In Madonna's Defense

Congratulations to the idiots on the Malawi's High Court, who've decided to deny Madonna's request to adopt a second child from that country.  The official reason was that she's not a citizen.  The comments from the judge include warnings that such "celebrity adoptions" could lead to "child trafficking."

I wonder how many children starved to death during the time it took for the Malawi court to arrive at its wise judgment? 

Many, many more got sick, and others went chronically hungry.   Almost a third of all children in Malawi will die before they reach their fifth birthdays; of those, another third will die before they get to 10.  Add in the people who will die of gun violence or other crimes, and you have only a vague idea of the horror of living in one of the poorest nations on earth.

And yet the NGOs who opposed Madonna's petition felt the most important issue could be summarized in a statement entitled "Redefining the Boundaries Between Child Adoption and Child Kidnapping?" 

This entire case is a lot of rubbish, on so many levels: 

• Madonna isn't fit to be a parent?  OK, she's a nutcase celebrity, and who knows what's really going on in her mind, or heart.  More importantly, who cares?  Do you think adoptive parents who live, say, down the street from you get the same scrutiny before being allowed to provide a home for a child?  Parents need to be screened and meet basic standards, but after that, does anybody really think it makes sense to make would-be adoptive parents jump over more hurdles than biological procreators must climb?  What fitness test did the parents of Madonna's would-be adoptive daughter have to pass in the first place?
• The trafficking issue is nonsense.  A woman willing to adopt and raise a child isn't a bad thing, no matter how you interpret or spin it; it is better than the child 1) being an orphan, and/or 2) starving to death.  So who, or what, is the Malawi court protecting?  Children assume the cultural attributes of the families and societies in which they're raised, so it is possible that Madonna's daughter might grow up thinking herself a global celeb with no real home (and an affected English accent)...just like her mom.  Or maybe not.  At least the kid would be alive.  At some point, doesn't an individual's need to survive outweigh the state's desire to perpetuate whatever it purports to be its "culture?"
• Why do we tolerate the bigger issue?  Most broadly, where is the public outcry over the ongoing suffering in the country -- much of it purposely inflicted by people on one another, and not the result of some climate or other cause -- and the demands for proactive, constructive action?  The average Malawian woman gives birth to 7+ kids in her lifetime...shouldn't there be a massive airlift of kids out of the country? Where is the evidence -- any proof whatsoever -- that the country is capable of caring for, let alone nurturing, its children into adulthood?  Funny how the NGOs can't seem to get their collective do-good-ness around this ugly, bigger issue.

Again, I'm no Madonna fan.  I've never liked her music, and I think she's crazy, in the way that all rich, successful artists are crazy.  But it just seems like we...from the numbnuts on the Malawi court, to all of us watching this soap opera unfold online...are confusing our perceptions of Madonna’s "brand" with the reality of the situation. 

Irrespective of her artistic capabilities or our judgments of her reasons, she certainly has the capability and demonstrated intentions of raising healthy children. 

Why do we brand the Malawi court's decision as "principled" when it's truly idiotic? 

Comments

[Liz]

I do wonder whether Western nations would tolerate being told that they have too many children to care for and that foreigners are welcome to by-pass legislation (put in place to protect vulnerable children) in order to transport them to a life of luxury while the unlucky majority are left to languish in abject poverty. Would seem a bit imperialist wouldn't it?
The trafficking 'issue' isn't nonsense when you take into account that countries like Guatemala have already tightened their legislation to prevent the unscrupulous business that surrounds international adoption, with thousands of pounds (or dollars, take your pick) being exchanged between prospective parents and cut-throat lawyers. Madonna may have had the best of intentions, I don't doubt that, but plucking the cutest child from the orphanage doesn't eradicate or ease Third World poverty in the slightest, or do anything to help the children left behind. Would she have chosen to adopt a child with a severe disability? A child with HIV? A child whose already diminished chances in life are cut further short by disease? No. Didn't think so.

[domen]

Although perhaps not in this particular case, child trafficking can be an issue (think about the Zoe's ark example). You raise a valid point about the bigger issue. I would go one step further and challenge the whole Western "child charity cult".

It's not only the children that need to be "rescued". Getting a couple children out won't resolve the "true issue" you speak of.