Jackson was a child and he needed to be treated as one
Monday July 06 2009
I believe Uri Geller when he says that Jackson was not a paedophile, but Jacko's love of children brought him to a place were he has left three children in a bewildering state of confusion
THERE seems no doubt that the late Michael Jackson was most at ease in the company of children. His friend, Uri Geller, describes Michael -- in the current issue of 'The Spectator' -- as being very much a child himself. And just like a child, says Geller, what Jacko most needed was someone to say "No!" to him from time to time. All his adult life he was surrounded by people who just did his bidding and indulged him in every whim.
One of the kindest things you can do for a child is to give them boundaries and parameters: to say, sometimes, "No -- this is something you must not do."
Geller is convinced, however, that Michael Jackson was never a molester of children, and that he never behaved in any improper way with the children that he befriended. Then why, Geller once asked Michael, did he pay off Jordy Chandler's family (when they threatened to bring a paedophile charge against the pop singer)? "It was the easiest thing to do," Jackson said. It was easier for Jackson to agree to a $20m (€14.3m) settlement than to go through the hassle -- and above all, the confrontation -- of meeting these charges in court.
Uri Geller asked his friend, over and over, if he had ever touched a child in an inappropriate way. Again and again, Michael Jackson said that he would never do such a thing: he loved children and would never, ever do anything to distress or hurt a child.
Geller, who not only bends spoons by thought processes, but is an effective mind-reader, came to believe that denial. Jackson was no paedophile. He was just, in his way, childish. He was Peter Pan. He never grew up. But if that is all very charming in the world of enchantment, it does have serious implications in the world of parenting.
Certainly, when Michael Jackson went about acquiring children of his own, someone should have said "No" to him. Someone should have explained to him that having children is not just a joy and a pleasure: it is a responsibility. It means a huge investment of time and concentration, of focus on their needs, and of providing for such children a stable home and a continuing relationship.
Look at it this way: would Michael Jackson ever have been accepted as a suitable adoptive parent? With his erratic lifestyle, unusual intimate relationships -- at one point his two best friends were a chimp, and Elizabeth Taylor, the film star in her 70s -- and dependency on a whole pharmacy of medicinal drugs, I think not.
Yet, Jackson did bring into the world three children, who are now left in an unprecedented state of limbo after his, alas, all too predictable death.
It is highly unlikely that Michael Jackson was the biological father of Prince Michael, Paris and Prince Michael II (the someone who should have said "No" to him should also have told him that it was a psychological error to call a second child by the same name as a first child. It contributed to Vincent Van Gogh's phases of insanity that he had been named after an elder bother, also named Vincent, who had died).
But if any of the three children had been his biological issue they would be mixed-race, which they are clearly not. It seems likely that a sperm donor was the biological father, or fathers.
Neither is it clear who is the biological mother of the children. Debbie Rowe carried the two eldest children in pregnancy, but it is claimed that the ovaries used were donated by another woman. So the biological mother is apparently yet another party. Thus the children could be the issue of three parents: sperm donor, egg donor, pregnancy-mother, and in effect adopted by Michael Jackson from birth. Oh Brave New World, indeed, which has such genetic confusion in it.
I am sure Jackson was kind to the children he called his own and provided them with -- in some ways -- a magical life. They will also inherit, eventually, something of his fabulous financial estate. But with his death, who is to care for them? His 79-year-old mother -- and the father who, Jackson claimed, subjected him to cruel physical abuse all his young life? Diana Ross, whom his mother thought was a dangerous influence on the young Michael? Ms Rowe -- although she has no connection with the third child, Prince Michael II? Maybe the extended family of the Jacksons? Maybe.
Contemporary life tends to view children as a "choice", a notion which can too easily be accompanied by "lifestyle", as in "lifestyle choice". But the person who should have said "No" to Michael Jackson should also have explained that once a human being is conceived, this is a life to which its begetter owes a responsibility -- of care, continuity and commitment.
I believe Uri Geller when he says that Jackson was not a paedophile, but Jacko's love of children brought him to a place were he has left three children in a bewildering state of confusion.
Children have grown up in all kinds of weird circumstances and survived. Biology isn't destiny: good adoptive parents are usually better than bad biological parents.
Prince Michael, Paris and Prince Michael II, also known as "Blanket", may turn out just fine, but they will now need stability, continuity, attachment and love -- and most emphatically, someone kind enough to impose boundaries and sometimes say "No".
- Mary Kenny
