As regular readers know, it's not often I have anything good to say about Hollywood and its reptilian inhabitants. With their painted smiles, Gucci & Cavannagh handbags and pig-headed refusal to cease fannying about with their Blackberries for ten seconds to sign one piddling autograph for the minimum wage drone carrying their fucking Italian suitcase, it's safe to say the rotting soul of the tinseltown elite has seen better days. However, every once in a while something happens which reminds me there are diamonds in the rough, a silent majority who still possess a shred of moral fibre not yet worn away by the rampant greed that infects the movie business like a plague. I refer of course, to those brave members of the film-making community who stood up for a celebrity in trouble when he needed them most. Ladies and gentleman, put your hands together for the actors, directors, lawyers and coke-dealers who proudly supported child-sex auteur Roland Polanski!

Since drugging and raping a 13 year old in the '70s many have turned their back on the pint-sized Belgian. In the movie world alone, overweight Superbad director Kevin Smith and respected Shakespearian thesp John McEnroe, star of Con Air, have been vocal in their condemnation of the man who drugged and raped a 13 year old in the '70s. Then, spurred on by the right-wing witch-hunt which led to the Big Trouble In Little China helmer being forced into exile in Europe, authorities in Holland last year pounced and picked up the director for a harmless jaywalking offence, hell-bent on extraditing him to America to stand trial for the equally harmless crime of drugging and raping a 13 year old in the '70s. Thankfully, common sense prevailed last month when, aided in no small part by the selfless campaigning of a number of noted rich celebrities (led by Whoopi Goldfinger and Hilda Swinton) Polanski's nightmare ended as the fascist Swedes relented and ruled he would not be forced to return to the US to face charges of drugging and raping a 13 year old in the '70s.

The news was met with the usual howls or protest from the reactionary press, with many scandal-sheets implying that drugging and raping a 13 year old in the '70s was somehow tantamount to an actual crime, and not perfectly acceptable if the adult doing the drugging and raping of the 13 year old is a frustrated artist doggedly pursuing his muse. The hypocrisy was frankly staggering - you can bet your bottom dollar that after one too many sherberts most of these self-appointed moral guardians have done far worse than drugging and raping a 13 year old in the '70s. Yet the vindictive bile spewed upon one of the greatest film-makers of the 20th century has continued unabashed. Thank god then, for Ms Goldfinger, one of the true liberals in this godforsaken town.

I am in no doubt that her no-nonsense statements regarding the ludicrous prospect of imprisoning Polanski for drugging and raping a 13 year old in the '70s greatly influenced the Dutch government's decision to lay off the persecuted Swede. Predictably, the short-sighted media were quick to pounce upon her level-headed assertion that Polanski's 'crime' of drugging and raping a 13 year old in the '70s was not 'rape'-rape, failing to grasp what the Nuns On The Run funny lady actually meant. Because a man on a flying horse can see it wasn't 'rape'-rape. It was child rape. Anal child rape at that. Which as even the most narrow-minded Bush-voting buffoon is aware, is not even the same sport.

Let's get one thing straight - raping a human being is wrong. Having sex with a child is wrong. No-one is denying this. But any idiot knows that if you combine the two they cancel each other out. And that same idiot would also tell you that drugging and raping a 13 year old 30 years ago is NOT the same as drugging and raping a 13 year old yesterday. I'm not going to go into the many, many reasons why (though I'd suggest these bozos who keep banging on about the 'damage' to the victim should read a book some time - AIDS wasn't even invented back then) but suffice to say, the draconion laws that still apply vis-a-vis drugging and raping a 13 year old in the '70s make a mockery of our backward justice system.

That's right, the vary same backward justice system that stubbornly refused to take into account Polanski's personal circumstances before issuing dire warnings of steep sentences should he be found guilty of drugging and raping a 13 year old in the '70s. Sure, as the brave Hollywood firebrands who jumped to the director's defence keenly observed, you or I would thoroughly deserve to do a spot of porridge for drugging and raping a 13 year old in the '70s. But we all know the rules which apply to every day folk are as redundant here as the gross-out comedies of the aforementioned Mr Smith. God forbid we ever wake up in a world where artists, visionaries and millioniaires are accountable to the same laws as mere normals.

So let's raise a glass to the feisty, brave, compassionate and incredibly rich Beverly Hills stalwarts willing to put their careers on the line in the name of truth, justice, and excusing a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old in the '70s. Their actions throughout this turbulent period say more about the morality of the average Hollywood star than a million carefully worded paragraphs ever could. I thank them personally for restoring my faith in Hollywoodkind and convincing me there may be hope yet for this morally corrupt hell-hole we know and sometimes love. And here's hoping the next time Polanski or indeed any other minted celebrity winds up in a pickle having drugged and raped a 13 year old in the '70s, they receive the same level of support, understanding and advice on legal loopholes from their fellow comrades in arms.

Unless of course they've drugged and raped a 13 year old boy. That's just wrong.

The Labrador
02:51
3/8/2010