Hypocrisy is common. But Switzerland is a special case

[fpb]

I never did like the land of banks and... banks; tell me whether I have no reason. Everyone knows that Roman Polanski's conviction for child sex in 1978 was a scandal, arranged by a publicity-hungry, corrupt judge who connived with the prosecution in defiance of all law. Not that Polanski was an angel, but even prosecution lawyers have since admitted that the trial was what Bob Dylan would have called a "pig-circus", and that a much more lenient sentence would have been just. So when Polanski fled to France, the US authorities did not make any real effort to have him extradited. Everyone concerned with the trial was ashamed. Now, thirty-one years after the show-trial, the Swiss authorities, for reasons best known to themselves, have entrapped Polanski into visiting Switzerland for a cinema festival and arrested him on the 31-year-old warrant. I am no fan of men who have sex with minors, but this stinks. The Swiss would do better to arrest their own villains, like the filth who murders for hire in the so-called Dignity clinic. And let's not even get on their banking business.

Comments

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I used a corrupt cop as an analogy, not because I think the rest of the world should dance to America's tune. The fact remains that Switzerland has a legal extradition treaty with the U.S. that required them to act. Your only argument against extraditing Polanski seems to be that Switzerland is evil.

Inequities in extradition agreements is, again, a wholly different topic. I'm familiar with the McKinnon case, and it's pretty ridiculous, but U.S. authorities are just as overzealous in going after U.S. teenagers who hack government computers.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You say that you do not talk about other countries as American cops, but then you proceed to explain away the McKinnon case because "US authorities are just as overzealous in going after US teenagers who hack government computers". In other words, there is no difference between a teenager under US jurisdiction, and a teenager who is not; you just instinctively talk as though other jurisdictions were to dance to American tunes. Given that, I do not expect you to understand what I mean by national honour. Our countries, and that includes Switzerland, had given an undertaking to protect this man, whether deserving or not, and had carried out that undertaking for 32 years. I keep asking - and nobody has answered yet - is Polanski any more guilty today than he has been for the last three decades? He bought a house in Switzerland years ago, when the Swiss authorities were quite as well aware of his crime and trial as they are now. What has changed? If an undertaking that has held for 32 years can be broken, and broken in such a disgraceful manner - the victim lured to his arrest under guise of a public honour - then no national undertaking is worth a gram of excrement, and no-one is safe. No wonder that Swiss citizens have stated that they are ashamed of their country. They have a lot more to be ashamed of, but it's a start.

Incidentally, if you want to know of an instance in which the Swiss authorities defied an American extradition warrant, treaty or no treaty, google "Marc Rich." And you will find an important fact: that unless you get yourself a poodle government with no sense of national honour, such as the United Kingdom's, an extradition treaty is NOT a guarantee of getting the man you ask for. A sovereign country decides whether to extradite or not - even if, like Switzerland, it is a country of villains.

A few months after - as I said elsewhere -

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The American side have preferred - after months of worldwide publicity - to let Polansky go free rather than reveal in court the records of the negotiations with the judge in the original case. What do they have to hide that they would rather lose their case before the whole world than reveal?