HuffPo Writer Spreads Another Polanski Falsehood . . . and Calls Polanski Case a “Lynching”
At the Huffington Post, Bernard-Henri Lévy doubles down on support for Roman Polanski — and, as is the custom of Polanski defenders, misstates the facts in the process:
It is shameful to throw a 76-year-old man into prison for unlawful sex — the only crime charged, today like at the time of the incident, by California justice — committed 32 years ago.
False. Several crimes were charged in the indictment, including (but not limited to) rape by use of drugs, furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, lewd or lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and sodomy.
The rest of Lévy’s post is the usual idiotic claptrap we have come to expect from Polanski apologists: why did it take so long to arrest him, he survived the Holocaust, he’s only suffering because he’s famous, etc. Why, he’s even being lynched — were you aware of that?
I hardly know Roman Polanski. But I know that all those who, from close and from afar, join in this lynching will soon wake up, horrified by what they have done, ashamed.
I don’t really feel like responding to such nonsense — nor, frankly, do I think it’s necessary.
But I want a correction on the error. Anyone know how you get a correction at HuffPo? Do they even do corrections?
Does anyone think that Polanski is fighting extradition in order to build up time credits so that by the time he comes to LA he will not serve any time in custody? I bet life in the Swiss jail is a lot nicer than Co. Jail.
Comment by Alta Bob — 10/28/2009 @ 7:29 am
They don’t do corrections; they are correct. /snark
Comment by htom — 10/28/2009 @ 7:30 am
Huffpo? Corrections? Yeah, right.
Comment by dfbaskwill — 10/28/2009 @ 7:33 am
HuffPo does corrections if, like Limbaugh, your lawyer sends a threatening letter.
Srsly, they claim that if an issue is brought to their attn, they give the blogger 24-48 hrs to correct, and take action otherwise. But I don’t know who the contact for that is.
Comment by Karl — 10/28/2009 @ 7:35 am
But I want a correction on the error. Anyone know how you get a correction at HuffPo? Do they even do corrections?
I believe they only do things that involve KY Jellly and four D-batteries.
Comment by nk — 10/28/2009 @ 7:46 am
now let’s be fair. huff po does corrections. they did in the limbaugh case, for instance.
but as for the scolding, let me offer a mild defense. according to the post this was originally written in french and translated into english. so levy might have said it accurately in french for all we know.
As for the rest of it, i consider it astounding moral relativism, but yeah, par for the course, especially for the frogs.
Comment by A.W. — 10/28/2009 @ 7:50 am
7, HuffPo would correct this immediately if they are sufficiently embarassed or they start getting pulled over, if not jailed, for multiple traffic infractions.
Comment by PCD — 10/28/2009 @ 7:54 am
Message for Professor Bernard-Henri Levy Doofus;
I’ll sleep like a babe tonight, having expressed my contempt for Polanski, and my devout hope (and a prayer as well if it will bother your secular self) that he gets extradited to the States and gets what’s coming to him.
I’ve got contempt for Polanski on at least two levels; first that he did what he did to a 13 year old girl who was 30 years younger than he.
Second–he made a deal–a plea bargain. He took his chances with what the judge might do–and then he ran when it looked like the going might get tough. You make a deal–you keep it–or you earn my contempt.
He’s a two way loser. And as for his defenders, including Professor Doofus above–get a life.
Comment by Mike Myers — 10/28/2009 @ 8:02 am
Gee whiz, Patterico. Bernard Henri-Levy is a famous French Conservative. He and his buds, Les nouvelle philosophes, were instrumental making Marxism unfashionable and challenging the heritage of the French left, post May 68.
Plus Mrs. Henri-Levy is the babe-a-licious Arielle Dombasle.
Guess you just can’t trust the French with anything save for the wine list.
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 10/28/2009 @ 8:06 am
I really wish I could understand why anyone would make an empassioned defense of Mr Polanski. Even if you thought tat it was wrong to go after him now, why would you stick out your reputation to defend someone who raped a 13 year old girl? Why wouldn’t you keep this one to yourself?
Comment by The baffled Dana — 10/28/2009 @ 8:17 am
I’m not an attorney so correct me if I’m wrong, but your point is that running out on your plea bargain before sentencing leave you open to all the original charges in the indictment, right?
Comment by Tully — 10/28/2009 @ 8:17 am
Mike Myers:
Unfortunately, B-H L does have a life: that of a jet-setting, celebrity “public intellectual” (frequent guest of Charlie Rose, if you get my drift).
And therein lies the problem.
Comment by Pansy — 10/28/2009 @ 8:22 am
BHL is hugely overrated as a “public intellectual” – he is a posing, preening popinjay whose sole distinguishing feature is his odd lack of the instinctive anti-Americanism that marks other Continental public intellectuals. But I particularly enjoyed this bit of steaming cluelessness from his HuffPo article:
Um, priests anyone?
Comment by Grigor — 10/28/2009 @ 8:44 am
#9, Dana, answer your own question. Why would anyone who upholds law and order, respects common sense, and supports equal justice for all, attempt to undermine those values?
Comment by ropelight — 10/28/2009 @ 8:50 am
Another poofter providing cover for an underage assrapist. Shocka.
Comment by JD — 10/28/2009 @ 8:55 am
BKL — Show me another child rapist who plead guilty and then fled the country before being sentenced.
Comment by htom — 10/28/2009 @ 8:57 am
Good luck with getting a correction from the lost Gabor sister.
Comment by Dmac — 10/28/2009 @ 9:04 am
Well, the good news is that almost all the commenters — many of whom we would have to assume are lefties — are vehemently disagreeing with Monsieur Levy. We touched upon this in an earlier discussion about Polanski, but I think this could end up being the moment that the arts left jumps the shark and is exposed for being morally obtuse and shallow to their own less-famous and less-wealthy acolytes. This has to be a positive development.
I would give just about anything to see Chris Rock host the Golden Globes or the Academy Awards and rip into the audience on their support of Polanski. I am quite positive that he won’t be invited for this very reason. Is it too early to take bets on whether the name Roman Polanski is mentioned at either show?
Comment by JVW — 10/28/2009 @ 9:47 am
HuffPo doing corrections….
Being a Liberal means never having to admit you’re wrong!
(with apologies to Erich Segel)
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 10/28/2009 @ 9:49 am
This must be my favorite ignorant reply to that article…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 10/28/2009 @ 10:12 am
Here;s a question: Why is polanski so bad, but Peter Yarrow apparently OK? Kerry didn’t mind palling around with him, and the MSM said nothing.
Comment by spo — 10/28/2009 @ 10:14 am
Scott,
What a sewer HuffPo is! I don’t know which is more scary, these idiots view that an assrapist should be freed if the police can’t catch him for 30 years or that these assrapist supporters vote.
Comment by PCD — 10/28/2009 @ 10:34 am
They managed to get very few of the priests, Girgor. The church took care of that — moving them from parish to parish, intimidated parents of rape victims, Paying some of them off, and fighting court case after court case against those who wouldn’t be paid off.
I’m a lasped (very lapsed) Catholic and I know things baout pedo-priests that make Roman Polanski look like St. Francis of Assisi.
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 10/28/2009 @ 10:47 am
Actually, the “he should be free” group is the extreme minority…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 10/28/2009 @ 11:11 am
Grigor
Jealous I didn’t think of this glorious word, popinjay, before you…
Comment by Pansy — 10/28/2009 @ 11:28 am
It’s probably a very good thing that I can’t kill people with my mind ><
Comment by Lord Nazh — 10/28/2009 @ 12:50 pm
Comment by spo — 10/28/2009 @ 10:14 am
I am no fan of Peter Yarrow or his silly folk group, but my understanding of his situation is that while the girl was underage, Yarrow did not have actual intercourse with her nor did he drug her or ignore any pleas from her to stop. Do you have information to the contrary? I admit that I have only heard the Yarrow incident discussed in passing and have never heard a full explanation of exactly what went on.
Comment by JVW — 10/28/2009 @ 1:07 pm
I often lament the I do not have that same power…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 10/28/2009 @ 1:07 pm
Watched a TV show on American Public TV (I think channel 56, I don’t watch much TV normally). It was all about the Polanski case. After watching (and not retching) I learned that:
1. The judge in the case was a serial womanizer,
2. The arresting police officers were racist or at the very least prejudiced based on the fact that RP was ‘little in statue’ ’spoke English poorly’ and was ’short and dark’, so they (and the press) could demonize him like a troll or something,
3. That RP didn’t realize the ‘horrors’ of being arrested in the USA,
4. That RP wasn’t even aware that anyone in there right mind would have any problem with a man going after a young child 30 years their junior.
To sum it all up, everyone felt sorry for RP (including the original prosecutor and the young girl) and the evil American ‘hillbilly’ legal system was on a rampage against this ‘poor’ & completely ‘helpless’ “great” man.
Someone even stated (with no apparent embarrassment) that, and I attempt to quote from memory “if it had been anyone else the case would have been handled very different.
That was the only point I agreed with, if it had been anyone without money, access to lawyers and a private home in France to escape too, they would just be getting out of jail any day now.
Just my thoughts. js
Comment by Jesse — 10/28/2009 @ 1:35 pm
IMO, another attempt by a wanna-be-aristocrat to create/maintain the above-the-law privileges of their class. Polanski is “one of them” and must be defended in order to maintain class privilege.
Comment by LarryD — 10/28/2009 @ 2:36 pm
California Penal Code sec. 405a. The taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful
custody of any peace officer is a lynching.
Is the Polanski extradition a lynching?
Only if the lynch mob is Levy and his like-minded cohorts.
Comment by Socratease — 10/28/2009 @ 4:51 pm
Corrections at the Huff Po???
Not enough hours in the day. Polanski should be imprisoned in the general population and treated with the same sort of respect and civility he showed the 13 year old girl in 1977.
Repeatedly. After all… it’s no big deal… right?
Comment by General Malaise — 10/28/2009 @ 5:59 pm
COnsidering that you reject as divine the very being around which the Church is founded, I would have to agree with that.
So, David… Gimme a firm answer…
Do you support Roman Polanski, or do you think he should be returned to the US to be sentenced to prison?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 10/28/2009 @ 11:06 pm
Ehrenstrein — “firm” answer?
Now that’s funny, and on more than one level.
Comment by Icy Texan — 10/28/2009 @ 11:20 pm
Could be worse…
…
…
I almost said “gimme a straight answer”.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 10/28/2009 @ 11:24 pm
Scott,
Do you stare at goats?
Comment by PCD — 10/30/2009 @ 10:06 am
I’m a lasped (very lapsed) Catholic and I know things baout pedo-priests that make Roman Polanski look like St. Francis of Assisi.
Comment by David Ehrenstein
David, then you know how many of those priests were involved with teenaged boys who were gay or were experimenting with it. Personally, I think celibacy for priests needs to be optional and they should get rid of that gay mafia running so many seminaries (no pun intended).
The true pedophiles were a small minority although the Church was delinquent in dealing with them.
Comment by MIke K — 10/30/2009 @ 10:12 am
Scott, and anyone else, I am making an allusion to the new George Clooney movie going to DVD shortly.
Comment by PCD — 10/30/2009 @ 11:08 am