Reasons to leave Madonna alone
(From The Japan Times November 5 issue)

マドンナの養子縁組をめぐる批判

    Still, the pillorying she has suffered in recent weeks is unreasonable.

    Anyone would think the woman had incorporated into her latest concert tour a routine in which she sings while hanging on a mirrored cross, wearing a crown of thorns.

    Oh, wait, she did do that. So there's actually plenty to pillory — but we'll get back to that. That's not what the true-blue Madonna Haters are up in arms about just now. The thing that has really focused their attention is her frivolous, selfish wish to adopt a 13-month-old, motherless Malawian boy whose dirt-poor father had turned him over to an orphanage. How shocking is that?

    In truth, it's a triple-gold-plated stroke of luck for little David Banda, as his father has recognized — after initially recognizing it, then wobbling a bit when the human-rights people whispered in his ear, then rapidly re-recognizing it when it occurred to him that Madonna just might change her mind if he kept insisting his son would be better off with the jolly orphanage folks.

    Perhaps it takes a father to figure out that a life of means, education, the best medical care and whatever else Madonna has to offer — including on-the-record parenting skills — is worth leaving Malawi for.

    According to the latest reports, he is still nervous that everything might fall through, despite the fact that David is already in London. A rights group has sued in Malawi to block finalization of the adoption, and Yohane Banda has gone to court to protest the suit, which has been adjourned, as well as other moves like it.

    "I made the right decision," he said. "I am glad he's been adopted, and every day I am happy knowing my son will lead a better life." He even slaughtered a goat so the whole village could celebrate, he said.

    That's Dad's perspective. So what is it that bothers the anti-adopters? It turns out that most of them are not opposed to adoption as such, even foreign adoptions. Non-celebrities bringing home unwanted babies from Chinese or Romanian or Guatemalan or even Malawian orphanages are fine in their book.

    The critics' problem is with this adoption. First, they dislike Madonna's supposed motives:She's just jumping on the celebrity adoption "bandwagon," they say, toting home an African baby as a "trophy" or "accessory."

    Two questions are in order: How do the critics know what her motives are? And even if they were right about celebrity adoptions, would it matter? How many babies are conceived accidentally, after no thought whatever? It hardly makes their parents less likely to do a decent job looking after them. The same goes for those lucky trophy babies.

    Second, critics expressed concern that Madonna and her husband, British film director Guy Ritchie, may have received special treatment in Malawi, that authorities "speeded up" the adoption process and bent "residence rules" for them. Madonna's lawyers are presumably on the job with regard to these allegations, which she has denied.

    But here, again, one has to ask: Even if the process was fast-tracked, so what? Perhaps the critics think that officials need more time to find out who Madonna is, or whether she has a good health-insurance plan, or whether she maintains a stable household. Who's being frivolous now?

    It's hard to avoid the impression that this adoption has caused outrage mostly because it's Madonna doing the adopting, and causing outrage is what Madonna does. As we have said, there are many reasons to be ambivalent about her as an (for want of a better word) artist. She is a vulgar exhibitionist and a natural-born publicity hound. Her performances are notable mainly for their consistent bad taste. She is a so-so singer and a downright horrible actress. Even her surprisingly prim and proper children's books are second-rate, saved mostly by the fact that she can afford the world's best illustrators. That is not to say she can't pull in the fans on nearly all fronts. Her career has reaped pure gold for an amazingly long time. But that doesn't make it commendable.

    In the matter of David Banda, however, all that is beside the point. A little boy born into the most unfortunate circumstances has scored a winning ticket in a glorious lottery. As far as he's concerned, the rich publicity hound who found him in that crowded Malawi orphanage is nothing short of a fairy godmother. Who in their right mind would snatch away the chance she is offering him?

The Japan Times Weekly: November 11, 2006
(C) All rights reserved

    すばらしい幸運を手に入れたデービッド・バンダちゃんはすでに、マドンナが居住するロンドンに到着しているが、人権擁護団体はマラウイで、養子縁組の最終手続きを阻むため訴訟を起こした。デービッドの父親は訴訟に異議を申し立てる法的手続きを取った。

    反対派は養子縁組一般に反対しているのではなく、マドンナが有名人による養子縁組の波に乗ってアフリカの孤児を「記念品」、「アクセサリー」扱いにしていることを批判しているのだ。

    まず、どうしてマドンナの養子縁組の動機が分かるのか。そして、有名人の養子縁組に何か問題があるのか。「記念品」的ベビーも含め、多くの子どもは十分な家庭養育を受ける見込みがないのが現状だ。

    次に、批判派はマドンナとその夫で映画監督のガイ・リッチーは、マラウイで養子縁組手続きの迅速化や、夫婦の必要居住期間の免除など、特別扱いを受けた疑いがあると非難している。

    しかし、手続きが迅速化されたとして、何が問題なのか。この養子縁組が問題になっているのは、当事者がマドンナだということだろう。

    たしかに、歌手としてのマドンナは俗悪な露出狂で、パフォーマンスは趣味が悪く、歌唱力は並で、女優としての演技力はひどいものだ。

    だがデービッドの件では、そんなことは問題にならない。極貧の環境に生まれたデービッドにとって今回の養子縁組は、宝くじで1等大当たりを引いたのと同然で、マラウイの孤児院で彼を見つけたマドンナは、おとぎ話の母代わりだ。そんなデービッドの新たな未来を、誰が奪えるのか。