With Hopes For Neverland

For those who has been living on planet Earth for the past few weeks would know that as you read this, the jury is deliberating the molestation case against Michael Jackson.

Many believe that he's going to be convicted - a believe that they've held for months, if not years, but definitely way before the trial started.

Now, my sister has always cocked her hear with a smirk and a comment like: "Eh, don't kacau him, he's a MJ fan" whenever I defend, dear old Michael (yes, we are on a first name basis).

Truth is, I emphatise with the poor guy. Not that I know how it's like to have a string of number ones, or have that much money, or well, be charged with molestation. But have you ever been accused of something you never did? Like say, not putting the toilet seat down, or locking the car door, or eating that last piece of cookie. Well, imagine how upset you feel everytime it happens and multiply this by the possibility of jail for it.

I don't know if he's innocent. And I don't know if he's guilty. All I know that everyone deserves the right to a fair trial, without bias and prejudice.

I was on Yahoo! a few minutes ago and came across an article which talked about how he'd probably have to sell his rights to the Beatle's catalogue should he be charged. Now, sure, the article used the word 'IF' but articles like this feed into people's minds. Why not write articles about a possible comeback for the King of Pop if he's found not guilty, or how he can now continue to do the charity and goodwill he does if he's let off. Or how he can get on with life.

Negative or positive, they're all assumptions so why ONLY go for the former?

Today, I finally found someone who agrees with me. Like I've mentioned before, I've always felt for the poor bloke. But I never could articulate how I felt exactly - and only come out with pathetic arguments like "Innocent Until Proven Guilty".

There was an article in the last issue of The Advocate magazine in which the writer Q. Allan Brocka, a director/actor/cinematographer/etcetera, talks about exactly how I feel. What I resonated most with the article was his discovery of why he also once thought that Michael was guilty - something that I had once believed in as well - which is the association of homosexuality and paedophilia. That was exactly how I felt when I kicked myself for even so closely associating those two TOTALLY different subjects together.

The point is - this is how much perception plays a part in the minds of people. The perception that all paedophiles are homosexuals. The perception that all homosexuals are bad people. The perception that Michael's got the money and power to force the kids and their mother to lie, the perception that Michael is guilty just because he's strange.

Such is human nature.

Unfortunately, this is the same perceptions that might send an innocent man to jail.