Sexual morality is upheld by ALL religions and traditions in Nigeria not only by ensuring that children are not aborted but, in addition to that, by ensuring that children do not have sexual intercourse. Has UNICEF been carrying out any activities to ensure that our children keep their virginity by not having sexual intercourse until they are married?
REASON or LOGIC does NOT Approve, Support, or Recommend the so-called “The Rights of the Child” and “Family Court” By Prince Pieray Chimeawele Peter Odor; Independent Researcher and Public Good Promoter
Reason or logic does not approve, support or recommend the so-called “The Rights of the Child” and “Family Court” because reason or logic asks the following questions the answers to which do not approve, support or recommend both of them:
1. Whose children is “The Rights of the Child” intended for: The UNICEF, their government, social workers, or their parents? Therefore:
2. Who should have authority, right and freedom regarding how Nigerian Children should be brought up: UNICEF, their government, social workers, or their Nigerian parents?
3. Have we, as parents and elders, no knowledge of what are good and what are bad for our children?
4. Have we, as ethnic groups, no traditions regarding our duties towards our children and the duties and responsibilities of our children towards us?
5. Have our traditions no ideas and beliefs about children and no models, practices, standards, morals, ethics and values that are necessary for or regarding their upbringing in order to uphold, promote and preserve the best value for our children and their best good or interest?
6. Do we not have in our traditions as ethnic groups the means of ensuring moral attitudes and behaviour by our children, and safeguarding them against injustice, ill-treatment, wickedness, and undeserved punishment by their parents and elders at home and in the communities?
7. Should children be taught their rights and freedom over their parents, grandparents and elders and taught also to take them to court in order to enforce them OR their duties and responsibilities to their parents, grandparents and elders at home and in the communities?
8. If 100 children are taught their rights and freedom over their parents and elders, that they have right and freedom to report them at the Family Court if and when they violate those rights and freedom, and assured that their interests would be upheld; that is, their parents and elders would be punished in order to compel them to obey their rights and freedom, how would they behave? If another 100 children are taught their duties and responsibilities towards their parents and elders, the punishments that they would be given for refusing to carry out the duties and the gifts if they carry them out, how will they behave? Which group would behave better?
9. Bearing it in mind that today’s children would be the leaders of tomorrow, should they not be taught morality, spirituality, religious values, order and discipline as absolutely necessary for their development and taught that they are the firmest support for national development?
10. Who did God command children to honour: UNICEF, their government, social workers or their parents? Help: Refer to the bible, Ex. 20:12.
11. In view of nos. 9, 10, and 1, should we obey God and disobey UNICEF, feminists, our government, and social workers over the rights of children OR we should obey UNICEF, feminists, our government, and social workers and disobey God?
12. Can anyone understand children more than their parents understand them?
13. Can anyone wish for children better than their parents wish for them?
14. Can anyone do better for children than their parents would do for them if they have jobs and money?
15. Are parents ignorant of what is good, better or best for their children?
16. If parents do not have the money to enable them do what they would have done for their children, should they be blamed or their government should be blamed? Should the economic system of their government that makes it impossible for them to have the money to do all that they want to do and would have done for their children not be addressed and redressed instead or punishing them? Should children contribute what they could for collective survival?
17. Whose rights are superior: The rights of parents or the rights of their children?
18. Ought and should discipline be part of the upbringing of children or not?
19. Should children respect, obey, and be submissive to their parents or not?
20. Should children live like individuals and authorities to their parents and to themselves while they are still in the homes of their parents and under their care?
21. What are commanded children in the bible and in the qur’an regarding their parents and parents regarding their children? In the bible, God commanded children to honour their mothers and fathers in order to have long life and to help them when they are old. Parents are commanded to correct their children with a cane so that they will bring them peace and pride.
22. Would it help the moral, spiritual and religious upbringing of children to teach and encourage them to practice their own minds, thought, will, religion, and conscience, and will it engender ORDER AND PEACE in families?
23. Will it promote our traditions or kill them to teach our children to exercise the right and freedom to question and change them based on the ideas and beliefs that Americans and UNICEF have indoctrinated them with but NOT to question and change those of Americans?
24. Is not punishing children as a means of correcting them and ensuring that they are brought up morally—as commanded by God—not the reason why American children have become what Americans call “little emperors”; that is, radical individualists, courageously disobedient and recalcitrant, authoritarian or lord to themselves and to their parents, selfish, and totalitarian? Is it not why the same traits are emerging in Nigeria?
25. If parents punishing their children are wrong, why should UNICEF punish them?
26. Will children behave better when they are controlled or when they are not controlled?
27. Secularists (Godless people and the people who are anti-Christ) and dissolute women known as feminists wrote the so-called “The Rights of the Child” for UNICEF in order to make us secularists and dissolute. Should we rely on these people or on our religions and traditions?
28. Would any ethnic group in Nigeria, e.g., Yoruba, accept to bring their children up as another ethnic group in Nigeria, e.g., Igbo or Hausa, tells them to bring them up? Why UNICEF?
29. Would Americans accept our communal system for bringing up their children?
30. Should a mere organisation dictate for sovereign, independent and free Nigerians who have human rights and freedom how to bring their children up, and have right to punish them?
31. How would parents feel taken to UNICEF’s court (Family Court) or caused to be taken there by their children and punished by the Court for bringing them up as wisdom from experience and tradition and as religion recommends to them, in order to make them moral, spiritual, religion and integrated in the society, or in order to make them the best that they can be?
32. Will this not effectively remove divine parental authority, right, power and freedom to bring children up from parents and embolden children to disobey and disrespect their parents?
33. Will nos. 29 and 30 not make children overlords over their parents and elders?
34. Have we simulated the consequences of “The Rights of the Child” to our families, societies, governance, attitudes to God and religion, security, peace and development in the long term, especially regarding Sections 7, 6, 8, 9, 156 (d), I, 158, and 162 of the Child’s Rights Act (2003)—refer also to UNICEF’s Articles 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 12 and 1, but not only these? Have we simulated the long term consequences of nos. 29, and 30 here?
34.1. What results were obtained?
34.2. Was it found that our children would obey, respect, honour and be submissive to their parental, grand parents and elders more than they do now?
34.3. Did it show that our children will be more moral, spiritual, and religious than they are now?
34.4 Did it show that our children will not be obstinate, criminal, perverted, or assertive?
35. Which country can be cited as evidence that “the Rights of the child” produced or is producing more moral, spiritual, religious, humane, and civil children and youths?
Does UNICEF love our children more than we love them and is UNICEF more interested in their well-being and development more than we are interested in their well-being and development?
Does UNICEF love our children more than we love them and is UNICEF more interested in their well-being and development more than we are interested in their well-being and development? That is another way to examine the intention behind the so-called Rights of the Child. Questioning method is used to provide answer to the question:
Considering Sexuality and Right to Life
1. Nigerians begin to celebrate life when a women’s pregnancy shows. Abortion is not encouraged by the religion or tradition of any ethnic group in Nigeria. How much has UNICEF done and is doing to stop abortion in Nigeria? NOTHING!
2. Sexual morality is upheld by ALL religions and traditions in Nigeria not only by ensuring that children are not aborted but, in addition to that, by ensuring that children do not have sexual intercourse. Has UNICEF been carrying out any activities to ensure that our children keep their virginity by not having sexual intercourse until they are married? No. On the contrary, it encourages them to have sex by providing them information that promotes it, IUD contraceptives and condoms, directly and through some NGOs.
3. The exposure of the lower parts of the abdomen and breasts by female children nowadays has been condemned by most Nigerians. Some universities in Nigeria have established dress codes in order to make them clothe themselves morally, spiritually, dignifiedly, honourable and respectably. Mrs. Eno Eme-Ekaette initiated a bill intended to achieve this. The women’s organisation at the University of Lagos has boards at strategic places in that university on which is written: “Dress as you want to be addressed”, intended to stop the exposure of the lower abdomen, private part and the breasts. Does the UNICEF play any part in this? NO.
4. It has been shown that genetically modified foods (G.M. Foods) are toxic, allergenic, have less nutrients, are carcinogenic and deadly. No research has shown that any G.M. Food is safe anywhere in the world. Children are born with kidney failures. Many children show evidence of this disease and other diseases before they are five years old, and die. The E. coli 0157 case, the milk case in China recently, and the L-tryptophan case in the USA and Japan in 1989, show these are due to the G.M. Foods that their parents consumed. It is called teratogenic effects. What is UNICEF doing to save the lives of children by banning G.M. Foods? NOTHING.
Considering Language and the Right to Information and education
1. Happiness is expressed that the Lagos State House of Assembly has permitted the use of Yoruba in the House. My efforts to have a forum to argue for this were not granted. I wrote in its favour. But English and French are the first and the second “official” languages in our federal constitution. Added to this is the requirement for “at least a credit” in English before any Nigerian child would be admitted into any University in Nigeria and have a job. What is UNICEF doing to change these so that education, thinking, and speaking can be done in mother tongue and university education and working are not conditioned on having credit in English? NOTHING.
2. Researches have shown that Children learn easier and do better when they are taught to use their mother tongue for thinking. Creativity using French, Russian, Chinese, etc attest to this fact very strongly. Native language also facilitates effective competitiveness. Therefore the law that imposed English and French as the first and second “official languages” in Nigeria, “at least a credit in English” before a Nigerian child can have university education, and “at least a credit in English” before a Nigerian can have a job in Nigeria violate the educational, cultural, creative, developmental and human rights and freedom of Nigerian children. What is the UNICEF doing to promote the use of mother tongue in Nigeria and have the law abrogated? NOTHING.
3. The pre-eminence of language and its encompassing nature cannot be over-emphasised. Everything is language and language creates or destroys morality, meaning, value, etc. But many or most Nigerian children do not understand and cannot use the Nigerian languages of their Nigerian parents. They are wasted and lost. Is the UNICEF doing anything to redress this? NO.
4. Education is about the development of the whole of a child. Why is UNICEF interested only in the so-called “formal education” that indoctrinates children and rejects other forms?
The Right to Survival and Development
1. The economics and economy of Nigeria makes children’s upbringing difficult for many parents and impossible for many others because many parents have no jobs, have been sacked, or are poorly paid. In addition to this, the cost of fuel is increased every year. Nigerians have been speaking against these and demanding economy with a human face. Has the UNICEF ever said anything against fuel pricing? Has the UNICEF ever demanded jobs for parents, job security, and good pay? NO. Has UNICEF ever joined parents to demand an end to the increase of fuel price or the reduction of the cost of fuel? NO. Has UNICEF criticised the many VATS? No.
Take note that dealing with these would make the burden of the financial cost of bringing children up lighter and bearable for parents and make it possible for parents to feed, educate and care for their children as they wish they could do in their hearts. It would therefore ensure that children survive and develop. What is UNICEF doing about these? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
These few considerations show, VERY CLEARLY, that the so-called “The Rights of the Child” is politically-motivated—a globalist’s politics—and that UNICEF does not love our children as much as we love them, is not more interested in the well-being, education, survival and development of our children more than we are interested in these. They show that UNICEF does not mean well for our children and us. They show also that if the Family Court is established and becomes functional, the so-called “The Rights of the child” would make the upbringing of our children impossible and devastate children’s family and societal morality, create insecurity, increase the difficulty in governance, and deepen the disadvantage that we suffer economically, politically, and on the matter of epistemology, creativity and development.