Diva-Victim Forgives Polanski, Condemns Journalist

By Nicholas Stix


People who send me nasty letters are often guided by sympathy for the devil, from a place where, in Mick Jagger’s immortal words, “every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints.” I’ll write a story on a Hip-Hopper who openly supports al Qaeda, or on “pacifists” allied with terrorists, on black racism, or on crime, and in come the death threats, the people telling me I’m the source of all the world’s woes, and the attempts to gag me through the threat of frivolous lawsuits. The attitude of such correspondents is, if I tell the truth, I’m a liar, but if I’ll lie for their side, then I’m a good guy.

And so it is, with the Roman Polanski case. In a recent column, I wrote on rapist-pedophile-fugitive Roman Polanski’s successful perversion – with the help of some incompetent British jurists -- of the English legal system.

The following letter came on Sunday evening.


Mr Stix,

Thank you for your assassination of
Roman Polanski. I really believe, as he
has stated ,that this libel lawsuit was about
the defamation of the late Sharon Tate
Polanskis' Yes Roman Polanski had an
affair with an underage young girl..who
has gone on record as saying she does not
hold anything against him. He apparently
has a sexual addiction..Sharon knew this
and according to reliable sources was on
the verge of divorcing him when she was
horribly murdered. Her problem being as
she has been quoted " He's my Roman and
I love him." The model in question has
gone on record to say " That's not how I
remember it." She claims he just stared at
her as if she reminded him of Sharon. When the suppose victim will not testify against him how smart are the lawyers? Because of his fame and fortune he has
made a lot of money, possibly received
favors.
In consideration of the horrible things
that has happened to the poor man I can
almost understand.....or if the (girl) now woman
felt justice needed to be served...Having grown up during Nazi Germany, having his
wife, child and friends horrendously murdered could negatively effect probably
anyone.... I feel sure he does not enjoy
knowing he is a fugitive, but with the unpleasant things that have happened to him
for seemingly no reason ..I doubt he feels
he would get a fair trial...or simply has'nt
the man suffered enough?

Robert

Robert


First of all, “Robert” can’t even be honest about the publicly known basic fact of the matter:
Roman Polanski did not “[have] an affair with an underage young girl.” He raped a 13-year-old girl. For all of his victim’s bizarre statements about Polanski, she has never said she had an “affair” with him. She has clearly stated that he forced himself on her, against her will and in spite of her telling him to stop. (Under the influence of the drugs and alcohol Polanski had pumped his victim full of, as part of his plan, she was unable to do more.)

Besides, according to California state law then and now, a grown man cannot have a sexual affair with a 13-year-old girl, even if the child did consent. It would still be rape. No, not “statutory” rape, but first-degree rape. The law does not recognize 13-year-olds as being old enough to give informed consent.

But note that Robert did not complain about my treatment of Polanski’s victim. It is Polanski whom I “assassinated.”

Let’s see. John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abe Lincoln. Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F. Kennedy. James Earl Ray assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. And Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. But I never killed Roman Polanski, who is very much alive. Besides, even if someone did kill him, it wouldn’t count as an “assassination.” Who is Roman Polanski, but a wealthy, narcissistic felon and fugitive from justice? Killing him would at worst constitute murder, and at best be a public service.

And I didn’t commit “character assassination” against him, because he has no character, no good name to soil.

So, since Polanski is a Holocaust survivor and his supposedly fed-up wife wife was murdered, he gets a get-out-of-free card on rape, sodomy, and five other felony raps, including now flight from prosecution. So, if I can come up with a fashionably oppressive life story, can I get away with murder, rape, and mayhem, too? What’s that, Robert? Polanski is an artist, and you just can’t expect artists to follow the rules of society.

Hitler was an artist, too.

For characters like this Robert guy, the rules are for “the little people”; they just don’t apply to the Roman Polanskis of the world. The proper term for a Robert is unacceptable in a family-friendly blog; it refers to someone who is obsessed with having relations with celebrities. Mick Jagger wrote a song using it as the title.

Then, late this (Tuesday) afternoon, I received the following e-mail, from an eddress that contained the name of Samantha Geimer, the girl (in the meantime, a pretty, 40-year-old mother of three sons) whom Roman Polanski raped 27 years ago.

It should be a crime for you to make a living re-victimizing me with your
stupid story.

You and your fellow reporters are no better than Polanski.

I wish you would all get sued for every lie your print.

Sincerly,

Samantha

What to do or say? I hadn’t outed the woman; she did that herself. In fact, the “rule” against publishing the name of a female rape victim is not based on any legal or ethical principle. (Ms. Geimer’s case is different, because she was a child at the time, but that matter became moot, when she went public.) Feminists demanded and got it from wimpy male editors (you know, those patriarchal, “male chauvinist pigs” the feminists were always complaining about?) based on the principles of female vulnerability and female exceptionalism. (The practice of permitting grown females to charge men with rape in a court of law, while hiding their own identities, has wreaked havoc with the Anglo-American legal tradition.)

I just sent Samantha Geimer the following letter.


Dear Ms. Geimer,

(I am assuming that you are Ms. Geimer, and not a prankster.)

I did not reveal your name; you did. Had you refrained from identifying yourself, I would have done likewise, even though I would not have been under any obligation to do so. You cannot publicly identify yourself, and then claim that I "re-victimized" you. That is moral hypocrisy.

It is your prerogative to forgive Polanski, but to forgive him, while spewing venom at me, shows that you don't know right from wrong. It is essential that one condemn and seek to punish wrongdoers both for the primary reason of seeking justice, which is an end in itself, but also for the secondary reason that humans by nature and victims of outrages in particular feel a certain degree of … call it wrath, rage, aggression or what have you. If people do not turn that wrath on those who have earned it, they will turn it, as you have, on those who have not.

I cannot be sued, because, as you well know, I did not print a single lie. The truth, as the legal adage goes, is an absolute defense.

I just googled quickly under your name, and see that you have given interviews on camera to some of the world’s most pathetic excuses for "journalists." Inside Edition? Larry King! For cryin' out loud! Why not the Globe and the Weekly World News, while you were at it?

I'll never for the life of me understand why people react the most abusively to stories that are true and proper, all the way down the line.

Ms. Geimer, I'm happy for you that you've managed to have a wonderful life, in spite of what Roman Polanski did to you. But let’s get this straight: It was Roman Polanski that victimized you, not me. I didn't rape you, I didn't camp out by your house, and I didn't even tell people where you lived. But now I have no choice but to link to material about you, where you told the whole world where you lived, and showed it what you looked like, in order that I may prove to my readers that at least one of us is dealing off the top of the deck.

You do not get a line-item veto on publicity. And you don't get to be irrationally nice to big, crappy media organs, and then kick real journalists in the teeth, without getting your nastiness publicly thrown back in your face. I realize that Hollywood divas get to pull that crap with reporters all the time, because the reporters are themselves sycophants who have no self-respect, but I'm not an entertainment sycophant.

I guess you can take the girl out of Hollywood, but you can't take the Hollywood out of the girl.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Stix