by Akshita Mathur
In a recent HBO documentary titled ‘Leaving Neverland’, Michael Jackson, was revealed to be another in the ever-growing list of morally corrupt men in Hollywood on a count of sexual assault on two minors.
It is a well-known fact that victims of sexual abuse have a difficult time coming forward due to the stigma surrounding their stories. It is understandably more challenging for male victims to do so due to countless social pressures that limit them to the role of being ‘strong’ and ‘tough’ removing all scope of vulnerability. By sharing such stories, it is hoped that more victims gain the strength to come forward and demand justice without fear of being told that they “wanted it” and that they “should have enjoyed it”.
Overcoming this stigma, Wade Robson and James Safechuck claim that through the late 1980s and early 1990s they were abused by Jackson. Wade Robson first met Jackson at the age of 7, after winning a ‘Michael Jackson dance contest’. Michael maintained a relationship with his family, inviting them to vacation and tours. James Safechuck co-starred with Michael Jackson in a Pepsi commercial at the age of 10, and again, Jackson maintained a relationship with the boy’s family. It can be understood that the amity that Michael had created with these boys’ families was in fact just a ruse to pursue sexual relations with them.
These cases are in addition to the court case in 1993 wherein Jackson was accused by Evan Chandler of sexually abusing his 13-year-old son and another in 2005. During the 2005 investigation, both Robinson and Safechuck had testified under oath in favour of Jackson. The lawyer on that case and many other sexual assault cases state that it made sense that the men came forward now due to the stigma surrounding male victims. Furthermore, Safechuck has also come forward and stated that he struggled with substance abuse throughout his twenties as what he believes to be a coping mechanism. He told The Independent that after he had sought help for his addiction, he was finally able to come to terms with his childhood suffering and decided that it was time to share his story.
There may have been reluctance on part of the victims due to Jackson’s constant insistence that their relations must be kept a secret. In 1993 as well Jackson’s lawyers allegedly ‘trained’ James Safechuck to testify in favour of Jackson, making him feel as if it was his ‘job to do that for Michael’. Wade Robson has said that he was pressured into performing perverse acts for Michael, in exchange for what he then believed to be ‘friendship’.
The above cases are only the most recent in the list of five boys who have accused Jackson of sexual relationships with minors. Jordie Chandler, Jason Francia and Gavin Arvizo have all previously come forward to testify against Jackson. In 1993 Jackson settled a lawsuit with Chandler for $25 million. At the time, he claimed that this was done to avoid a long, drawn-out, trial but now it can be inferred it to be an admission of guilt.
To counter the new claims, Jackson’s estate has sued HBO over the documentary, insisting on the singer’s innocence. It can be expected that this attempt to save face will not go well with Safechuck, Robson and the HBO group, who have maintained that the purpose of the documentary was not to incriminate Jackson, but instead to create a safe space for conversation about male victims of sexual assault. Robson and Safechuck have both stated that the documentary was a way for them to “tell their truth”.
There is little that can be done to bring justice for Jackson’s victims other than ensuring that Jackson’s legacy is not limited to a musician, rather his whole truth is revealed. In an attempt to do so, various DJs, radio stations, and even tv shows like the Simpsons, have removed his music from rotation. While this may not be much, it is at least a small step towards a materialistic consequence for such degrading actions.
However, this sparks an important question: Should we separate the art from the artist?
Comments