Adam Murdock, M.D.
October 11, 2009
After watching the television coverage of the Roman Polanski arrest in Switzerland, I have been amazed by the tolerance the mainline media has shown for the director’s conviction for raping a 13-year-old girl in the U.S. in 1977. It is as if the act and conviction of the ‘great’ director was not really that big of a deal. After all, isn’t it more important that he produced many highly acclaimed films and that he is among the high society elite? Surely these facts make up for this despicable act which was indeed heinous and at that time deserved the stiffest of punishments. And, although the victim has now nobly forgiven her aggressor, nothing can ever replace her innocence, which once lost can never be regained.
What bothers me most about the whole situation is that any other regular citizen accused of the same action would be characterized as the most vile, foul person on the earth, deserving of being put away for life. It is this hypocrisy and disdain for any semblance for the rule of law that irks me to no end. The Founders of this great nation realized that the rule of law was crucial to the maintenance of the republic. They understood that we would lose our freedom at the very moment we permitted a privileged class to define their own set of rules while imposing a different set of rules upon commoners.
It was with this information in mind that I read about another elitist that has escaped justice and even boasted of his sexual exploits with young boys. He is none other than the nephew of the late Socialist French president Francois Mitterand. His name is Frederic Mitterrand and he is France’s current culture minister. One only has to wonder what type of “culture” this child rapist is promoting to his fellow Frenchmen.
In his 2005 autobiography entitled “The Bad Life,” Mr. Mitterand wrote: “I got into the habit of paying for boys… All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excite me enormously.”
He added: “One could judge this abominable spectacle from a moral standpoint but it pleases me beyond the reasonable.”
And finally: “The profusion of very attractive and immediately available young boys puts me in a state of desire that I no longer need to hinder nor hide… as I know that I will not be refused.”
How could such a man have escaped justice much less become a member of President Sarkozy’s cabinet? It was only in June that he joined the cabinet and “was considered a great catch for Mr. Sarkozy and proof of his ‘open’ style of government; the minister comes from a grand Socialist family and is admired by many in the Left-wing cultural establishment. Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the first lady, was said to have had a hand in his nomination.” (1)
What respect does this man deserve especially among the “cultural establishment”? Clearly, his cultural preferences are despicable. The rule of law would dictate that he be prosecuted for his crime at the victim’s discretion. Any Frenchmen with a sense of preserving their liberty should demand he be subject to the same punishment they themselves would be. Have we really reached a point where the common man is judged to a different standard than the cultural and political elite? Can a civilized society exist where the prosecution for rape occurs on the one hand but not on the other?
[efoods]I am perplexed about how France could have degraded to such an extent that the protection of innocent children is no longer viewed as sacrosanct. Indeed, the most important responsibility of any government should be to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What more important and defenseless minority do we have than our children? It is their right to freedom from coercion and manipulation, especially into sexual acts by an adult majority, which should be guarded most vociferously.
“Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” – Thomas Jefferson
To top it all off, guess who has been the most ardent defender of Roman Polanski? Why, none other than Mr. Mitterrand. He called Mr. Polanski’s latest ordeal “callous” and “absolutely horrifying.” No, Mr. Mitterand, you and Mr. Polanski are what I would call “absolutely horrifying.” Indeed, you expect that your actions should be judged by a different standard of whether you were able to get away with it or not. Only an elitist such as yourself would expect such a standard. As you put it, “I no longer need to hinder nor hide…as I know that I will not be refused.” Since when in our society has the rules of our behavior been judged by whether we were refused or not? Clearly, for Mr. Mitterand and among many of the elites, this is so. Would we be afforded the same leniency? I sincerely doubt it.
1. Oct. 7, 2009. Frederic Mitterand admitted to paying for sex with ‘young boys’ in Thailand. The UK Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6270217/Frederic-Mitterrand-admitted-to-paying-for-sex-with-young-boys-in-Thailand.html
The Freemen Institute, www.freemeninstitute.com