Whoopi Goldberg is deservedly in a world of shit today because of her statements regarding film director Roman Polanski yesterday on The View. Goldberg sort-of defended Polanski, who was arrested Sunday in Switzerland for skipping out on a sentencing hearing in 1977 after pleading guilty to having sex with Samantha Gailey, a minor, at Jack Nicholson’s house. When other The View panelists called Polanski’s actions “rape,” Goldberg said that Polanski’s crime “wasn’t rape-rape.” Goldberg told her fellow panelists, “. . .when we’re talking about what someone did, and what they were charged with, we have to say what it actually was, not what we think it was.”
OK, technically, it was statutory rape, but still … it was a 44-year-old drugging, and then having sex with, a 13-year-old. Come on. Goldberg’s defense of Polanski went on to imply that Europeans view sex with minors differently than Americans, which is A. irrelevant since he was in Los Angeles at the time, and B. odd because European countries will throw your ass under a jail pretty quickly if you’re some 44-year-old guy diddling a 13-year-old. Goldberg’s comments are reminiscent of her defending Michael Vick’s dog-fighting enterprise because “he comes from the Deep South,” where cultural differences exist and dog-fighting “is tolerated and not questioned.” (Never mind that Vick is from Virginia Beach, hardly the Deep South, but let’s move on.)
It’s one thing to examine the cultural assumptions involved in complicated situations, but it’s quite another thing to then justify nearly anything because of “cultural differences.” Specifically, for someone like Whoopi Goldberg, who was once a role model for women’s rights, to make excuses for a pedophile — no matter how odd or vindictive his arrest 32 years later may be — is nothing short of disgusting, and brings to mind the title of one of Polanski’s most acclaimed films, Repulsion.
Conservative pundits are having a field day with Goldberg’s comments, painting all liberals now as defenders of pedophilia, blah blah, since all liberals apparently think identically about everything, so here’s a big, fat “Gee, thanks, Whoopi” for giving them such an easy target.
Meanwhile, since Goldberg wants to be sure that discussions of Polanski’s crime are correct regarding “what it actually was,” here are excerpts from Samantha Gailey’s grand jury testimony. Some of this is pretty graphic, so beware.
Q: Did you take a quaalude?
A: I took part of it.
Q: Where did you get this part?
A: [Polanski] gave it to me.
Q: After he kissed you did he say anything?
A: No.
Q: Did you say anything?
A: No, besides I was just going, “No. Come on, let’s go home.”
Q: What was said after you indicated that you wanted to go home when you were sitting on the couch?
A: He said “I’ll take you home soon.”
Q: Then what happened?
A: He went down on me. . . he placed his mouth on my vagina.
Q: What happened after that?
A: He started to have intercourse with me.
Q: What do you mean by intercourse?
A: He placed his penis in my vagina.
Q: What did you say, if anything, before he did that?
A: I was mostly just on and off saying, “No, stop.” But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.
Q: What did he say, if anything?
A: He didn’t answer me when I said, “No.”
A: . . .Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my anus.
Q: When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?
A: He put his penis in my butt.
Q: Did you resist at that time?
A: A little bit, but not really because–(pause.)
Q: Because what?
A: Because I was afraid of him.
Q: Do you know what a climax is?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know whether he had a climax?
A: Yes.
Q: And how do you know that?
A: Because I could kind of feel it and it was in my underwear. It was in my underwear. It was on my butt and stuff.
Q: When you say that, you believe that he climaxed in your anus?
A: Yes.
This article appears in Sep 29 – Oct 6, 2009.
wow–first-time reader,have to say I agree with you, John, on all points. We’ve all made mistakes, but if your mistakes include drugging and raping a 13 year old girl, you deserve to go to prison and take a turn on the receiving end.
This was not just statutory rape as you claim. Although clearly statutory rape should not be minimized as a “lesser rape,” this IS “rape-rape.” It just happens to be even more horrendous due to the victim being 13 at the time.
It is sickening to me that people are defending the actions of a rapist.
I think additional child pornography charges should be brought against Polanski. After all, he took many nude and topless photographs of a child that he KNEW to be 13.
How anyone could say he is innocent is beyond me.
It also appears that Ms. Gailey has moved on with her life. She is married and has kids. Word was that Polanski paid her a substantial settlement. This was 32 years ago.
It was rape, but the parties appear to have mutually agreed on restitution without govt involvement.
Luke you have gone off the deep end on this one. Its great that the girl has moved on with the help of a large bribe. The problem comes up when future kids are exposed to this rapist. He needs to be punished. Who knows how may additional children have suffered at his hands.
This is a crazy day when I side with Grooms over Luke.
Liberals are screwed up in general but not this screwed up so I doubt republicans will hold this against liberals in general.
i’m not defending what Polanski did. I’m stating that it appeared that all parties had moved on. Is justice making sure Polanski goes to prison or to make sure the victim gets justice. Ms. Gailey does not want to be involved anymore and was paid a substantial sum in restitution. Maybe make Polanski register as a sex offender and move on.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I havent read anywhere where he was still doing this. It looked to be a one time thing.