (as you can see by what I wrote!)
Thank you!
Louise Young
Sunny Singh says:
Thank you
I appreciate your comment and the point you raise.
I agree that most societies that do that had biological imperatives: life spans were low, childbearing years were few and deaths for both mothers and infants in childbirth were high. Even then, most tried to match the youths more closely in terms of age and guided these alliances. Most "modern" societies (and modernity is not western alone) gradually move away from that - not necessarily due to any external impetus but rather due to the benefits of modern medicine and economic growth.
My problem here is power: a 45 year old successful man had a disproportionate amount of power over a 13 years old. The same way, a scion of one of France's most important families has far more power than the Thai teenagers he is buying for sex. I would be far more willing to cut slack to a 17 year old who has sex with a 14 year old than these abusers of power.
I am also not ready to buy the cultural relativism argument mostly because at least in case of Frederic Mitterand, the "cultures" argument - supported by a long tradition of exoticising and fantasizing about the "east" - has allowed a memoir of prostitution/sex trade/human trafficking to be critically acclaimed and commercially successful. Not one critic/activist/political leader in France critiqued the ethically and legally problematic aspects. And then boys he bought and abused shall all remain the faceless "other" - with no recourse to justice or reparations.
I personally dont care about Polanski. I was young enough to have sketchy memories of the case from the 1970s. When I watched his movies as a teen, I found them very misogynistic. And I don't particularly consider him a genius. He broke the law in one case, for which he should be punished (he was convicted!). And he has an ethically twisted personal stand on sex for which I criticize him (as in my blog) but can do nothing more about. One thing though, if I had a daughter, I would keep her very far away from Polanski, and in case of a son, equally far from Frederic Mitterand. Given their age, they would be unsafe. And at least in case of Mitterand, their race would put them at even greater risk.
Cheers...
Sunny Singh www.sunnysingh.net
Louise Young says:
Thanks for your comments --
And I am in complete agreement with so much of what you say! I am totally ignorant of the Mitterand case but from the particulars you have given, I find his actions far more reprehensible than Polanski's. The presence of exploitative "business" of prostitution, the young age of the partners that he "purchased," the history of imperialism and colonialism in the Southeast Asian region by light-skinned Europeans and Americans, Mitterand's political position -- all of these elevate the case to beyond sexual daliance into an extremely troubling cultural statement. And what I find totally incomprehensible is that Mitterand's actions were at the time (and still are, I believe) totally legal -- and were subject to no popular censure when he revealed them in his memoirs
Again, thanks for the discusssion and for sharing your opinions. I have really enjoyed the exchange --
Louise