Far-left, virulently anti-Trump Hollywood actress and #MeToo feminist Barbra Streisand has tried to walk back stunning remarks she made in an interview last this week in which she seemed to defend deceased pop star Michael Jackson’s alleged pedophilia.
“[T]o be crystal clear, there is no situation or circumstance where it is OK for the innocence of children to be taken advantage of by anyone,” she said in a statement Saturday to The Washington Post.
“The stories these two young men shared were painful to hear, and I feel nothing but sympathy for them. The single most important role of being a parent is to protect their children. It’s clear that the parents of the two young men were also victimized and seduced by fame and fantasy.”
“Streisand said in a statement provided to The Post on Saturday afternoon that ‘to be crystal clear, there is no situation or circumstance where it is OK for the innocence of children to be taken advantage of by anyone.'”https://t.co/J1koYMgTnb pic.twitter.com/f2GGn250VE
— Atlas Mugged ? (@Pamacious) March 23, 2019
She issued a similar statement on Twitter.
“I am profoundly sorry for any pain or misunderstanding I caused by not choosing my words more carefully about Michael Jackson and his victims, because the words as printed do not reflect my true feelings,” she wrote Saturday afternoon.
“I didn’t mean to dismiss the trauma these boys experienced in any way. Like all survivors of sexual assault, they will have to carry this for the rest of their lives. I feel deep remorse and I hope that James and Wade know that I truly respect and admire them for speaking their truth.”
— Barbra Streisand (@BarbraStreisand) March 23, 2019
Except that’s the exact opposite of what she originally said to The Times.
In an interview published Friday, the longtime Hollywood veteran defended Jackon’s alleged pedophilia on the basis that “[h]is sexual needs were his sexual needs.”
And regarding his alleged victims, she blamed their parents for allowing them to sleep at the musician’s “Neverland” ranch but suggested they too had been complicit in their alleged abuse.
“You can say ‘molested’, but those children, as you heard, say they were thrilled to be there. They [are] both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them,” Streisand said.
That was a lie. The victims she referenced, Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, never said they were thrilled. They just pointed out that, as naive children, they’d been so excited at the prospect of being in MJ’s presence that it never occurred to them that what was happening was wrong.
“[T]he feeling was, out of all the kids in the world, here I am and Michael chose me. And he also told me that ‘I’ve never done this to anybody else.’ So that was more to [thinking], ‘Wow, he chooses me, and he loves me,’” Robson recounted earlier this month on CBS.
He added that it wasn’t until the age of 12 (the abuse occurred from the time he was 7 until the time he was 14) that he began to suspect that something wasn’t quite right.
“I remember feeling around 12, starting to be a little more uncomfortable about that,” he said. “And sometimes maybe trying to change the subject or, you know, distract. But then having a fear that if I don’t do this, I’m already feeling like I’m not a favorite of Michael’s anymore.”
“And if I don’t do this, what’s gonna happen? What’s gonna happen to our friendship?”
Listen to the full interview below:
That Streisand attacked these two victims was bad enough. The fact that she’s now trying to walk back her remarks by claiming she’d simply chosen the wrong words has made it worse.
Like one furious Twitter user wrote, “If you didn’t mean it, you wouldn’t say: ‘Jackson’s sexual abuse of children “didn’t kill them.’ Save your apologies. No one believes you.”
Look at this and other replies below:
You are one really perverted SICK woman.
Seek some help psycho
If you didn’t mean it, you wouldn’t say: “Jackson’s sexual abuse of children “didn’t kill them.”
Save your apologies. No one believes you pic.twitter.com/EGDPl8uhSk
— ?Sophia? (@Surfermom77) March 23, 2019
doesn’t work— too late
— ?????????????????™️ (@KimberlyMrsRR1) March 24, 2019
Yesterday, I was a big fan and follower. Today, I am not. I just have one question:
WOULD YOU HAVE SAID THOSE EXACT WORDS IF IT HAD BEEN YOUR CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN?!
— Dawn Brown-Brant (@DawnRBrant) March 23, 2019
I’m sorry, what could you have possibly meant by what you said, except exactly what it sounded like you were saying?
— Sharon Rich (@srich12345) March 23, 2019
Too late. We got it the first time.
— Barb??? (@barbsecrest321) March 23, 2019
Something needing clarification means something was alluded to, but not entirely clear.
“They wanted to be there” and “They’re married, with kids; it didn’t kill them” IS NOT something being alluded to, its pretty clear what you meant. pic.twitter.com/CfGwUnwQKp
— Sarah Slanders, Press Secretary. (@moonr0cks) March 24, 2019
— Ellen Welsh (@EllenB1977) March 23, 2019
Twitter user Ellen Welsh had a valid point about Streisand’s apology being a non-apology. Instead of apologizing for what she said, the actress essentially apologized for her words “as printed” allegedly being misinterpreted because of the words she’d chosen.
That’s not an apology. That’s an excuse!
“I am so sorry that people misunderstood what I said, I said something that could not be misunderstood but you must know I did not mean THAT, oh I am so sorry. You thought I meant what I said, oh that is just horrible!” – the most lame excuse ever.
— Sayh Panduck (@panduck) March 24, 2019
- Maher chides Dems for becoming party of ‘moral panics’ while conservatives ‘do drugs and get laid’ - May 8, 2021
- Wisconsin woman suing popular snack ‘Bagel Bites’ over ingredients - May 8, 2021
- ‘Look, I’m safe’: New wristband broadcasts COVID vaccination status to make others feel better - May 8, 2021