I'm not very familiar with Polanski's case, however it is known that he has good connections which enabled him to continue having a high profile carreer. That's what I meant when I said "political". There award ceremonies are usually congratulating people within closed circles etc.
I agree, Polanski's should not have been selected, and he should not have been so well financed for so many years.
About Haenel. Her reaction is not wrong, of course. However, I suspect that this was planned and not spontaneous, because this way her gesture would have greater impact. I think that the most right thing to do would be for her to publicly condemn such a ceremony that has a convicted pedophile in it, and to boycott it (and Sciamma should have too). That is what I was talking about, calculations about impact (possibly from her side, and maybe from the side of the jury, who should have shown more awareness of the situation). I also disagreed with the weepy tone of the article reporting the incident, and bold and highly biaised claims in it.
About "survivor", I still disagree, because for me murderers are not the same as abusers, I mean not the same category of premeditation. If the victim dies in the hands of an abuser, it is an unintended consequence, mostly. (I feel that I should add more nuance to this, but it would make the post too long.)
But I say this not as a way to defend them. I am only against this exaggerated way of calling things and mixing them.