There’s something about the Michael Jackson story that causes people to lose their minds. There are those cries that Micheal Jackson was guilty. He isn’t and wasn’t for we’ve a system to determine that. One that was used on Jackson. And it was found that he was not guilty – innocent that is:[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Michael Jackson is indeed innocent. He’s not been convicted in a trial, with evidence, jury, the ability to confront his accusers and all that. He’s innocent.
Michael Jackson was tried and found not guilty. Michael Jackson is innocent. That’s that, all there is to it.[/perfectpullquote]
As further evidence of minds being lost we’ve the comments from Barbra Streisand. The thing being, she’s entirely right here:[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Barbra Streisand apologises for saying Michael Jackson abuse victims were ‘thrilled’ to be with him[/perfectpullquote]
Why would you apologise for saying something so blindingly obvious?[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Miss Streisand, the 76-year-old actress and singer who starred in multiple hit films including Funny Girl and the original A Star is Born, drew an intense backlash over remarks made to the The Times. “His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,” she told the newspaper. “You can say ‘molested,’ but those children, as you heard say, they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.” [/perfectpullquote]
Indeed it obviously didn’t kill them. Whatever did happen.
But much, much, more than that there’s this silliness about whether they were thrilled to meet him or not. For of course they were, that’s the entire allegation itself in the first place.
Let us put aside our insistence upon innocence for a moment. Allow ourselves to speculate. So, a child molester. What’s the problem with their being one of the most famous people on the planet? One especially attractive to children? Why, that they’re wildly famous and especially attractive to children. Thus children will be thrilled to meet him. There is an easy supply of meat to the tastes of that child abuser.
That’s actually what the worry is, isn’t it? So, why complain when someone points this out. Children, parents, people, were thrilled to meet Michael Jackson. This very chuffedness over being allowed into the presence being what some think covered a pattern of abuse.
Yes, we’ve already tested the presence or existence of that abuse. Found him innocent and all that. But imagine, just for a moment, that the legal system got it wrong. It would still be true that the children were thrilled to meet him. For that’s the very thing which enabled.
Barbra Streisand’s entirely correct here, they were thrilled. That’s actually one of the things we’re complaining about, worrying over, so why should she have to apologise for stating that obvious fact?