WHOOPIE WHERE SO YOU DRAWL THE LINE ON RIGHT AND WRONG? | lunnas's Blog

I CANT BELIVE YOU WHOOPIE ! IT WAS R APE SHE WAS 13 YEAR OLD

AND THE MAN WAS 43! THE VIEW HAS SUNK TO MORE LOWS I CANT BELIVE

WHOOPIE SAYING IT WASNT REALLY R APE! IT MAKES ME SICK.

WHY DO WE

CARE MORE FOR HIS RIGHTS THAN THE CHILD AT THE TIMES

RIGHTS ,PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE A STAND ON THIS .S EX

WITH A 13 YEAR OLD IS WRONG!!!

Video: Whoopi says Polanski didn’t commit “r ape-r ape” posted at 9:30 am on September 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

How low will Hollywood go

in defending Roman Polanski? Former

Oscar hostess Whoopi Goldberg tries to

parse the meaning of rape between r ape and something called “r ape-r ape” — which, if you read the testimony of Polanski’s victim, Polanski literally did by r aping

her and then sodomizing her. Goldberg tries

to argue that Polanski pled

guilty to statutory rape, not actual r ape, which is true, and that

he served a sentence — which is absolutely false:

Tommy Christopher can hardly believe this argument:

What I find much more disturbing is that,

in that clip and another one that’s posted

at Jezebel, the ladies of

The View engage in some terrifying

“debate” about what happened to

then-13-year-old Samantha Geimer.

Whoopi floats the notion that rape “

wasn’t the allegation,” and that the victim “was aware,

” and Melissa Gilbert thinks it makes a difference that

“Mom was in the building.”

What the EFF? I hate to even point out the sickeningly

obvious here. First of all, “rape-r ape” was the

allegation. Samantha Geimer testified tha

t she told Polanski “No!” While Polanski

denies this, he loses a couple of credibility points by drugging and s

odomizing a 13 year old girl. I’d say she gets the benefit of the doubt here.

Notwithstanding that, though, is that the standard

of consent now,

“She was aware?” Keep an eye on your

drinks, ladies, because in Whoopi’s world, the

right dose of rohypnol will leave you just conscious enough to have deserved it.

Although Polanski got a deal in which the counts

of actual rape and sodomy got dropped, the victim’s

testimony makes clear that Polanski did both, and it wasn’t

consensual at all. He drugged his victim to make her more compliant, and then

forced himself on her twice despite her protestations.

Whoopi wants to focus on the age of the victim and the

reduced charge for the plea

agreement to make it into a Lolita situation,

perhaps where the girl and her mother stalked Polanski, rather than a violent r

ape and s

odomy.

I’m curious how other Hollywood feminists

see this. Debra Winger defended Polanski yesterday and demanded that the US drop the charges, after many years of feminist

complaints from Winger about the Hollywood system.

She doesn’t appear to apply her standards and

values to a male director who victimized a child

trying to break into the

business, but Winger will gas on for hours about how older

women get mistreated by Hollywood. This seems to be a big

credibility test for Hollywood, one which they are flunking — badly.

Not everyone has flunked it, however. Washington Post’s reliable

liberal voice Eugene Robinson contradicts Anne Applebaum

(who absurdly claimed not to know that her husband was

pushing for Polanski’s release and the

withdrawal of the arrest warrant) and

wonders what the hell is wrong with Polanski’s defenders:

Polanski has dual French-Polish citizenship, and officials in

Paris and Warsaw are outraged. Which makes me outraged.

What’s their beef? That Polanski is 76?

That he makes great movies? That he only fled

to escape what might well have been an unjust

sentence? Sorry, mes amis, but none of this matters.

If you decide to become a fugitive, you accept the risk

that someday you might get caught.

Much has been made of the fact that Polanski’s victim,

now 45, has said she no longer feels any anger toward

him and does not want to see him jailed.

But it’s irrelevant what the victim thinks

and feels as a grown woman. What’s important

is what she thought and felt at age 13, when the

crime was committed. Those who argue that there’s something unjust about Polanski’s arrest are essentially accepting his argument that it’s possible for a 13-year-old girl, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, to “consent” to s

ex with a man in his 40s. Or maybe his defenders are saying that drugging and r

aping a child is simply not such a big deal.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a huge deal.

Even in France, it should be a big deal.

This isn’t about a genius who is being hounded for flouting

society’s hidebound conventions.

It’s about a rich and powerful man

who used his fame and position to assault

— in every sense, to violate — an innocent child.

And it’s about a man who ran away rather than face the

consequences of his actions. Before any sentence could be imposed,

he absconded like a weasel to live a princely life in France.

Only a moron or a moral midget would

read the transcripts and the

actual facts of the case and conclude that Polanski

deserves to avoid accountability for this crime.

Unfortunately, Hollywood is filled with both.

Update: Jazz Shaw notes that both Goldberg and

Winger are active in a certain kind of charity work:

I did some quick checking at “Look to the Stars”

which promotes charitable work by celebrities,

and Debra Winger is listed as one of their most

prominent advocates for women’s issues charities

. And what is the fourth most prominently championed

organization there?

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

. And who else is listed as a key supporter on the same page?

Why, it’s none other than Whoopi Goldberg,

whose profile includes the following:

The comedienne has channeled her celebrity

into bringing attention to countless causes including

AIDS, children’s issues, healthcare and substance abuse.

So, Ms. Winger and Ms. Goldberg are

both prominent activists in the protection

of females and children. Unless, of course, the female child in

question crosses paths with the great

Roman Polanski, in which case, well… you know

… we understand they’re all kind

of whores at that age, right?

Apparently that’s the message coming from Hollywood feminists and defenders of children like Goldberg and Winger.

Update: As for the argument that the judge

was going to unfairly renege on Polanski’s plea bargain

Michael Stickings has the most sensible answer for that:

If the case was politically motivated or mishandled …

let the evidence be presented in a

court of law, not in the faux court of the pro-celebrity press.

Exactly.