Madonna has taken to the stage at Cannes to remind us who's important in the adoption of David Banda: Her, and her feelings. Oh, it was a struggle for her:
But in the end, I rationalized that when a woman has a child and goes through natural childbirth, she suffers an enormous amount," she said. "So I sort of went through my own kind of birthing pains with dealing with the press on my front doorstep accusing me of kidnapping or whatever you want to call it."
Did anyone accuse her of kidnapping? Perhaps in the wilder edge of the blogheap, but most criticism was surely fair: That the kid turned out not to be an orphan but a child with a family; that the usual residence rules were ignored; that Madonna turned out to have been underwriting course costs for a figure involved in the adoption process; that it appears that promises made to David's father about contact weren't honoured - and, apparently, that he was told Madonna was offering a good Christian upbringing rather than her being a major figure in a culty movement; that the rules on overseas adoption established by the Organisation of African Unity - and to which Malawi was a signatory - seemed to have been ignored; and the wider question of whether being taken into an environment where the press camped on the doorstep really is the best for a child. All important questions and ones which had implications much wider than the single case. Does Madonna really think these concerns should have been ignored? Why should she have been given special treatment?
Given the easy ride she actually got, if this was like the pain of childbirth, she'd had the epidural.
The trouble is, she doesn't seem to understand the reasons why adoption has to be a strict process:
"Hopefully, after we get through this adoption, it will be easier for people to adopt children," she said.
No, Madonna, let's hope not. Let's hope that after this, any celebrities looking for special treatment are given the same difficult, considered process as everyone else.