I'm not sure I can quite endorse Isaac Chotiner's characterization of Robert Harris' op-ed as an example of Roman Polanski apologism getting worse. After all, Bernard-Henri Lévy has set a standard for badness in Polanski apologism that I don't think can ever be surpassed -- I would be particularly interested in further elaboration of the conception of national "honor" that requires that convicted rapists who escape the authorities remain at large, and in what sense the "statute of limitations" is relevant to a case in which a prosecution has been brought and the defendant flees. At least, Lévy's defense is so baldly stupid that it may permanently put to rest the always incompressible idea that he's some major intellectual sage.
But Harris' evasive op-ed is certainly plenty bad, for the reasons Issac states. Juxtaposing it with the pathetic Lévy petition also illustrates the nice catch-22 set up by Polanski's defenders: Apologists describe the oral and vaginal rape of a 13-year old as an "episode," and if someone explains what Polanski actually did they're taking "almost pornographic relish" in "retelling the lurid details of the assault." Harris also gives us an entry in the "proves far too much" category, saying "Mr. Polanski's own young children, to whom he is a doting father, want him home." So everyone who has kids and cares about them gets one free sexual assault of an adolescent? I don't think I'm going to sign on to this newly minted principle ...
UPDATE: In fairness to Lévy, I have to admit than Anne Applebaum's latest entry -- which once again blames the rape victim while getting basic facts about the case wrong -- is actually much worse. Never count Fred Hiatt's crew out of any competition for the most immoral and fact-challenged argument!
--Scott Lemieux
