What is the difference between Roman Polanski and a Catholic priest child abuser? A Roman collar and an extraordinary media bias, I'd say.

Polanksi raped a 13-year-old child in 1976 and fled to France. Many priests in the U.S., mainly Irish Americans, sadly, around that time were doing the same thing.

Polanski fled to Europe and was feted. The priest abusers were covered up for by bishops and cardinals. Eventually that edifice came tumbling down and the church has suffered the horrific consequences since – and deservedly so.

Not Mr. Polanski, who has gone on to win an Oscar and become a European cause célèbre in the intervening years.

When he was arrested in Switzerland the outrage was palpable. How dare they arrest a child rapist!

One wonders would the same cast of characters who decided his arrest have felt the same if it was a priest who was taken into custody on child rape charges?

Whoopi Goldberg said she felt Polanski's crime was not "rape rape” – well what then was it?

Movie producer Harvey Weinstein  called Polanski's actions "a so-called crime." Wonder if he would say that of it if it was priest who was involved?

French intellectual Bernard Levy said Mr. Polanski had merely "committed a youthful error.” Spare me please.

The Polish Prime minister said he was disgusted at the American and Swiss authorities, and the president of the German film academy called for the “solidarity among prominent people" to defend Mr. Polanski.

Any day now surely we can expect Whoopi and Harvey and the others to form the “Misunderstood Catholic Priests Pedophile Society" calling for the release of the poor souls who raped young children like Polanski did.

Not bloody likely. They should all be ashamed of themselves. What kind of message are they sending to young people with this claptrap?

Polanski is no more outside the law than any other American citizen. He should be extradited to face the charge he ran away from.