So, Mercy has got family who don't want her adopted. The African Union code on overseas adoption makes it clear Mercy should stay in Malawi unless absolutely necessary. Malawian law insists that prospective adoptive parents must spend 18 months in the country prior to any adoption.
So, why exactly is Madonna being given the child?
But the appeals court said the star's commitment to helping disadvantaged children had not been considered.
Now, it's true that Madonna does do a fair bit for Malawian children - admittedly, much related to trying to push the Kabbalahistic SFK programme, but a fair bit none the less. But unless I'm missing something about basic principles of justice, shouldn't charitable donations and such like be left unconsidered? It might be of value when deciding on somebody's character, but why does having the money to give large charitable donations have any bearing at all on if the basic rules on adoption should be set aside?
Jacques Peritti had an interesting and balanced piece in yesterday's Guardian on the story underneath the adoption, although it was so balanced it did end up suggesting that, you know, colonialism and indoctrination isn't such a bad thing:
I leave the orphanage thinking that if Madonna could roll this out across Africa, even if it involved lots of people signing up to Kabbalah, how could that not be a good thing? David Livingstone came to this country with a Bible in his hand; Madonna comes wearing Kabbalah wristbands. What is for sure is that colonialism is not a thing of the past. In Malawi, it's still alive and well, and it's just got a whole lot more showbiz.
Wasn't tying relief and charity and help and hope to an enforced conversion the problem with Mother Teresa's 'get baptised, then you can eat' style of selective assistance?