 |
| No no, we want you to be blind NOT blind drunk. |
Inside Television 510
Publication date: 7-16-10
By: Hubert O’Hearn
Power, sex and justice are three of the four basic themes that have driven human interest since the time human interest began. The fourth is money, if you’re interested. This week’s news coverage has been driven by two stories that involve all three. One is the dismissal of Candian Brigadier-General Daniel Menard for having consensual sex with Master-Corporal Bianka Langlois (and no, I’ve never seen that name spelt anything other than Bianca either). The second is a Swiss Court denying an extradition order filed by the United States seeking trial for film director Roman Polanski. the charges against Polanski are that he had sex with a thirteen year old girl in 1977. Polanski at the time was 44. This may have been a very good week for media, but it has been a very bad week for justice.
Let us deal first with the Menard case. His dismissal followed the filing of four counts against him, three of which involve section 129 of the National Defence Act (the NDA). Master-Corporal Langlois also faces a charge of being in violation of section 129. Let us look at that relevant section of the NDA:
Prejudicing good order or discipline
129. (1) Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline is an offence and every person convicted thereof is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or to less punishment.
In other words, break any code of behaviour set by the Department of National Defence and you face dishonourable discharge. Section 129 of the NDA is written that broadly, as you can clearly see. Therefore, 129 acts as a comfortable and very proper sounding ermine cloak within which to wrap the code of behaviour. Thou shalt not have sex with an officer or enlisted personnel under your command. To which I respond with my finest Edmund Burke rhetoric; Well, why the hell not?
The obvious stricture is about abuse of power. While power may have been an attracting element between Menard and Langlois - leave us face it, successful and powerful people tend to be more attractive than others who may look the same but aren’t powerful. The German gnome Henry Kissinger was even considered to be attractive when he was at his most powerful. There is no counter-argument. So while power may have been present, was there abuse? I have seen no evidence to suggest its presence. And if there was abuse - ‘Have sex with me or else’ abuse - then why is there a charge against Langlois. For there to be abuse there must be a victim. Surely the Canadian Department of National Defence are not charging an admired and highly-ranked General like Menard on behalf of his abandoned wife? (Which is regrettable, but how many divorced men are there in the DND - I’d wager more than a few.) Is that not a matter for civil courts?
And finally on that subject - Dear God these people risk their lives every second they serve this nation’s purported goals in that quagmire of Empires, Afghanistan. Who else are they going to meet? Locals who may or may not be Taliban? I tend to think not.
As for Polanski, I remember that case very well. I was 19 at the time and a man who would become my email friend, the late Tom Snyder devoted I think three shows to the topic. What was nauseatingly remarkable then and remains so today was Polanski’s defence. Assuming the event actually happened, which I say to keep lawyers happy, the line that went out among Polanski’s supporters was based on two arguments. One, the girl looked and acted older than 13; and besides, she and her mother were a sort of harlotry-based family tag team available to grace the finest of parties with their wits and talents. And second, poor Roman Polanski. In 1969 his wife Sharon Tate had been killed by the Charles Manson gang in the grisliest and most notorious crime of a decade that had its fair share. The man is a victim and deserves our sympathy.
Let us destroy that second argument first. All men who suffer tragedy do not get a licence to become pedophiles. If celebrity gossip is anything to go by, this sickness of Polanski’s has carried on. The year before the charged incident, Polanski and the then 16 year old Nastassja Kinski had an openly romantic relationship which carried on for three years. The wonder is that he wasn’t charged with that as well. But you know, gosh darn it, its them Hollywood folks.
As for the first, there is not a thirteen year old girl in existence capable of making the rational decision to become a harlot or to have sex. That is why statutory rape laws exist. And to the American legal system’s credit it did finally file charges. For the Swiss courts to protect Polanski from extradition is an abrogation of justice.
Imagine if the case was twisted the other way. What if Polanski had raped a 13 year old girl in Switzerland, had fled to the United States and the American courts had refused extradition? You need to be about as perceptive as an anvil to imagine the shameful outcry that would be heard around Europe and Canada.
A fascinating week of news watching, but not one I can describe as a good week. Be seeing you.
Publication date: 7-16-10
By: Hubert O’Hearn
Power, sex and justice are three of the four basic themes that have driven human interest since the time human interest began. The fourth is money, if you’re interested. This week’s news coverage has been driven by two stories that involve all three. One is the dismissal of Candian Brigadier-General Daniel Menard for having consensual sex with Master-Corporal Bianka Langlois (and no, I’ve never seen that name spelt anything other than Bianca either). The second is a Swiss Court denying an extradition order filed by the United States seeking trial for film director Roman Polanski. the charges against Polanski are that he had sex with a thirteen year old girl in 1977. Polanski at the time was 44. This may have been a very good week for media, but it has been a very bad week for justice.
Let us deal first with the Menard case. His dismissal followed the filing of four counts against him, three of which involve section 129 of the National Defence Act (the NDA). Master-Corporal Langlois also faces a charge of being in violation of section 129. Let us look at that relevant section of the NDA:
Prejudicing good order or discipline
129. (1) Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline is an offence and every person convicted thereof is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or to less punishment.
In other words, break any code of behaviour set by the Department of National Defence and you face dishonourable discharge. Section 129 of the NDA is written that broadly, as you can clearly see. Therefore, 129 acts as a comfortable and very proper sounding ermine cloak within which to wrap the code of behaviour. Thou shalt not have sex with an officer or enlisted personnel under your command. To which I respond with my finest Edmund Burke rhetoric; Well, why the hell not?
The obvious stricture is about abuse of power. While power may have been an attracting element between Menard and Langlois - leave us face it, successful and powerful people tend to be more attractive than others who may look the same but aren’t powerful. The German gnome Henry Kissinger was even considered to be attractive when he was at his most powerful. There is no counter-argument. So while power may have been present, was there abuse? I have seen no evidence to suggest its presence. And if there was abuse - ‘Have sex with me or else’ abuse - then why is there a charge against Langlois. For there to be abuse there must be a victim. Surely the Canadian Department of National Defence are not charging an admired and highly-ranked General like Menard on behalf of his abandoned wife? (Which is regrettable, but how many divorced men are there in the DND - I’d wager more than a few.) Is that not a matter for civil courts?
And finally on that subject - Dear God these people risk their lives every second they serve this nation’s purported goals in that quagmire of Empires, Afghanistan. Who else are they going to meet? Locals who may or may not be Taliban? I tend to think not.
As for Polanski, I remember that case very well. I was 19 at the time and a man who would become my email friend, the late Tom Snyder devoted I think three shows to the topic. What was nauseatingly remarkable then and remains so today was Polanski’s defence. Assuming the event actually happened, which I say to keep lawyers happy, the line that went out among Polanski’s supporters was based on two arguments. One, the girl looked and acted older than 13; and besides, she and her mother were a sort of harlotry-based family tag team available to grace the finest of parties with their wits and talents. And second, poor Roman Polanski. In 1969 his wife Sharon Tate had been killed by the Charles Manson gang in the grisliest and most notorious crime of a decade that had its fair share. The man is a victim and deserves our sympathy.
Let us destroy that second argument first. All men who suffer tragedy do not get a licence to become pedophiles. If celebrity gossip is anything to go by, this sickness of Polanski’s has carried on. The year before the charged incident, Polanski and the then 16 year old Nastassja Kinski had an openly romantic relationship which carried on for three years. The wonder is that he wasn’t charged with that as well. But you know, gosh darn it, its them Hollywood folks.
As for the first, there is not a thirteen year old girl in existence capable of making the rational decision to become a harlot or to have sex. That is why statutory rape laws exist. And to the American legal system’s credit it did finally file charges. For the Swiss courts to protect Polanski from extradition is an abrogation of justice.
Imagine if the case was twisted the other way. What if Polanski had raped a 13 year old girl in Switzerland, had fled to the United States and the American courts had refused extradition? You need to be about as perceptive as an anvil to imagine the shameful outcry that would be heard around Europe and Canada.
A fascinating week of news watching, but not one I can describe as a good week. Be seeing you.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar